PDA

View Full Version : Tax Plan Comparisons


Counselor
08-01-2008, 05:03 PM
I for one am sick of trying to decide who to vote for based on flag pins, so I thought we should consider the tax plans of both candidates. Here is a link to the Washington Post article on the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute's comparison of the candidates' tax plans. I wanted to attach a full copy of the report for those of you who like to read the whole thing, but it exceeded size limits. I believe you can download it from either the Brookings Institute's or the Urban Institute's web pages. Its quite well done---but I would expect no less from such a prominent economic think tank as Brookings.

No suprise that the top .1% of earners will fair badly with Obama, but I am surprised that McCain's tax breaks do not seem to trickle down to most taxpayers. (See the graphic accompanying the article)

Thoughts?

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Preacher
08-01-2008, 05:29 PM
Quote:
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

First thought.... This last line probably isn't completely true in application.

With tax-breaks, loopholes, etc. etc. their taxes will probably not be raised that much.

Which is why I want a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of tax on what they make.

I wouldn't mind starting with Reagan's three tax brackets... 15%, 28% and 33%, then moving them to 15 and 28 percent.. thus having not quite a flat tax, but pretty dang close (only two tiers), and removing some of the remaining loopholes.

Actually, I would prefer a national sales tax instead... and put the IRS out of business. But that is a different discussion.

Godfather
08-01-2008, 05:57 PM
First thought.... This last line probably isn't completely true in application.

With tax-breaks, loopholes, etc. etc. their taxes will probably not be raised that much.

Which is why I want a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of tax on what they make.

I wouldn't mind starting with Reagan's three tax brackets... 15%, 28% and 33%, then moving them to 15 and 28 percent.. thus having not quite a flat tax, but pretty dang close (only two tiers), and removing some of the remaining loopholes.

Actually, I would prefer a national sales tax instead... and put the IRS out of business. But that is a different discussion.

Problem with a flat tax is it makes no provision for differences in the cost of living. Someone making $100K around here is rich. Someone making $100K in Los Angeles can't afford a house. The effect of a flat tax would be that the transfer from blue to red states would become even greater.

Sales tax is a great idea but you still have an IRS, or a similar agency to collect the sales tax and bust businesses that cheat and underreport sales.

Preacher
08-01-2008, 06:08 PM
Problem with a flat tax is it makes no provision for differences in the cost of living. Someone making $100K around here is rich. Someone making $100K in Los Angeles can't afford a house. The effect of a flat tax would be that the transfer from blue to red states would become even greater.

Sales tax is a great idea but you still have an IRS, or a similar agency to collect the sales tax and bust businesses that cheat and underreport sales.

I understand what you're saying about the difference.. however, that difference STILL exists.

Why should someone making 100,000 in San Francisco pay the same as someone making 60,000 in St. Louis?

The system is already inequitable in that sense. A single or... as I proposed, a dual layer flat tax wouldn't change that inequality one bit.

The IRS would change under the sales tax idea. Fact is, it can be driven through the states. Each state would simply give a portion of their sales tax to the feds. Let the states increase the sales taxes themselves....

Which brings up another idea..... hmm.... another thread.

fansince'76
08-01-2008, 06:55 PM
I for one am sick of trying to decide who to vote for based on flag pins....

How about based on airplane tail decals, then? :stirthepot: :chuckle:

HometownGal
08-01-2008, 07:15 PM
I say when trying to decide on the "right choice", we refer to Preacher's thread in the Locker Room. :chuckle:

I've always been for a flat tax. I also believe the IRS should include a "gas credit" now that we're being cornholed by the oil companies. :banging: I know - hell will freeze over first, but hey - it's a thought.

Personally, I'd like to see the IRS abolished - freakin' bloodsucking vampire bats.

revefsreleets
08-02-2008, 03:01 PM
More importantly, since we are already running a staggering deficit, how will Obama pay for the trillions in social programs he's proposing?

Here are just a couple planks of his that will literally bankrupt this country:

Reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050. TRILLIONS!
Create a NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN (read: Socialized medicine) to cover every American. Mega-trillions.

