Let’s Talk: Taxes
I’ve heard enough (anything at all seems too much) about pregnant teenagers and flag pins. Let’s talk about the issues.
According to Time magazine, this is what John McCain and Barak Obama have to say on particular issues.
First up on the block is the only other thing in life that is cetain, besides death – TAXES.
What have the candidates said about this issue?
McCain said he would:
• Keep taxes low and cut them where he could.
• Double the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000.
• Cut the business tax rate to help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas.
Obama said he would:
• Cut taxes “for 95 percent of all working families.”
• “Eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses” and start-ups “that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”
• Advocate “a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.”
• “Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas” and “start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.”
Anon E. Mouse Analysis:
Mr. McCain offers up, perhaps, the only actual objective “promise” out of the convention oratory. Doubling the Child Tax Exemption from $3,500 to $7,000. Keeping taxes low is important to many folks who look at the difference between the gross and net numbers son their paychecks every week and want to cry. Please tell me how you are going to make sure that your new tax breaks for corporations are going to keep jobs in the USA and not just line pockets of the big shots that sit on the Board of Directors.
Mr. Obama*, at least in this analysis, offers up rhetoric. What does he mean when he says “95% of all working families”? This sounds great but please define “working family.” Also, please define “small business.” Please cite examples of the tax code you wish to change – especially examples of those that seem to be written by lobbyists. I have no doubt they exist, but it just sounds awfully vague.
*I know my criticisms appear a bit one-sided. On this subject, I believe they are warranted. As this series progresses, you should see that I criticize both candidates for being vague or having nothing to say at all on some subjects.
Coming up next: Education
September 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
It would also be helpful if you went to both candidates’ websites to search for actual white papers and policy positions, rather than just rely on a single speech.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Actually, Obama has already defined it as households making less than $250,000 a year.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas†and “start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.†What about corporations like Caterpillar that do both? By moving some operations outside of the U.S., Cat has been able to greatly increase their U.S. hiring.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Sorry – Cat increases employment because they profit from moving some operations to other countries. They reinvest that profit in the U.S. – not just foreign countires.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Great, increase the tax break for popping out children. What about those of us who are single, without children, busting our ass to make ends meet and taking on the brunt of the tax burden?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I agree, Cory. Why should MY taxes be higher than somone who chooses to have children?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I used to think the same thing… until I got married and had kids.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Whichever plan may be feasible, the next pres is going to inherit one hell of a decifit, thanks to W. Personally, I think McCain is capable of pulling a “Read my lips, no new taxes” blunder like George Sr. did.
And Cory, you’re saving money by not having the expense of kids. Believe me, you would rather have a little more money pulled from your check versus the astronomical cost of raising children.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Took me 45 seconds to find these links to Obama’s more specific plans. They all say the same thing, because they’re all based on the Obama website link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0779778
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/15/1268124.aspx
http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/
September 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Cameron,
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. But I do find it unfair that it’s basically impossible for a single person to buy a decent home in a nice neighborhood on an average American’s salary.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Cameron: If I or Cory “save money” by not having it kids, it’s because we made th choice to NOT have them. if people have kids, it’s because they made the choice to have them, hence parents shouldn’t child rearing costs shoudln’t be subsidized by the the childless. Tax benefits because base d entirely on how many chilsdren one has is nanny-state, it-takes-a-village thinking at its mose insideous. It’s not being pro-family. It’s pandering the the biggest taxpayer group, pure and simple.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“But I do find it unfair that it’s basically impossible for a single person to buy a decent home in a nice neighborhood on an average American’s salary.”
I found that was true — in Peoria. Which is why I bought a house in Woodford County. Also, 17 years of living in a basement apartment in Peoria allowed me to save lots of money. Paid off the house in nine years, retired three years later.
And Billy, families with kids are hardly the only group politicians pander to. Homeowners are subsidized, too.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Billy,
Do you consider your contribution to public schools unfair? How about the amount of taxes you pay that support police? Since you likely don’t “use” either resource, in a consumption sense, then is it unfair you foot the bill for that too?
How about credits for education? Did you go to college? Why should someone who didn’t go to college subsidize your education?
Just how far does YOUR tax dollar go in the grand scheme of things, eh?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Don’t forget that McCain wants to tax workers on the health-insurance benefits they receive from their employers.
I would much rather see that one go the other direction: don’t tax any money spent on health insurance. Allow people whose employers don’t provide any health insurance to deduct the cost of it from their income tax. That would at least help to make insurance more affordable.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The McCain proposal to tax health-insurance benefits is just so wrong. He’s trying to privatize the entire system. It will never work and is backward-looking in the extreme. Of course, he’d never get it through the Democratic Congress.
Normally, I like gridlock. It worked in the ’90s. But the country has too many urgent problems to tolerate it for four more years.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
We’ve got to quit letting the insurance lobby help pols write their tax plans, just as we’ve got to quit letting the drug lobby help pols write their health plans.
