I can't afford a Democrat for President

And I make good money...

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
28%

CLINTON
24%

How does this affect you? If you sell an investment property or other investment at a profit, you will pay up to 28% of your gain on taxes.


DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN
15% (no change)


OBAMA
39.6%

CLINTON
39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama or Clinton become president. The experts predict that "Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolute ly nothing to cut the deficit."


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

CLINTON
(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

Proposed Taxes

WOW!

Something of an eye opener...

Semper

"One of the first things I'm going to do as President is to reverse the Bush tax cuts!"

Where have you heard that before?

I've heard that McCain has been consulting with Phil Gramm about the economy. Gramm says that the Bush tax cuts were a very good idea, but that Bush and the Republicans didn't follow through on the other thing needed: to cut federal spending.

I agree, and I hope that Gramm joins McCain's cabinet, should McCain win. But he's doing quite well now as head of UBS, having put his time in as a public servant.

Oh poor baby... YOU can't afford a Democrat as president... Whatever happened to WE?

You are concerned about your economy... at the same time the nation cannot afford the drain on our resources those tax cuts have become.

reply to post by jsobecky


Wow. THAT should open some eye balls. The lunatics around here (a not SO sweeping generalization of the people reading this...) and every big city in the Union, may disagree and think the Utopia promised is worth it.

Of course, I don't think they're lunatics by accident...

OK I have a couple of questions.

How many people who oppose a tax hike support the continuation of the Iraq war and its related costs ?

If your answer is to reduce spending rather then increase taxes where do you think the reduction in spending is going to come from ?

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11


It is a simple matter of not only historical fact, but economics as well that the lower the tax burden, the more money the government brings in.

"Poor baby" and other such "intellectual" comments aside, anyone that has ever studied economics is aware of this. Those that are living off of the government pay no real taxes anyway, why should we not be concerned with those that pay the VAST lions share? As in ME.

As for a reduction in spending, I fear that as President Bush spent like a dem; we only have that too look forward to no matter who of the three wins.

The only hope we have is for someone that took economics 101, first semester, convinces whoever is sitting in the Whitehouse, that tax cuts boost the economy and increase government tax revenue.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
As for a reduction in spending, I fear that as President Bush spent like a dem; we only have that too look forward to no matter who of the three wins.

Umm Clinton was the last president who was fiscal responsible . Bush is just following the Republican trend set by Reagan. I support lower taxation but I think your going to have a hard to selling your case because you haven't got all your facts straight from the outset.

Plus your argument does come across as about ME ME rather then what is best for your country.

I am willing to give the topic another chance by taking a differnt angle .

Where do you areas do you think should face cut backs in order to restore fiscal sanity ?




[edit on 8-3-2008 by xpert11]

You're talking about "supply side economics" a la Reagan--e.g. the idea that tax cuts will stimulate the economy enough to make up for the loss in tax revenue.

Democrats--and a lot of economists--believe that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy enough to make up for the loss in tax revenue.

As for the stock market, it's already on the verge of crashing under a Republican administration.

A Democrat, Bill Clinton, eliminated the deficit run up by Reagan. Another Republican has run up the deficit again. We need another Democrat to balance the budget.

Originally posted by Sestias
You're talking about "supply side economics" a la Reagan--e.g. the idea that tax cuts will stimulate the economy enough to make up for the loss in tax revenue.

Democrats--and a lot of economists--believe that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy enough to make up for the loss in tax revenue.

Whether they believe it or not, it's a proven fact. It's not infinite; it does reach a point of negative returns, but it is fact nonetheless. The element that was missing under this administration was decreased spending to go along with the tax cuts.

Originally posted by Sestias
As for the stock market, it's already on the verge of crashing under a Republican administration.

That has nothing to do with the tax cuts. The majority of states are experiencing growth, not recession.

The causes of the stock market's softness include the sub-prime mortgage crash, rising oil prices, rising food prices, and weak employment figures. Not good data, to be sure, but they are seperate from the tax cuts.

Sorry semper but trickle down economics is a fantesy and has never worked.

We are a society of interconnected communities and the notion of ME first, is one of the ideas that is tearing this country apart.

reply to post by grover

Originally posted by grover
Sorry semper but trickle down economics is a fantesy and has never worked.

We are a society of interconnected communities and the notion of ME first, is one of the ideas that is tearing this country apart.

There's a big disconnect between the humanity in a bunch of interconnected communities and a massive federal bureaucracy that sucks the very life out of the citizens.

And trickle down supply side economics does work. But the very thought of starving the beast is anathema to socialists. They see no problem with burning the furniture and eating the seed corn.

reply to post by xpert11


Reagan and Bush just followed JFK's lead, by lowering taxes and raising revenue as the economy expanded, increasing the tax base.

BlueRaja any increase in revenue wasn't enough to put the US out of the red. Hence Clinton inherited the deficit just as the next president . You could call it political manulipation(SP?) the president will be in an tight spot unless any increase in revenue can cover the Iraq war and pork can be eliminated.

I support supply side economics but it has to be moderated by sanity rather then just pure idealogical driven ideas.

Well, whoever is president needs to do something about the price of oil. In 2001, crude oil was $23/barrel. It's now over $107/barrel.

www.inflationdata.com...

If there has ever been a bigger failure in our country's leadership than the failure to create a good energy policy - well, I don't know what it is.

Originally posted by xpert11


I support supply side economics but it has to be moderated by sanity rather then just pure idealogical driven ideas.

Supply side economics can't overcome idiotic spending policies though. No matter what system you have, if you spend more than you make, you're gonna have deficits. Republicans have been guilty of spending like Democrats lately, because that pork makes constituents in their districts happy. Politicians aren't looking out for good of the whole country, just their own districts, and that's where the waste comes in.

Sempefortis you are not having any problems affording the money wasting Republican we go in the White House, the tax cuts are nothing more but the biggest deceiving lie this president has presented to the American people while he keep spending like a run away train.

Yes lies, propaganda and the value of the dollar, politicians are soo good at that.

Originally posted by jsobecky
If there has ever been a bigger failure in our country's leadership than the failure to create a good energy policy - well, I don't know what it is.

And why do you think that is? Perhaps this country's leadership, especially the GOP is bought and paid for by the oil/energy companys.

query.nytimes.com...

The taxpayers are just chumps to be lied to manipulated and used to fight the the wars proxy style for the faceless, greedy, corp masters. Fly that flag and tell the youth about "freedom" and "heroism" and "honor" and "homeland" they buy the same old tired story every time. Just like I did.

flag and star...

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.




[edit on 12-3-2008 by whaaa]

Considering this list of taxes is making the rounds via e-mail and there is no sources cited the data is questionable at best.

As for trickle down economics working... ask a poor person if they work for them. Also if it works then why are wages stagnate and why is the middle class shrinking?

Originally posted by grover
As for trickle down economics working... ask a poor person if they work for them.

Given that supply-side economics is an economic theory that postulates that a decrease in tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues (to a point), then you should be asking/blaming your gov't why there are more poor. You seem to want bigger gov't, and more forced wealth re-distribution right? Well then ask your gov't why they aren't sharing the wealth.

reply to post by jsobecky


You are reading far more into my statement than I put there... I don't want more government, I want a more effective and efficent government. As for forced wealth redistribution, (1) I never claimed I was for anything like that at all and (2) since bush minor's tax cuts benefited the wealthy and caused even more of the wealth to be consentrated into fewer hands, it could effectively be argued that those tax cuts were in themselves a forced wealth redistribution... upwards.