If you go to his website, almost every plank in his platform is going to cost, well, it's going to cost someone a shitload of cash. Bilking the wealthy of every penny they are worth to take care of the poor is not only a re-distribution of wealth and Utopian and agrarian thinking, it's also anti-capitalist and anti-American, and will punch more holes in this already listing and leaking ship.

Atlanta Dan
08-02-2008, 04:33 PM
I say when trying to decide on the "right choice", we refer to Preacher's thread in the Locker Room. :chuckle:

I've always been for a flat tax. I also believe the IRS should include a "gas credit" now that we're being cornholed by the oil companies. :banging: I know - hell will freeze over first, but hey - it's a thought.

Personally, I'd like to see the IRS abolished - freakin' bloodsucking vampire bats.

Ready to give up your home mortgage interest and property tax deductions? You think the residential real estate market is in the dumpster now, wait and see what happens if those two props get pulled out from under it.

Your expressed interest in a"gas credit" illustrates the problem - everybody wants to close the other guy's "loopholes"

As Russell Long, a former Senate Finance Chairman once said, tax policy debates in this country consist of "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree."

If a flat tax is going to be revenue neutral, that means if you think your taxes are going to go down someone else will presumably have their taxes go up - care to guess what their position will be with regard to a flat tax? And how will politicians encourage fund raising if they cannot annually play games with the tax code?

The current tax code works just fine for those who have a seat at the table in writing it.

Preacher
08-02-2008, 10:50 PM
If a flat tax is going to be revenue neutral, that means if you think your taxes are going to go down someone else will presumably have their taxes go up -




The problem is, that logic doesn't hold in the real world. The bi-partisan research team on taxes should that the three times taxes were cut in the 20th century, revenues increased.

Furthermore, as the taxes were flattened out... the rich actually ended up paying MORE tax as a percentage of the total revenue.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

revefsreleets
08-03-2008, 02:52 PM
There's no doubt that a flat tax is a progressive tax. The more you spend, the more you are taxed. If you buy a million dollar boat with a 12% flat tax, you spend an extra 120k, which is obviously the kind of figure it'd take a family of 4 making 75k a year a LONG time to ever contribute.

The tax code would be vastly, VASTLY simplified, and the bottom 20% should probably just pay zero in taxes. That way it's "fair".

I would even suggest a higher figure than that and completely phase out payroll taxes...we are, after all, being double-dipped when it gets taxed coming in and going out.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Again...people PLEASE look at the facts...so your homework...so that any bits of information or misinformation wont be the reason for your vote

FACT: The problem with Obama is a credibility problem... he already promised once to provide tax relief but voted for a budget that raised taxes on Americans who earn as little as $32,550....
.....Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25%, 28% and 33% brackets..... At present, the 25% bracket begins at $32,550 of taxable income for individuals and $63,700 for married couples would jump to 28%.... The 35% bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.


In 2006, Obama was one of only 13 Senate Democrats with A perfect liberal score
on economic Issues....

Americans For Tax Reform Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 7.5 Out Of 100....

Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of
100...

The National Taxpayers Union Gave Obama A Grade Of "F" For His Fiscal Voting
Record....

The Truth About Taxes…
Obama does a great deal of talking about "middle class" tax cuts and the dream of entering into the middle class disappearing for so many. What is he talking about? Here are some "inconvenient truths" about who is paying what and who isn't.

The Truth About Taxes
Top __ %....Percent of Total... Percent of Taxes.... Paid Income Cutoff
Top 1 % .............21.2%..................39.4%......... .........> $364,657
Top 5%..............35.75%................59.67%...... ..........> $145,283
Top 10%............46.44%................70.30%....... .........> $103,912
Top 25%............67.52%................85.99%....... .........> $62,068
Top 50%............87.17%................96.93%....... .........> $30,881
Bottom 50%.......12.83%..................3.07%........... ....< $30,881

Obama keeps talking about making our tax system more fair by cutting taxes on the middle class and eliminating the tax cuts for the evil rich, but when the top 1% already pay just shy of 40% of every dollar collected... how is it fair to saddle them with more. That's already 13 times the bottom 50% combined.