Now, who is “we”? All of us. How many of “all of us” care to get involved and do anything about it? Not enough.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Yeah, Mouse, do at least a LITTLE research. It’s one-sided because you apparently know McCain’s plan and couldn’t be bothered to look up Obama’s.
You can even just link to other websites that have already done the research. Like the lovely graph here: http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/obama_and_taxes.php
September 9th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
(Or you can go straight to the WPost for the graph, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html , and not read lawyers bitching about getting taxed more.)
September 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“What about corporations like Caterpillar that do both?”
EPB, the original idea he floated for “Patriot Corporations” while running for senate called for a certain percentage “core functions” to be performed in the United States. So if you are Affina, for example, and run call centers, to be eligible for certain kinds of corporate tax breaks, a certain percentage of your call center jobs would have to be located in the US. You CAN offshore some of them, but if you offshore most of your “core” work, you aren’t eligible for US tax breaks, which are intended to help create jobs and stimulate the economy in the US.
This is a pretty good summary of the idea: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/schakowsky , which originates from an Illinois state rep and a Monmouth College professor. A summary of the bill Schakowsky (IL-9) introduced is here: http://www.fantasycongress.com/legislation/H.R.3319
If I recall correctly, Obama’s Senate-run suggestion (and I believe it was presented as a suggestion, not a plan or specific goal) for Patriot Corporations wasn’t nearly as sweeping. (I recall his as having a particular percentage of core functions on-shore, a cap on the ratio of top wages w/r/t bottom wages (you can raise the bottom or lower the top, your option), and abiding by federal safety regs.)
Frankly, I think it’s just common sense. Schakowsky’s bill might go too far in its goals, but I think it’s absurd to provide tax breaks to corporations to create jobs overseas and enrich a small handful of already-wealthy top management. Tax breaks should be creating good-paying jobs in the US and increasing the spending power of the middle class. Paris Hilton can already buy any damned thing she wants.
And again, this wouldn’t be the sum total of all available corporate tax breaks. They could still seek breaks in other ways.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Um Bob, are you trying to create an argument where non existed? Billy didn’t complain about ANY of the things in your post, you completely fabricated your entire argument. If you’re going to pick a fight make sure its not against yourself.
Everyone reaps the benefit of a protected and educated society, you don’t get a benefit just because the family across town popped out a baby.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Eyebrows rocks, as usual.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
There’s so much subsidization going on, everybody is getting taxed SOMEWHERE to pay for some constituency group. The tax credit given to people for squirting out children is just the most blatant.
And thanx 11Bravo.
AND for what’s it worth, I completely support public education. The money I spend in school taxes goes to making sure there’s a literate populace who can read my blog.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hey, cg12, how come only Eyebrows rocks? I posted three links to Barack’s plan earlier in the day. Spread that cheer around!
September 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“Everyone reaps the benefit of a protected and educated society, you don’t get a benefit just because the family across town popped out a baby.”
Yeah, because that society just keeps going without those babies being “popped” out.
If you’re going to throw stones…
my point was exactly as Billy stated, everything is subsidized. I wasn’t creating an argument as much as putting into words a reality Billy already knew.
out.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
scratch that last post, i apologize. i didn’t mean to sound harsh, nor was i trying to start an argument where none existed. i was merely trying to point out that calling child tax credits unfair simply targets one aspect of social subsidies when there are in fact many. i disagree with the notion that you do not benefit from the neighbor popping out a kid.
my questions were rhetorical of billy, not meant as attacks.
mea culpa.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
B.J.: Eyebrows rocks because she’s better looking than you.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I have seen that wonderful graphic illustrating what someone thinks the tax increases and breaks for each plan might be. What I cannot find is the original source from the Obama campaign.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“Great, increase the tax break for popping out children. What about those of us who are single, without children, busting our ass to make ends meet and taking on the brunt of the tax burden?”
LOL.. if you don’t have more disposable money than the one’s popping out children, then you are doing it wrong. I give that a FAIL.
I had WAY more money when I was single and childless.
Those deductions do not even begin to make up for the cost of children.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It matters little to ME if the tax breaks covers the cost of raising someone else’s skids. It’s still MY money out of MY pockets to give money to someone simply because they have kids and I don’t.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I’d rather give money to people reproducing themselves than to farmers. Now there’s a real scam.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Neither candidate is going to fulfill their promises because they don’t make the laws, Congress does, and this Congress will do nothing to help us out of this mess we are in.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Roman: we don’t know yet how the next congress is going to shake out. There are enough closely contested races to really change the tenor of the house for certain. Why don’t we take a “wait and see” attitude before we start blaming congress on this one.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Those kids are going to be working to make your later years and retirement more comfortable. Those children are vital to the economic well being of everyone. If you are not going to be providing for the future labor of the economy by siring some children then you can pony up some extra cash now in lieu of it.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Well if we follow this line of thinking out to its rational conclusion, the government should be supplying a big enough bonus to convince people to have children. How much would it take per person in subsidies from the government for you to have a child?