Tax Plan Comparisons

[Counselor]

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...060900950.html

[Preacher]

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]

Originally Posted by Preacher

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]

Originally Posted by Godfather

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]

Originally Posted by Counselor

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?

[HometownGal]

I say when trying to decide on the "right choice", we refer to Preacher's thread in the Locker Room.

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. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by HometownGal

I say when trying to decide on the "right choice", we refer to Preacher's thread in the Locker Room.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

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-g...t/reagtxct.htm

[revefsreleets]

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.