Obama & McCain: the tax impact

[Valuist]

From the recent Fortune magazine:

Income per year:
over $2.9 million: McCain -269,364 Obama +701,885
$603,000-2.9 million: McCain -45,361 Obama +115,974
$227,000-$603,000: McCain -7,871 Obama +12
$161,000-$227,000: McCain -4,380 Obama -2,789
$112,000-$161,000: McCain -2,614 Obama -2,204
$ 66,000- $113,000: McCain -1,009 Obama -1,290
$ 38,000- $ 66,000: McCain - 319 Obama -1,042
$ 19,000- $ 38,000: McCain - 113 Obama - 892
under $19,000: McCain -19 Obama -567

THe plus/minus numbers reflect how much one's taxes would be affected.

[wonatthewire1]

from the looks of it, with the Obama numbers - we may be able to pay for our own wars instead of borrowing the money.

:eek:

[adamg]

heres another on tax impact --go to center for american progress action fund click on issues then mac and obama tax returns. see who really makes tons of money by voting to renew bush tax cuts. very very interesting:mad:

[Valuist]

Larry Kudlow should read these numbers. If you listen to him, you'd think that the Obama tax plan would negatively effect the middle class. Maybe Larry is so out of touch with reality he thinks far more people earn over $600K/year than do. The $225-600K/year crowd still is about even and from any statistics I've seen, that's still a very small segment of the population.

[ddog]

Kudlow is a nice enough fellow, but he stopped thinking of the original kind back in the 1970 period.

Makes for a funny show to check out from time to time anyway.

Most of his regular viewers need a good laugh after the close these days.

:lol:

[Valuist]

Kudlow is a nice enough fellow, but he stopped thinking of the original kind back in the 1970 period.

Makes for a funny show to check out from time to time anyway.

Most of his regular viewers need a good laugh after the close these days.

:lol:

He is pretty good about getting opposing viewpoints on his show. Usually there's at least one big argument during every show.

[acorn54]

here't the way the tax structure use to be

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07tax.htm

[Tom]

Anything other than the same tax rate for everyoneis blatantly unfair and stealing.

You should pay 10% ( say) if you make $10K or $10 million.
Progressive is BS. Governemnt that tax like this one does area governements we do not need. Perhaps disolving the Union and going back to just states is an idea long overdue. This turkey costs way too much

[highnote]

Anything other than the same tax rate for everyoneis blatantly unfair and stealing.

You should pay 10% ( say) if you make $10K or $10 million.
Progressive is BS. Governemnt that tax like this one does area governements we do not need. Perhaps disolving the Union and going back to just states is an idea long overdue. This turkey costs way too much


There is a lot to be said for a flat tax.

But think about this. Say a person inherits hundreds of millions of dollars -- for which they never worked a day in their life. That money was earned because the society we live in allowed for that kind of wealth accumulation.

Why should the person who inherited it get away with paying a fraction of their wealth in taxes? They're going to earn millions per year in interest and dividend income. Even if they pay a higher tax rate on that money that they never worked for, they are still going to be rich.

[acorn54]

there is concept called marginal utility
where the first say 50000 dollars is needed for essential living expenses
that is why there is progressive taxation

[Tom]

OK, then tax 5% of everything over the minimum.

[highnote]

OK, then tax 5% of everything over the minimum.

So someone with the wealth on the level of Bill Gates, passes on his entire estate of 50 billion dollars to his only child who is 35 years old. Now that adult child heir earns 5 billion per year in interest, dividend and other income. That heir pays 5% tax on the 5 billion income -- that's just under $250,000,000 per year -- because the first $50,000 is excluded.

This heir still has an income after taxes of 4 billion, 750 million dollars -- which he never had to work a day in his life to earn.

So what does this heir do? He enters politics. What can he do with 4.75 billion dollars per year? He can buy influence. And he can buy a lot of influence every year for the rest of his life. Then he can pass his entire estate of 100 billion dollars onto his heir(s) who will make 10 billion dollars per year without ever working a day in their lives. Then, having a father who had already been entrenched in politics, it won't take much for these heirs to have a lot of influence in politics. What kind of laws will they pass? Will they pass laws that benefit them or laws that benefit all society?

I'm probably exaggerating. No politicians with a lot of inherited wealth would ever be so selfish as to pass laws that only benefit them and the wealthiest people in this country. :D

[Tom]

So Bill's heir is not allowed to take over the assests.
Then who does?
Communism, theft.

