Greenspan: We can't afford McCain's tax cuts

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   


This is the tax plans of the two candidates.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 

There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...

If you go there, you will find that the figures above, in almost all cases, for Obama's supposed tax cut, don't come anywhere near the results you will get- AND THIS IS AN OBAMA website.

For instance, if you list your filing status as married, one-wage earner, no children, making $75,000.00, your tax cut under Obama is $478.92.
Almost all other figures and filing status options, result in much less than what the table shows.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
 

There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...

If you go there, you will find that the figures above, in almost all cases, for Obama's supposed tax cut, don't come anywhere near the results you will get- AND THIS IS AN OBAMA website.



I beg to differ. I entered my data and got a much larger Tax cut than even the Tax Policy center said I would get under Obama.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
 

There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...

For instance, if you list your filing status as married, one-wage earner, no children, making $75,000.00, your tax cut under Obama is $478.92.
Almost all other figures and filing status options, result in much less than what the table shows.


Also using the numbers you specify the site indicates John McCain would tax you $353.33 MORE than Barack Obama.

So your point is what? That the calculator doesn't match the Tax Policy Center estimates? I assume the Tax Policy center used census numbers to calculate typically family sizes etc.

I agree that people should visit the site and see where they shake out. Thanks for providing it.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Perhaps, in your case, you do. However, I entered about 20 scenarios, and none of the ones I entered resulted in anything close to what the table says. As I stated in my original post, "in almost all cases", the result was less.

By the way, for senior citizens, if you are married, and make $50,000 a year, you will get NO TAX CUT AT ALL. So much for concern for senior citizens. I suspect that is because Obama wants to increase the child tax credit, and that is where much of the tax credits come from. Of course, most senior citizens don't have dependent children under 18, so for them, forget any tax cut, under Obama or MCCain. We do, however, have huge medical insurance bills, and medical costs, even for those on Medicare. For those not aware of it, Medicare isn't such a great plan, compared to what many people that work and have employer-supplied insurance, have. Many seniors have to do things like cut their prescription pills in half, to make them last, because they are so expensive, or eat spaghetti 6 nights a week. No, neither Obama or McCain have any real help for seniors at all. Of course, Obama supposedly says that he would eliminate tax for seniors under $50,000. Well, this calculator shows that to be a lie. And no, McCain doesn't do any better.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Krieger
 

There is a website that allows you to put in your income, your filing status, and number of dependent children, and it will calculate your tax cut under Obama.
Here is the link:
alchemytoday.com...

If you go there, you will find that the figures above, in almost all cases, for Obama's supposed tax cut, don't come anywhere near the results you will get- AND THIS IS AN OBAMA website.


NO it is NOT AN OBAMA WEBSITE..read the bottom of the page you linked to..

ObamaTaxCut.com is a project of AlchemyToday.com and has no relation to the Obama campaign or any other organization whatsoever.


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Obama supposedly says that he would eliminate tax for seniors under $50,000. Well, this calculator shows that to be a lie. And no, McCain doesn't do any better.


Obama has proposed ELIMINATING taxes for the elderly making 50K or less. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO FILE A RETURN. Get it?

This calculator was parsed together by this website, NOT the OBAMA CAMPAIGN and it is obviously an error in the calculator and the website hasn't figured out how to program it properly to exclude elderly making less than 50K.

If it comes down to trusting the calculator on this website vs the TAX POLICY CENTER...I am going with the TAX POLICY CENTER!

www.taxfoundation.org...
The campaign said Obama's plan to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 annually would mean 22 million elderly Americans would no longer need to file an income tax return or hire a tax preparer.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

- Recent research on tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 shows that taxable income increased when top tax rates were cut. Though not sufficient to "pay for themselves," an exaggerated claim often made for tax cut proposals, the rate cuts in the top two brackets did induce taxpayers to report enough extra taxable income to offset between 25 and 40 percent of the static revenue loss.


www.taxfoundation.org...

Interesting article about how tax relief does help.


"Most people think corporate income taxes are paid by wealthy, anonymous companies," said Hodge. "But as economists have been teaching for years, ultimately people bear the burden of corporate taxes, not companies. And in 2006 that burden averaged $3,190 per household.


www.taxfoundation.org...

Interesting article about who really pays corporate taxes. Do you still think we should raise corporate taxes after you read this?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
That has to be one of the funniest analogy I have ever read on here. Bravo!!! Thanks for the reply too. Do you think she actually flushes her own toilet? If that family has say 5 bathrooms on each floor, they could easily pay people, with benifits, in three rotating full time shifts to do the flushing, or stand there and wait for someone to come around...and then someone else to turn on the tap for handwashing and a third set of workers to run towels. I'm pretty sure she uses two ply however, that I'm certain of. lol.

