When it comes to fighting wars, John McCain stands up and calls for sacrifice. "We never hide from history; we make history," he declared in his convention speech. But when it comes to taxes, McCain is unwilling to demand even a teensy bit of sacrifice. In a McCain administration, Americans would not have to surrender a dime more of their money to a cause larger than themselves.
Why this bipolar attitude toward sacrifice? Start with the answer that McCain himself provides. "My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them," he said at the convention, offering one of the speech's few policy contrasts between Obama's platform and his own. In other words, McCain is not calling for tax sacrifice because he believes it would be counterproductive. On taxes, he is saying, you can selfishly avoid sacrifice -- and serve the public good.
This, unfortunately, is a convenient untruth. Tax hikes taken to an extreme can indeed backfire, harming growth and job creation. But it's a stretch to assert that Barack Obama's tax plan would do that. And it's downright scandalous to pretend that the economy can be strengthened in anything other than the short run by unaffordable tax cuts.
The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found.
McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the middle class but not the ones for the wealthy.
Assuming they would have been renewed anyway, Obama's plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while McCain's would cost the Treasury $600 billion. Assuming legislators would have let the tax breaks expire, Obama's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and McCain's $3.7 trillion.
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
Democratic rivals Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois both voted to extend only some of Bush's tax cuts while allowing cuts in income tax rates and investments expire. They joined other Democrats in a 52-47 vote against extending $376 billion of them.
Democrats argued that when the time comes, they'll renew tax cuts aimed at the middle class by closing billions of dollars worth of corporate and other tax loopholes. They also say billions more can be raised by cracking down on tax cheats.
He (Obama) also said he would delay slashing President Bush’s tax cuts if he becomes president and the economy is in a recession.
But he vowed to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class. “Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said.
McCain wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010.
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000
Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase.
Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath.
Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by sos37
Trickle down economics (called VooDoo Economics by George Bush I) did not work when Pres Reagan did it when in office. Sen McCain was opposed to the tax cuts Pres Bush was for in 2001 stating the country should use the money for other things. He was also opposed to making them permanent. How things change when one is running for President.
The country is trillions of dollars in debt, and went into even more debt with the bailout of the mortgage giants. In the 1980s, the savings and loans industries tanked, and the taxpayers had to pay billions of dollars to bail them out.
A flat tax with just a deductible of @ $20,000 is fair and reasonable. Or else a value added tax (vat) instead, with food being exempted.