The Back Alley Archives

No, it has nothing to do with being a Dem. Has to do with the fact that Obama's policies will move radically toward a socialist state. For the first time in this country (or at least in decades), there will be people paying effective tax rates above 50%. That means they work for the government, whether they like it or not. And that, my comrade, sounds like socialism to me.

For the record, I don't like McCain much either. I'm not a republican. So we can't go down either of those roads.

No, it has nothing to do with being a Dem. Has to do with the fact that Obama's policies will move radically toward a socialist state. For the first time in this country (or at least in decades), there will be people paying effective tax rates above 50%. That means they work for the government, whether they like it or not. And that, my comrade, sounds like socialism to me.

For the record, I don't like McCain much either. I'm not a republican. So we can't go down either of those roads.

Here's a good breakdown of what McCain and Obama will do to your Tax Bill... It's hardly as extreme as you make it out to be, AA.

Note that NEITHER tax plan will cover the expected costs of government... They both will, in fact, add to the deficit. McCain will contribute 4.5 Trillion, Obama's plan would contribute 3.3 Trillion...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... osals_tpc/

Note that NEITHER tax plan will cover the expected costs of government... They both will, in fact, add to the deficit. McCain will contribute 4.5 Trillion, Obama's plan would contribute 3.3 Trillion...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... osals_tpc/

So much for balanced budgets.....

Actually, it's exactly as extreme as I made it out to be because I got the 50%+ effective tax rate from the exact report used by CNN to do their analysis. The fact that anyone in this country may be forced to pay such tax rates on their income is radical, but that's just my opinion on what 'radical' means. The report from the Tax Policy Center can be found in full here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... xPlans.pdf

The relevant quote, taken from page 11 of the report:

Senator Obama has spoken at times about subjecting high-income taxpayers to the Social Security tax, possibly with an exemption for earnings above the current cap but below a new threshold of $250,000, as way to reduce long-term imbalances in the Social Security system. Combined with a top federal income tax rate of 39.6 percent (nearly 41 percent including the effect of the itemized deduction phaseout), the proposal could raise effective tax rates on labor income for high earners above 52 percent (and over 55 percent for residents of states with high income tax rates).

^^^Can I ask...what is going to be done with all that money that the government will be getting from our hard earned income? Fox says above that we will still have a deficit and I personally don't understand how it will HELP the economy if I will now have another 20% taken out of my income. Of course, I do not make over $250K a year, so I assume it will not be AS bad for me.

What about small business? That is honestly what I worry the most about because Bill's business could use some tax breaks so he can pass those on to his coaches/schools and thus get more business and more spending. But if we get taxed up the ying yang (not to mention adding that to the increased cost of fuel), it's going to be a harder sell for us. Of course, we are not the only small business in this predicament...what does it mean for all of us?

This is all I need to know about Obama. When asked by a reporter if he would still want to increase capital gains tax percentages, with prefacing the question
with the statistic that lowering capital gains means increased money for the federal govt, he still said he would increase them because it's "more fair." More fair
to whom, he doesn't say. So basically he would choose to take in less money to help his social programs and the "less fortunate" so that he could stick it to the
people who are the achievers in our society. It's wealth envy plain and simple, and it's pathetic.

I believe middle income earners should pay slightly lower effective rates under both plans, m7. I'll double check.

I believe middle income earners should pay slightly lower effective rates under both plans, m7. I'll double check.

It's difficult to say exactly how they would affect you m7...looking over that report, I think there are factors that would help you under one plan while other factors would end up helping you under the other. It's pretty damn complicated.

^^^Can I ask...what is going to be done with all that money that the government will be getting from our hard earned income? Fox says above that we will still have a deficit and I personally don't understand how it will HELP the economy if I will now have another 20% taken out of my income. Of course, I do not make over $250K a year, so I assume it will not be AS bad for me.

M7, unless Disney is paying you $603,000, you probably wont be paying more:

_______________MCCAIN ________ ______OBAMA
Income ________ Avg. tax bill________Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M_____-$269,364_________+$701,885
$603K and up___-$45,361__________+$115,974
$227K-$603K____-$7,871__________+$12
$161K-$227K ___-$4,380__________-$2,789
$112K-$161K___-$2,614__________-$2,204
$66K-$112K_____-$1,009_________-$1,290
$38K-$66K______-$319___________-$1,042
$19K-$38K______-$113___________-$892
Under $19K______-$19____________-$567


From page 2 of AA's link:

The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

Just remember that the report is made up of averages...doesn't mean every individual in the $66k-$112k 'bracket' will pay $2200-2600 less depending on the candidate.