Sorry to take so long to respond, I'm been busy with work, anyway thanks for the compliment. Although it was a joke I did mean it with some sincerity, I just don't think punishing people because they are rich justifies that they should be taxed more. Yes, they may afford it but does it make it right? And on what grounds? Because people are rich?


I noticed you didn't comment on aircraft preventative maintenance regulations.
I thought I did. Well, think of it this way; do taxi companies have incentives to upkeep their taxis? I think they do. If they don't then why replace the brakes, change the oil, and prevent their taxis from being a hazard on the road? I think just like the taxi companies the airlines have an incentive to prevent their aircraft from falling from the sky. They certainly have always maintained a ground repair crew to maintain their planes running, simply because it is way to expensive to replace a plane every three years with a new one. Just like taxis car, companies can generally gauge the life of their asset, and accordingly have preventative maintenance to keep things going as best as possible.


On the rotten meat, I'd have to say that it was tried before and it didn't work...people got sick and died when it was left up to the "free market". I for one don't want to return to those days and repeat the experiment over again, besides being stupid, it could be fatal!

skyshow, here you are making the case that without the FDA we would all be eating poisoned food. I think this is a highly dubious argument. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner, "Would you stake your reputation...strike that...the possibility of losing everything you owned on trying to sell people bad food?" Certainly not!!! The FDA does nothing about discovering bad food. They are in the business of expropriating income and fining businesses when and if a discovery of neglect was discovered. The FDA does not have the manpower to make sure every piece of food you eat is safe. The reason you don't get sick or hardly get sick because of eating bad food is because business try their darnedest to give you the best product they can.

Your line of thinking would also assume restaurants are also in the same business of giving you bad food...



Another interesting thing about power is that it costs a lot more to run power lines out into rural areas, so if we pulled regulations, the folks who live out in the rural red states would have to pay 10 times more for their juice...same with phone service and road costs. Why should the urban democrat subsidize the country republican? I'm being facetious, but you get the picture hopefully. We do these things in the interest of creating infrastructure and making our nation strong.

I agree. I think a lot of you liberals contradict yourselves when you say, that you want less people on the roads, less urban sprawl, but yet support Federal construction/subsidizing all of this activity. If you want to cut down on this type of urban sprawl, and traffic on the road wouldn't you favor a "Market type of solution"? Where the roads are private and people have to pay for their use? And those that decide to move in rural areas would pay their own way, instead of subsidizing? This would cut down on pollution, traffic congestion, and urban sprawl into the environment. This is a free-market solution, that you guys want to completely ignore.


We regulate not just in the interest of profit for shareholders, but we regulate in the interest of other stakeholders such as consumers (who want to live after eating the product), employees, even the birds and the fish. You can't have good productive employees if they are home puking because the sausage they ate for breakfast had axel grease and rat turds in it.
I think you are exagerating here a bit. Reember what happened to "Wendy's" food chain, when that woman lied about finding a finger in her Chilli? The company lost millions, it still barely recovering from the "Scam" this lady pulled. You really think businesses are trying to hurt you the customer? I'm a bit sad if you really see that, the world doesn't work that way. And if you think it does it is more of a reflection of you than it is of the rest of humanity. Come on man, you know better!!!


You can't sell products to consumers if they are shot and killed by stray bullets from an automatic assault weapon on their way to the store.
Well, if this does occur how is it Corporations fault? Wouldn't you say its more a direct result of the individual shooting said gun?


You can't run a modern dairy out in the sticks without power and transport the milk into town without driving on a paved road.
No, you wouldn't need a multi-million dollar plant out in the "sticks", but the market would fill the niche with, smaller mom and pop farms that may fill this void. Small towns have small shops that still provide life's necessities, small towns have no need for Macys, Nordstrom, or Sacs Fifth.


Without safety regulations, and integral infrastructure it would be difficult if not impossible to meet the obligations of the constitution and the people's right to persue happiness with life and liberty. I think the issue then becomes not one of do we have it or not, but one of where is the happy medium.
Businesses try to make the best product they can, sure they may not be 100% safe 100% of the time, but the market corrects this and makes adjustments. People's tastes change consumers punish those companies that make shoddy products, and reward those that take care in what the customers want and preferences. Think of it this way, does the company "Gerber" want to sell you something that may hurt your Child or your family? ...continue...

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


I'm not saying that mistakes are never made by corporations, such as "Gerber", but what I am arguing is that the existence of an FDA does not make these errors disappear.

And when these mistakes do occur, a company such as "Gerber" takes the appropriate measures to protect consumers and protect their product, not because of the existence of a bureaucracy such as the "FDA" but to protect their bottom line.

