Washington Post compares Obama and McCain tax plans, side by side

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Edited September 14, 2008 by A.J.

[William33 110]

Minor difference for me also. I'll take McCain for his experience.

[dalegg 143]

I do minimally better under McCain. Are we talking about another round of tax cuts regardless of who's in office, or is the just a comparison of what McCain's plan would be vs rolling back Bush's plan?

I'll tell you what though, if I fell in that top bracket and I got hit up with an additional $700,000 tax bill, I'd be pretty damned ticked off no matter what my salary was. Someone gets cut from the Christmas list thats for sure.

[Dan J 277]

The real question is how they will pay for their plans. Paying for it on borrowed money, will decrease the value of the dollar and increase cost of imported goods (Which make up most of our goods). It wont take long for the tax savings to be eaten up with increased prices.

I do minimally better under McCain. Are we talking about another round of tax cuts regardless of who's in office, or is the just a comparison of what McCain's plan would be vs rolling back Bush's plan?

I'll tell you what though, if I fell in that top bracket and I got hit up with an additional $700,000 tax bill, I'd be pretty damned ticked off no matter what my salary was. Someone gets cut from the Christmas list thats for sure.

But on the other hand, its those people that have benefited most from our recent economic growth.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

a slight advantage for me to see obama win, but i don't see it being worthwhile.

[dalegg 143]

But on the other hand, its those people that have benefited most from our recent economic growth.

I don't feel comfortable with that logic. Of course some of those are the people that benefit the most from growth, but these are already the people that pay the most into the system. This makes it sound like these people somehow owe me something and I really know nothing about the circumstances to which they came across their wealth. Some of these people started off very low and took risks that people like me wouldn't take, so why in the world would I want to punish them? Others have created job opportunities with their wealth. That's not a bad thing. Right now their tax rates are already higher than ours. It's just a class warfare thing that I don't care for. Everybody should pay an equal share in my opinion. No free rides.

[Dan J 277]

But on the other hand, its those people that have benefited most from our recent economic growth.

I don't feel comfortable with that logic. Of course some of those are the people that benefit the most from growth, but these are already the people that pay the most into the system. This makes it sound like these people somehow owe me something and I really know nothing about the circumstances to which they came across their wealth. Some of these people started off very low and took risks that people like me wouldn't take, so why in the world would I want to punish them? Others have created job opportunities with their wealth. That's not a bad thing. Right now their tax rates are already higher than ours. It's just a class warfare thing that I don't care for. Everybody should pay an equal share in my opinion. No free rides.

Equal share will never work. If everyone was responsible for an equal share of taxes, every person would be expected to pay $4200 a year in taxes. A family of 4 would be at about $17000 in taxes.

Sounds like a great deal for wealthy, but, most of the wealthy make their money directly or indirectly off of providing goods and services to everyone else. If everyone pays an equal share of taxes, the spending money of most tax payers would be severely reduced. Which will have significant economic consequences.

In a sense, a good progressive tax system is about as fair as you can get. While the lower and middle classes may not be paying their "fair" share. They are generating more growth and wealth for business owners by buying goods and services. The fair portion is that the poor and middle class are not paying, is instead getting paid by the upper classes through the wealth generated by selling goods and services.

[IAMX 3,055]

I love McCain's tax plan. Very straight forward. Those who make more money get taxed less. That makes perfect sense, when you're catering to the mindset that promotes riches and more riches. However, I don't see the middle class and lower class getting any richer. I give props to Obama's plan for increasing taxes on the rich to offset the tax breaks for those who actually need tax breaks, but I'm pretty sure unless there's a Republican overtaking of Congress, if he were President the Democrats likely would raise taxes across the board, making his argument on taxes a bit moot since he can't make the laws. And I see no evidence that he'd veto it.

Edited September 14, 2008 by SRVT

[kaydee457 13]

Uh, where's Obama's increase on Capital Gains factored in?