Part of McCain and 'O'NO!'s tax plan
 

Still researching, you might wanna set down for 'O'NO!'s proposals!.




CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000

OBAMA

28% on profit from ALL home sales


DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax






NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA


* New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
2400 square feet


* New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren't high enough already)


* New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
gas, water, electricity)


* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....

* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
so we can receive the same
level of medical care as other
third-world countries!!!

DONATIONS

When Obama and his wife earned between $200,000 and $300,000 annually from 2000 through 2004, they donated less than 1 percent to charity.

No need to list numerous donations and personal time by Nancy and John.

DONATIONS

When Obama and his wife earned between $200,000 and $300,000 annually from 2000 through 2004, they donated less than 1 percent to charity.

No need to list numerous donations and personal time by Nancy and John.
__________________


The Left have always been know as Cheap Basturds.

Can't wait for Ernie to blame it al on BUSH!!
joeg

Did not mean to attack you personally- my bad! BUt Bush is not running, so as long as you continue that stupid statement iwill continue BUSH IS NOT RUNNING.
BUSH is not running-- so it also is not an issue.
And to ask for one good reason to support Obama is not an attack ITS A QUESTION you refuse to answer. I have never used Obama;s name in a bad manner as you do to McCain etc.
joeg

Seems like the only complaint you have against McCain is that he MIGHT be another George Bush. (speculation)

However, Obama concerns center around his lack of experience. (Fact)

I think I'll gamble on the guy who can hit the ground running, not the guy who will need the first four years as OJT. (On the Job Training).

Right now, we need a Commander in Chief who will be respected and feared abroad. Obama ain't that guy!

Perry,
Way wrong again!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

Where do you guys get this crap, and more importantly, why do you keep trying to pass it off as true? This is why I think that the GOP and most people who vote for them have no integrity. Is your 'information' more GOP scare tactics to keep people from voting for Obama, or is it just plain ignorance? :rolleyes: Personally, I think that this country is too important to base my issues judgments on an email that someone forwards me via 300 other people.

Seriously, the Tax Policy Centre has done a good level of research on the plans of both candidates. They are non-partisan, and they do show that there are some good points and bad points (and your perspective depends on your income level) to both candidates plans.
Go here and do your research:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...ues_matrix.cfm


Steve

Steve,

For the most part I agree with you but one line at the bottom of that table seems to sort of contradict what you are saying about their research. If they are taking it off the candidates web sites as they say, and they have not verified it, what makes it any more accurate than what other sites show?

TPC's latest analysis of the presidential candidates' tax plans (including effects on representative taxpayers and distributional tables) is available here

Barack Obama John McCain

Information is as reported on candidates' websites and public statements. TPC has not verified claims made.

Sources:

Cooper, Michael "McCain Outlines Broad Proposals for U.S. Economy." New York Times. April 16, 2008.
McCain, John "Government Spending, Lower Taxes, and Economic Prosperity."
McCain, John "McCain Tax Cut Plan - Pro-Growth Tax Agenda"
Obama, Barack "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class."

This document will be updated as new information becomes available.
Julianna Koch, June 10, 2008


Ron :confused:

Fair and balancing views......


Here is Howard Gleckman's perspective on the Tax Policy Center's Tax Vox Blog:

In the first detailed analysis of the Barack Obama and John McCain tax plans, the Tax Policy Center has run their proposals through the Big Computer and discovered that their schemes are, well, painfully predictable. Each would raise the national debt by trillions of dollars. Obama would use the money to provide modest tax cuts to low- and moderate-income people while imposing stiff tax hikes on the very wealthy. McCain would cut taxes a bit for the working-class and a lot for the rich.

Obama, who casts himself as an out-of-the box, post-partisan politician, has put together a fairly conventional Democratic tax plan. Despite McCain’s recent claim that Obama would raise taxes for all, it turns out that middle-class families would do better under Obama (who would cut their taxes by $1000 in 2009) than McCain (who would cut them by only $300). Obama’s generosity comes at a price, however, He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.

McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cut as a give-away to the rich, but now embraces them, has designed a plan more consistent with the New McCain than the old. It is as Republican a plan as Obama’s is Democratic. The top 20% of taxpayers get a 3% reduction in after-tax income in 2009, while the lowest-earning 60% would get less than 1%.
________

Joe Kristan wryly observes on Roth & Co.:

The only comfort is that they are both politicians, so there's a good chance they are lying.
_______

Ron, there is a huge difference between what TPC posts and what Perry posted. Perrys information did not reflect what the candidates are saying; it makes up things that are not true. TPC is basing their posts on what the candidates are saying they will do. That is NOT to say that the candidates math works out, or that they candidates will even do what they say they want to do.

McCain has said that Obama wants to raise income taxes for all Americans. That is not true based on Obamas tax plan. Palin said it better, though the uninformed (like Perry) will not get the nuance; she said that Obama will raise taxes for Americans - Technically true, even if it is for only the top 10-15%.

CdC,
Yes - though Excaliber is correct about adding that McCains plan would increase the national debt even more than Obamas.

McCain was against Bushs tax cuts in 2003 before he was for them. I think that was the right idea, but it would be good to get the economy jumpstarted again. I think Obamas plan will do that better than McCains plan.

Steve

A disturbing trend.....

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party...as they have apparently learned to simply sit and wait for the government to provide for their care and sustenance.




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...attax/bear.jpg

Yep, the animals are lining up to get the free welfare handouts of the Dems. Unfortunately, they are going to be waiting a long time because the Republicans bankrupted the United States.:CRY:

Obama's proposals aren't actually tax cuts, due to the money being provided to those not currently paying taxes at all.

Politico:

The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, “Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.” While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.


Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious.


Steve, you just keep on worshiping 'O'NO!.

Pardon me, I left an important part out.

the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

Second post with modification........

Dilemma..!!

1. Continue arguing with ernie and steve

2. Sandpaper a wild cats ass
__________________

Yep, they are about the same, cause either way you will get mauled for showing stupidity.

And speaking of showing stupididty, you said:
I make less than $250K, and I still pay taxes, and yet I don't get welfare from any government. Imagine that?!? Under Obamas plan I will also get a tax cut, while the tax cut I get under McCain will be a LOT less. So please get a clue, and try to understand just who is and who isn't paying taxes.

BTW, I'd like to hear what you think your posted article was about.

Steve

Steve, you don't even understand a joke!, how would anyone expect you to understand anything?. Your dismissed......

Perry,
We have smilies to indicate jokes as it can be very tough to tell otherwise. It is called Netiquette. Look it up if you need to. You didn't use a smilie, so I didn't take anything you said as a joke.

I'm still really curious - you initially posted a bunch of info on tax plans that was pretty bogus. Where did you get it, and why don't you check your facts?

I am surrounded by Democrats (I live in MA), and a number of them are drinking Kool-Aid with regard to some of the fallacies about McCain and Palin. Obviously, many in the GOP are drinking Kool-Aid as well, just a different flavour.

And unless you don't understand it, I would still like to read your breakdown of the copy/paste you posted.

Steve

:eek:

Steve,

Not trying to argue with you as similes are supposed to be used to indicate jokes or just off the cuff remarks, but I use them a lot and have been severely chastised a few times for posts that I made which I had more than one smiley in, so I think to some people they really are just decorations and have no meaning really.

Ron :) :)

I don't believe this, steve if you'll scroll back up and look carefully, you will see my hedder..Politico...go to their web site and ask Mr. Norquist to 'breakdown' his article. Be somewhat mature and not refer to it as 'bogus', he may take offense and dismiss you as I did. I don't use those little smiley thingies to support a joke. Take a course in 'getting it'.