You see, what you are proposing is that the existence of an "FDA" or some other governmental body is making us safe, as if they really have the capacity and manpower to do this. And what I argue is that for the most part, the advancement of safe products has been because businesses have seen to it to make their product as safe as possible for consumers, because it is in their interest to do so.


The existence of bureaucracies has nothing to do with keeping you safe, their existence is to extract their share, when negligence has been shown, which is after the fact.


[edit on 17-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


According to the new rules on political threads, you CANNOT use a BLOG as a reference. The "tax policy" link you provided is a blog. Blogs can say anything they want, including that they are non-partisan, when in fact they are.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
By the way, this entire argument about whether we can afford McCain's tax program, versus Obama's tax proposal may be a non-issue:
www.time.com...

Obama May Delay Reversing Tax Cuts

(AP / WASHINGTON) — Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."


OK, so Obama is going to cut taxes, but NOT increase anyone's taxes. Whose tax plan can we NOT afford now?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


The obvious answer is the Obama is willing to format his tax plan agianst what is happening in real life. If he feels there is no recession, then he will implement his. McCain hasnt said any of that. I shows that Obama is willing to adapt to a given situation.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 





The obvious answer is the Obama is willing to format his tax plan agianst what is happening in real life. If he feels there is no recession, then he will implement his. McCain hasnt said any of that. I shows that Obama is willing to adapt to a given situation.


Actually, it shows that Obama has come over to what McCain has been saying all along, namely that raising taxes is a very bad idea when the economy is down. Obama has said all along that the economy is bad, but he wanted to raise taxes, prior to this switch. It was only after his advisors polled Americans and found out that they didn't want taxes raised, that he altered his position. If you remember, this is very typical of Obama, as he originally wanted to get out of Iraq quickly, but after it was shown that 70% of the US didn't want us to get out before it was safe to, he changed his position, and now he wants to "talk to the generals and see what they want". Prior to national opinion sampling, he wanted no part of talking to the generals. This is right out of the Clinton Play book, take a poll, see what is popuiar and push that. McCain is not like that. He said to stay the course in Iraq when national opinion was against staying there. I would rather have a person as President that says what he means and means what he says, than someone who is constantly changing his mind. The Russians, Chinese, Iranians and others would love for Obama to become President, because they know that they could bully him into any position they support.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Could be the most irresponsible post I have read in a while. The Iranians and Chinese and want Obama to be president because they can bully Obama?


wow, talk about resorting to fear mongering tactics. If we dont vote for McCain, Russia and Iran and China will bully the oval office around. Come on, get a grip. Im so sick of these fear tactics. The Russians or Iranians wont be able to bully EITHER McCain or Obama.


STOP THE LIES



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


You know, this is interesting. When someone agrees with YOU, they are telling the truth. When someone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling. If you cannot respond to valid points without name calling or making statements that you cannot back up, then please do not respond.

According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Poll:


Savina and Maleshov are not alone in their views of McCain and the GOP, according to a recent poll of Russians conducted at the beginning of September by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center. The survey found that 27 percent of respondents would choose Sen. Barack Obama if they could vote in the U.S. elections, as opposed to just 6 percent choosing Sen. John McCain.



From Kenya to Indonesia to China, Obama is the man for our job.


I have a thread already talking about Obama and world opinion, so I'm not going to get into a debate with you in this thread, but your partisanship makes any honest debate with you impossible. Have a nice day, and learn to listen to both sides before you resort to name calling. It won't get you ANYWHERE if you ever get your college degree.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Sad, where in my post did I once name call? You really should review your post before you make such a false accusation.

Your poll says nothing about how they would vote for Obama to bully him. It just shows they prefer him to McCain, another half truth. In that one poll, they favor him. But then you leave out any information to say that it is because they know Medvedev can bully him.


And many people here can attest that I have called BOTH parties out when they have lied and changed the facts. Im sorry that because I call your post irresponsible that you have to say Im some partisan name caller. It is your post that shows who the partisan name caller is, not mine....


Back to the topic.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Speaking of taxes... McCain's newest TV spot completely distorts Obamas tax plan. For the record, when/if Obama does the same, I will post it.

McCain's ad false


Here is a snippet from the source. the analysis and facts behind the lies are on the link





The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans. *
The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain.
* It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
* The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged.

The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Ok I agree with you about the ad. But this windfall tax on oil company. Would you not consider that a tax on everyone? Would we not be giving ourself a $1000 rebate?

The only way corporations make a profit is via the sale of their products to consumers. Don't you think the oil companies would merely increase prices to consumers to pay for this tax?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join