Just remember that the report is made up of averages...doesn't mean every individual in the $66k-$112k 'bracket' will pay $2200-2600 less depending on the candidate.

Yeah, but the averages give you a good idea of what you're looking at... It's not the scary "I'm gonna pay 20% more under Obama" that some would have you believe...

The averages help understand the broad effects across tax brackets and demographic groups. They in no way begin to tell any single individual what their taxes will look like. There are too many variables. To tell someone anything else is intellectually dishonest, IMO. I understand where you're coming from, in that you're simply trying to keep m7 from being scared away from Obama, which is perfectly fine. I'm trying to be more direct to her question in saying that the averages can't really tell m7 exactly what she wants to know.

The averages help understand the broad effects across tax brackets and demographic groups. They in no way begin to tell any single individual what their taxes will look like. There are too many variables. To tell someone anything else is intellectually dishonest, IMO. I understand where you're coming from, in that you're simply trying to keep m7 from being scared away from Obama, which is perfectly fine. I'm trying to be more direct to her question in saying that the averages can't really tell m7 exactly what she wants to know.

You're telling me that I'm deliberately attempting to mislead M7 to get her to vote for Obama? C'mon man, that's pretty insulting. Frankly, I'm a little offended. That entire post was unbelievably passive aggressive. Of course averages don't tell you the whole story... I don't have access to m7's financial info, nor do I have time to run the numbers even if I did... but to say that "[t]hey in no way begin to tell any single individual what their taxes will look like" is fucking (and yes, I'm sticking with fucking) ridiculous. They don't even BEGIN to tell you anything? Who's being intellectually dishonest?

The averages do you tell you that if you bust your hump and make some good money then Obama is going to take you
behind the woodshed and rape you in the ass. Repeatedly. And with many foreign objects.

The averages do you tell you that if you bust your hump and make some good money then Obama is going to take you
behind the woodshed and rape you in the ass. Repeatedly. And with many foreign objects.

So people who make $40,000 don't "bust their hump" as hard as people who make 1,000,000? I have a hard time believing that.

Just to be clear, I don't take WP's post as the gospel truth of what my taxes would like like. I realize there are tons of variables, including how much I pay for daycare, my before tax deductions like health care and flexible spending etc. And of course, I file jointly with my husband who has his own company and gets to write off practically everything he does.

But according to your chart WP, Obama's plan will cost me A LOT more than McCain's. Looks like about $700-$800 more...ouch. And you know, if I could decide how that extra money was spent...like putting it into a mandatory retirement fund that will earn me some interest or at minimum would be mine at some point in the future, I would be okay with that. If that money was going to be used to test how much poop the fruit fly makes, then I'm not okay.

Oh and I would also be okay with that extra $700-$800 going to a mandatory upgrade to my vehicle that will allow me to run my minivan on diapers. I've been on my soap box about that one for years.

I still would like some idea of where both candidates stand on helping out small business though...info is greatly appreciated.

The averages do you tell you that if you bust your hump and make some good money then Obama is going to take you
behind the woodshed and rape you in the ass. Repeatedly. And with many foreign objects.

So people who make $40,000 don't "bust their hump" as hard as people who make 1,000,000? I have a hard time believing that.

Well, they may have worked hard, but they didn't work as smart. People who make 40K are in something like the 33% tax bracket. If you make around 300K,
you're probably paying 45%. That's what I have a problem with. Why should the majority of people get to use their vote as a weapon to take a disproportionate
amount from the wealthy? And to the people who think that the wealthy are money hungry assholes, well, you've just fallen into the trap that politicians like to
lay. I know some millionaires, and not one of them inherited the money. Most of them have worked a long time and made smart investments and started good
businesses that make products of services that you and I use every day to make our lives better. I know one guy that has let a free medical clinic use one of his
buildings for years rent free, and he finally just gave them the building. But he won't start a new business because he can't. His taxes are too high.
Are you going to tell me that he's some kind of monster just because he makes a lot of money?

I'm not that wealthy, but it's not fair to blame them and to tax them at a higher rate. Plus, it keeps them from starting businesses that create jobs and products.
Such high taxation stifles productivity, and creativeness. Which leads to less jobs in which to rise up, which leads to more government dependency.

And just so you know, I'm in the less than 40K a year bracket.

This is all I need to know about Obama. When asked by a reporter if he would still want to increase capital gains tax percentages, with prefacing the question
with the statistic that lowering capital gains means increased money for the federal govt, he still said he would increase them because it's "more fair." More fair
to whom, he doesn't say. So basically he would choose to take in less money to help his social programs and the "less fortunate" so that he could stick it to the
people who are the achievers in our society. It's wealth envy plain and simple, and it's pathetic.