It might not be the best systme, but it is the only acceptable one, and the only one that works. The governement is entitled to none of it.

If you are worried about ruling classes and families, then the solution is to put in place governements that do not rename bribery as lobbying. What power would George Soros have if those he has bought and paid were honest men of integrity, who truly represented the people and not thier own greed?

Power only exists when one of the parties allow themsleve to be corrupted by the other. The problem is the weak, miserable people we put into government, not the successful people who try to manipulate them.

Re-distribution of wealth is cause to rebel, to overthrow, as our founding Fathers clearly demonstrated.

"He who would steal my money is welcome to my bullets."
-----------------ME, July 4, 20908!

[highnote]

So Bill's heir is not allowed to take over the assests.
Then who does?
Communism, theft.


It's not communism. Communism would not have allowed people to make great wealth in the first place.

It's meritocracy. You work hard, you can make a lot of money -- if making a lot of money is important to you.

But why should someone who never worked a day in their life take over the assets that they did nothing to earn? That's called entitlement. The fact that we have a strong, stable, balanced government is what allowed for the accumulation of great wealth.

I'm not saying you can't pass on an inheritance to your heirs. The family farm, 5 or 10 million dollars or whatever. But passing on billions of dollars tax free to an heir is not the way to maintain a democracy.






If you are worried about ruling classes and families, then the solution is to put in place governements that do not rename bribery as lobbying.

Do you think bribery and influence would end if lobbying was banned?


Power only exists when one of the parties allow themsleve to be corrupted by the other. The problem is the weak, miserable people we put into government, not the successful people who try to manipulate them.

How many of those weak and miserable people are in place because they were put in office by wealthy benefactors. Then, the people in office pass laws that benefit the wealthy people that put them in office.


Re-distribution of wealth is cause to rebel, to overthrow, as our founding Fathers clearly demonstrated.


I agree. However, once a person is dead that wealth is no longer theirs to manage. A billion dollar estate should not pass tax free to an heir who did nothing to earn it.

I have no problem with passing a family farm or 5 or 10 million dollars to an heir. I think most people could live comfortably for the rest of their lives on that kind of money and never have to work another day if they so choose.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not saying you can't pass on an inheritance to your heirs. The family farm, 5 or 10 million dollars or whatever. But passing on billions of dollars tax free to an heir is not the way to maintain a democracy.This is just so wrong on so many levels, this kind of thinking. It shocks me that there are American citizens who have this kind of mindset...that there is such a thing as TOO RICH or YOU CAN'T DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH YOUR MONEY.

If I make 1 Trillion dollars, and I decide I want to leave it all to my only son or daughter, who the hell are you, or who the hell is the government to come around and tell me I CAN'T, or I have to LIMIT the amount....wow....

[Sailwolf]

This is just so wrong on so many levels, this kind of thinking. It shocks me that there are American citizens who have this kind of mindset...that there is such a thing as TOO RICH or YOU CAN'T DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH YOUR MONEY.

If I make 1 Trillion dollars, and I decide I want to leave it all to my only son or daughter, who the hell are you, or who the hell is the government to come around and tell me I CAN'T, or I have to LIMIT the amount....wow....

Because we as americans are suppose to help the other people get through life

This is suppose to be a society which helps other people.

Not as the richer get richer and the poor gets poor and the middle class gets screwed

Not as I got mine and you can kiss off.

[highnote]

This is just so wrong on so many levels, this kind of thinking. It shocks me that there are American citizens who have this kind of mindset...that there is such a thing as TOO RICH or YOU CAN'T DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH YOUR MONEY.

If I make 1 Trillion dollars, and I decide I want to leave it all to my only son or daughter, who the hell are you, or who the hell is the government to come around and tell me I CAN'T, or I have to LIMIT the amount....wow....


You can do whatever you want with your money. When you're dead it is no longer your money -- unless you can take it with you. You're merely a guardian of the wealth you have created. And you do have some say how that money is managed -- even after death.

I certainly don't think you can be too rich. I want everyone to make as much money as they can.

My argument is that in order to maintain a democracy it is not in the best interest of this country to allow billions or trillions to be passed on to heirs without being taxed.

All I'm saying is that we are more likely to maintain democracy if great wealth is returned to the society that fostered its creation rather than concentrated in the hands of a few.

