A brief but good analysis of John McCain's tax plan and Barack Obama's tax plan.
If you're into economic growth, McCain's plan is obviously the way to go. If you're into greed and envy, and want to stick it to someone who has more than you, Obama's plan is obviously the way to go.
Rea Hederman, senior policy analyst and assistant director of Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, explains the differences between Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax plans.
Featured Article
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Analysis of McCain and Obama Tax Plans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This analysis of the tax plans is not true, most economists have said Obama has a plan better geared to economic growth. Even Warren Buffet supports the Obama plan.
Thank You.
You mean most liberal economists.
What does that word even mean to you, "Liberal"? It has been over used and worn out. It sounds 20th century; at this point, "liberal" could mean anything. Are you talking financially or socially? I have to be honest with you, the word "comservative"means little these days also, since modern "conservatives" have run up a huge deficit with reckless spending and no longer represent fiscal conservatism, just a collection of divisive social stances. Instead of throwing around names of little value, let's discuss the real details of the tax issue.
No, Saucepot, they mean what they've meant for decades. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really don't understand what they mean and that you're not just attempting to obfuscate what liberalism is (which is what liberals usually do).
You may be confusing the political party terms (Democrat and Republican) with the ideological terms (liberal and conservative).
Conservatives have not run up a huge deficit with reckless spending; to do so would mean that they were not acting conservatively, but liberally. On the other hand, there are some Republicans (liberal Republicans) who have participated with liberals in the Democrat Party in doing just that: huge and reckless spending, spawning huge deficits.
Conservative and liberal are just as useful as they have long been to describe different political philosophies.
Conservatives typically support fiscal restraint, limited government, minumum taxes, adherance to the Constitution and established law, traditional norms, capitalism, personal responsibility, strong national defense, protection of the traditional institutions of marriage and family, etc.
Liberals typically support large amounts of social spending, looking to government as the be-all and end-all for every issue, high taxes to support the aforementioned big government, view the Constitution as an outdated document that must be "reinterpreted" at will to allow whatever notion strikes, abolishing norms, socialism, promotion and accommodation of a sense of universal victimhood, seeking peace through disarmament and being nice, and re-engineering marriage, family, and whatever we want into whatever we want.
There are some crossovers in both parties. Zel Miller from Georgia was mostly conservative even though he was in the Democrat Party until he retired. Joe Lieberman, while liberal on most issues, is conservative on national defense. Unfortunately, the Republican Party suffers from more "crossovers" than does the Democrat Party; we have liberals like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffe, Chris Shays, and so on. Even President Bush is only nominally conservative; pretty strong on national defense, but only moderately strong as a social conservative, somewhat liberal fiscally, and pretty liberal when it comes to big government.
So you see, while Republicans have done a lousy job in the last 8 years or so, it hasn't been conservatives behind it. If we had more conservatives in the Republican Party, and more in congress overall, most of the problems we see today wouldn't exist. It's been mismanagement by liberals in both parties.
I agree with you that the substantive details of the issues should be discussed and examined. But at the same time, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" remain very useful and descriptive (far more than "Democrat" or "Republican") in quickly identifying the substance and flavor of a candidate or issue. Much in the way "hot" doesn't tell you exactly what's in a taco, but it gives you an idea of what the taco is going to taste like, or "green" tells you that a new employee doesn't know much yet.
John McCain continues his onslaught of lies and distortions. Why does he still think that people are going to be fooled by his lies about Obama's tax plans?
If Joe the Plumber thinks he can't afford to buy the business under Obama's tax plan then he really needs to consult a good accountant. Obama's plan lowers taxes on the first $250,000 Joe makes. On the money over $250,000, Joe would pay 39% under Obama, instead of the 36% he now pays. That's 3% more taxes, not exactly break-the-bank if you have already made $250,000 at a low rate. In fact, if Joe makes $280,000 then his taxes will only go up $900 a year (that's 3% of $30,000, the amount over $250,000). Plus, Obama will give him a $1,000 tax credit for every job he creates, and tax credits for every employee that he provides health insurance for. Under Obama's plan, Joe's business will actually pay LESS TAX than it does now, as long as he has even just one employee.
McCain's plan will tax the first $250,000 at a the current rate, then drop the taxes on anything over $250,000 by an unspecified amount. McCain's plan does not give him a tax credit for every job he creates. If he provides health care for his employees he will now have to deduct yet another tax from their paychecks, adding administrative burden to his company. Not to mention that Joe will have to pay this tax himself on his personal income, which amounts to an extra $4,200 a year he pays in taxes (35% of the $12,000 a typical policy costs). And if his company does not provide health care, he and his employees will have to pay individually for their health insurance (average cost $12,000 per year), they'll get a $5,000 tax credit under McCain, but be out of pocket at least $7,000 per year for their policy. Either way, Joe will pay MORE taxes under McCain's plan.
I'm glad you brought up Joe the Plumber, Roark, because he has put a spotlight on the single most important aspect of this whole debate.
Regardless of whether this guy pays more under this plan or that guy pays less under another plan, the fact remains that Obama's wealth redistribution philosophy is un-American. Yes, un-American.
America was founded on the value of equality of all people.
Obama's philosophy is Marxism and progressive taxation, a plank of the Communist Manifesto. This "stick it to the rich" philosophy is built entirely on greed and envy, and is totally un-American.
The only tax plan truly in sync with Americanism is one where all people pay the same percentage. That way, if you make less, you pay less; if you make more, you pay more, but it is proportional, not punitive.
Our private businesses are the engine of American success and prosperity. The loathing Obama and his socialist ilk have for them is also un-American.
Post a Comment