I think this is very telling of his attitude towards tax policy. It's "take from the haves" and give to the government.*

* Note purposeful omission of "have-nots." I don't believe that any politician has the will or the ability to lift anyone out of poverty. It's all about the money, folks. The more government you have, the more government dependency you have and the more political power one party or the other has.

You're telling me that I'm deliberately attempting to mislead M7 to get her to vote for Obama? C'mon man, that's pretty insulting. Frankly, I'm a little offended. That entire post was unbelievably passive aggressive. Of course averages don't tell you the whole story... I don't have access to m7's financial info, nor do I have time to run the numbers even if I did... but to say that "[t]hey in no way begin to tell any single individual what their taxes will look like" is fucking (and yes, I'm sticking with fucking) ridiculous. They don't even BEGIN to tell you anything? Who's being intellectually dishonest?

Well, in the context of the conversation I don't believe I said anything intellectually dishonest. If the averages can actually begin to tell any individual what their taxes will look like, it is only the "average" individual in each of those brackets. m7 asked a direct, specific question and you answered with averages that, if you look at the complexities of each plan, effectively don't tell any single person how their tax bill will actually be impacted, simply by virtue of the number of variables. Maybe our differences here mean we have a disagreement about statistics and their meaning. I don't know.

As far as the offense taken to my post, when I see an answer that seems nonresponsive to a question (i.e. general averages to answer a specific question), I have to wonder about the motivations behind the answer given because to me, if its nonresponsive, the intention couldn't have been to answer the question openly and honestly in a direct manner. Perhaps the conclusions I drew were misguided and if I made an incorrect statement then I apologize for being wrong.

My intention wasn't to be passive aggressive, because I loathe passive aggression. I just call'em like I see'em--and I'm pretty fucking good at it (LOL I had to throw that in there). Sometimes the truth of other people's statements is hidden, either unintentionally or intentionally, and in the end it doesn't matter because the most important effect for me is that it means my conclusion has very little chance of being correct, which ultimately stalls or destroys a piece of the discourse.

Actually, that will be a very good thing. [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It's really stunning to me that people can believe that.

I think this is very telling of his attitude towards tax policy. It's "take from the haves" and give to the government.*

* Note purposeful omission of "have-nots." I don't believe that any politician has the will or the ability to lift anyone out of poverty. It's all about the money, folks. The more government you have, the more government dependency you have and the more political power one party or the other has.

And the problem is, once you give something to the government, it's nearly impossible for the people to wrestle the power back into their possession at any point in the future. The government seems only to grow.

I think this is very telling of his attitude towards tax policy. It's "take from the haves" and give to the government.*

* Note purposeful omission of "have-nots." I don't believe that any politician has the will or the ability to lift anyone out of poverty. It's all about the money, folks. The more government you have, the more government dependency you have and the more political power one party or the other has.

And the problem is, once you give something to the government, it's nearly impossible for the people to wrestle the power back into their possession at any point in the future. The government seems only to grow.

agreed.

Democrats have done a remarkable job of glorifing being poor and criminalizing being wealthy, as Kyle mentioned. What really bothers me is that a large bulk fo their supporters fail to realize is that by supporting these programs it isn't helping them at all, but making them more dependent on the government to live their life (place to live, eat, work, etc.). It's either that or they're just too damn lazy to care. Either way, I have no respect for that line of thinking.

i played in a golf tournament for Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes and after the tournament he addressed the participants during lunch. now i have not done any research to back this up but he said right now that 67% of the fed budget goes to entitlement programs, leaving only 33% left to pay for the things that the constitution says the fed gov't should be paying for. now even if that figure is off as much as 17% and 50% of the budget is going to entitlement programs it is WAAAAAAAY too much. now i don't put this on the pubs or the dems, i put this at the foot of politicians altogether. as said above the problem with the gov't is that it has to feed itself in order to survive, because as soon as you don't promise your constituents the world, you'll never get elected again because someone else will.
i often think that maybe there should be a limit of one term in Fed gov't. i'm ok with making the term 8 years but only one. that way there is no incentive to give, give, give because your next election isn't riding on it. maybe then by removing the dangling re-election carrot from in front of their eyes they will focus on the real issues and real people.

Actually, that will be a very good thing. [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It's really stunning to me that people can believe that.

Do you really want to go down this path? Considering what a disaster having W and a Republican Congress at the same time was.

Let's not say anything on this board that is going to get ugly. The last thing we need here is to degerate into Too Hot level stupidity.