If being ruled by an aristocracy is more desirable to you than democratically elected officials then vote for politicians who share that sentiment. Or move to a country that allows you to pass on billions of dollars to your heirs.

Saudi Arabia and Dubai come to mind -- two countries where great wealth is in the hands of a few and as a result great power is in the hands of a few. And wealth and power will remain in the hands of a few because the wealth is passed from generation to generation. Perhaps they have created a better government and society than we have here in the United States?

Personally, I prefer having a president rather than a king; living in a democracy rather than a kingdom; living in a country where everyone has a chance for upward mobility rather than only a select few being placed in power based on how much money they have.

But that's just my personal belief. I don't ask you to share it.

As I as said, you can do with your money as you wish. I don't tell you what to do with it. I don't make the law. But we do live in a nation of laws. Most likely you will follow those laws -- even when you don't agree with them. And if enough people don't like the laws then we have a democratic system where those laws can be changed by society -- unlike in a kingdom.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because we as americans are suppose to help the other people get through life

This is suppose to be a society which helps other people.And we do. We help LOTS and LOTS of people, and we didn't need any LAWS passed to do such.

[acorn54]

swetyjohn is correct the income tax code is based on a concept of meritocracy
the theory is that a concentration of wealth leads to an aristocracy instead of maintaining a democratic nation.
thus when one dies the wealth of that person is passed on only in part to the heirs of the estate and the rest to the public treasury.

[highnote]

swetyjohn is correct the income tax code is based on a concept of meritocracy
the theory is that a concentration of wealth leads to an aristocracy instead of maintaining a democratic nation.
thus when one dies the wealth of that person is passed on only in part to the heirs of the estate and the rest to the public treasury.


You said that much more eloquently than I.

I take 4 pages. You take 4 sentences.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Sailwolf
Because we as americans are suppose to help the other people get through life

This is suppose to be a society which helps other people.


Says who????
We do, as PA points out, but supposed to? Says who?
Allowing people the freedom to take care of themselves is all that is required.
Those that fail to do so can do without.
Those who cannot are another story. Those who will not can go to hell.
This is the most benevolent country and always will be, because we are a free people. Take away our freedomm and replace it with dependency on illegitimate governments and that goes away.

[acorn54]

the replacement of a democratic institution of government with an aristocracy
means the majority no longer governs and they are the mercy of the aristocrats.

[Tom]

Like now.

[highnote]

Like now.


pretty much.

[dylbert]

Geez, it is too late for me to try to straighten out warped economic thinking that is going on here. But, let's try!

Income tax is designed to redistribute wealth in capitalist system. US Federal Income tax does that with its progressive, marginal tax brackets. Are these brackets different from 1960s? Yes. Reduction in marginal rates during Reagan Administration did lead to economic boom in United States.

Inheritance tax, also known as estate tax, is tax on wealth. Individuals convert income to wealth through savings. Saving takes many forms. Examples are savings account in local credit union, municipal bonds that pay dividends, common stock that may appreciate and/or pay dividends, and cash that is not consumed.

Sales tax is most regressive tax on low income individuals and families. However, many people view it as "fair" since everyone pays same percentage.

Social security & Medicare contributions (err, payroll taxes) are another set of regressive taxes. Again, these have most impact on low income earners.

Taxing the rich has never been problem, or solution, in United States. The largest problem is over-taxing low income groups. Sales taxes should be replaced by property taxes. Property taxes are tax on accumulated wealth. However, these are often staunchly defended by older (often more affluent) taxpayers. Payroll taxes should be replaced by raising marginal income tax rates to offset reduce contributions.

Can tax system become more fair? Yes. However, it will require significant effort by both Congress and President. So far, neither presidential candidate has addressed this issue directly.

Oh, and whoever posted the scholarly article about income tax become less progressive under Reagan and Bush II, these learned folks missed original tax cutter -- John F. Kennedy. An unanswered question of his shortened term remains, "Would Kennedy have reduced marginal rates by larger percentage?" History is full of such mysteries.

[acorn54]

louis brandais a supreme court justice once said"you can eithier have a concentration of wealth to a few or you can have a democracy but you can not have both"

[Tom]

We are not a democracy - we are a republic.
Whatever we are, we cannot have freedom when we reward failure and penalize success.

[dylbert]

We are not a democracy - we are a republic.
Whatever we are, we cannot have freedom when we reward failure and penalize success.Give this man a cigar! US is federation of states that form a republic.