Worse than that when the top 25% pay 86% of the taxes and the income cutoff for the top 25% is only $62,068 it gives you a new perspective on who pays what in America. It all boils down to not being able to give a real tax cut to people who don't pay taxes in the first place. All you can do is steal more from those who are already paying and redistribute it to those you want votes from. Classic democrat strategy… no change here.

Godfather
08-03-2008, 05:25 PM
The problem is, that logic doesn't hold in the real world. The bi-partisan research team on taxes should that the three times taxes were cut in the 20th century, revenues increased.

Furthermore, as the taxes were flattened out... the rich actually ended up paying MORE tax as a percentage of the total revenue.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The rich paid more of the total income tax revenue (in part because the tax cuts at the bottom were a greater share of those taxpayers' income.) But the tax cuts don't increase revenue. Tax revenues dropped in both nominal and real dollars after the 2001 cut. Federal revenue didn't bounce back to the 2000 level until 2005 in nominal dollars and 2006 in real dollars. Federal revenue increased from 1981 to 1982, but that was inflation-aided. In real dollars federal receipts didn't bounce back to the 1981 level until 1985.

Also important to note: if we were really on the right side of the Laffer curve, Clinton's tax increase should have caused a drop in revenue. That didn't happen.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Godfather
08-03-2008, 05:27 PM
I would even suggest a higher figure than that and completely phase out payroll taxes...we are, after all, being double-dipped when it gets taxed coming in and going out.

Ugh...don't even get me started on payroll taxes. Why do we tax jobs, the thing we most want to encourage?? :banging:

Preacher
08-03-2008, 11:16 PM
The rich paid more of the total income tax revenue (in part because the tax cuts at the bottom were a greater share of those taxpayers' income.) But the tax cuts don't increase revenue. Tax revenues dropped in both nominal and real dollars after the 2001 cut. Federal revenue didn't bounce back to the 2000 level until 2005 in nominal dollars and 2006 in real dollars. Federal revenue increased from 1981 to 1982, but that was inflation-aided. In real dollars federal receipts didn't bounce back to the 1981 level until 1985.

Also important to note: if we were really on the right side of the Laffer curve, Clinton's tax increase should have caused a drop in revenue. That didn't happen.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

It didn't happen because the dot.com bubble and a roaring economy kept it going... until 2000-01.


Personally I agree with your other post. Payroll taxes, income taxes, etc. should all go away. You get taxed on what you buy. Period.

The only exceptions being housing, basic food staples, and utilities.

revefsreleets
08-04-2008, 09:14 AM
And the way to "equal out" taxes on staples is simple thresholds. 0 tax on houses say, under 100k, then 5% 100-150k, so on and so forth. Same thing with food and clothes. That way the poorest are exempt from paying tax on almost everything. BUT when they buy an Xbox 360 or other frivilous stuff, they pay full tax, no exceptions.

Godfather
08-04-2008, 12:32 PM
And the way to "equal out" taxes on staples is simple thresholds. 0 tax on houses say, under 100k, then 5% 100-150k, so on and so forth. Same thing with food and clothes. That way the poorest are exempt from paying tax on almost everything. BUT when they buy an Xbox 360 or other frivilous stuff, they pay full tax, no exceptions.

And as a bonus, you get people like drug dealers who earn their income illegally...as well as people who underreport their legitimate income.

Merchants can still cheat on their taxes by underreporting sales but it's a lot harder to do since checks and credit cards create a paper trail (especially for big ticket items) and small business owners have incentives to report their income accurately, since lowballing will bite them when they want credit for expansion or buying a house.

revefsreleets
08-05-2008, 09:48 AM
Oh, there's no perfect system, and there will always be tax scofflaws...but the system is almost inmpossibly complicated now, with a tax code thousands of pages long, the madness has to stop at some point.