Political Punch

Regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, it all comes down to this.

If the politicians truly believe that higher taxes are bad, then they have the power to lower them.

If the politicians truly believe the deficit is bad, they alone have the ability to retire it.

Why do people in both Houses not pay Social Security like you and I are forced to pay?

Why do they have a health plan that any of us would absolutely love to have with no co-pay on their end?

Why are they all rich to a point that most of us would enjoy?

How is it they have a retirement plan that pays them over 140K a year for twenty years of self engrandisement?

There is a great article written about the 545 people who actually run this country.

Congress, Senate, President and the Supremes.

How are 300 million people divided by the rhetoric of so few that bait us against each other and suck the prosperity out of our lives and burden us with taxes that take until sometime in April to earn before we earn a dime for ourselves?

The real questions should be these.

Why are there not term limits on all national politicians? Two terms and you move on never to hold office again.

Why are using funds from the govt to support campaigns both legal and moral? You want to win, then you use your money or donations.

Why can a politician run for a different office than the one he holds and if he loses he can go back to the one he was trying to leave? You toss your hat into the ring, you lose, you lose both the office you were vying for and the one you were trying to vacate.

Why is Hilary now 20 million in debt and Obama is trying to swing some dough her way to pay off a debt she incurred? But that cuts both ways for both parties.

We fought a war over taxation once. But it seems now with the two party system and the good ole boy system in Washington it matters not who we elect, because it's all a dog an pony show to get rich and gain power for the select few.

If we want all this nonsense to go away, we need only become a united voice and throw out the scoundrels and wastrels who squander our taxes to empower themselves.

As long as we argue about Obama and Mccain, we never focus on the real problem.

It's called government.

Had Mr. Tapper properly researched his story he would have discovered what is known as the Earned Income Tax Credit which has the stated purpose of reimbursing low income workers for the FICA taxes they pay. They ALREADY get those "taxes" refuned. And they are not taxes, they fund a defined benifit. Else he, like Obama, is relying on the ignorance of the American People, in not knowing this fact and lying about that fact that Obama's wealth transfer scheme is just that a wealth transfer scheme and he is turning SS and Medicare into true welfare programs.

Not only are you facts wrong, but you are dilibertly misleading your readers....again. You and Obama are just, well, lying. Call it what it is welfare. When you give from one to another is is socialism or commonly called welfare.

The biggest problem with this analysis is that it is:

STATIC

The point of McCain's tax plan is to spur economic growth so that tax revenue will increase (and people's salaries also will increase.

This static analysis does not take that into account and misses the primary point of the tax cuts.

Jake Tapper: why does the media allow the candidates to buy our votes? These tax cut one-ups are a destructive contest to appeal to voters' most selfish desires: which candidate puts the most money or benefits in my pocket?

Rather than allow the candidates to dictate the rules of the race, the media should hold them to a higher standard. For example, we have $10 trillion in debt. Why shouldn't taxes remain the same, or go up across the board, to pay for all of this overspending?

Instead, the media seems to be content with the one-upsmanship vote buying by both campaigns. It really is another Iraq war-type failure of the news media.

Much of this discussion is about perception, but perception matters. I think most American want o believe/perceive that the American dream is still alive and that we are a generally free market economy made up of semi-rugged individualists who want to seek the American dream for themselves and their family. Income taxes are perceived by most as going into the general fund for a united benefit of the country - support defense, etc. Payroll taxes are tied to a potential benefit - supposedly you are putting into social security to receive a retirement income down the road. Benefits are at least nominally tied to contributions. What you are suggesting is that we get rid of Social Security and probably Medicare as separate items and just have one big pot in which to throw money and then have the politicians divvy it up as they see fit. That would allow them to cut off payments to people in retirement with large dividend or interest producing portfolios because "they won't need the money - they're rich". Would permit them to push them out of Medicare, too. This road of essentially giving back payroll tax payments by calling them income tax cuts/rebates allows benefits to be cut-off from any ties to contributions. Once you do that you are providing a welfare-type benefit to people. The hard part is that most Americans do not want to think they are getting something for nothing or more than their fair share and they cetainly do not want to feel like they are on welfare. If you ask most Americans what the maximum percentage a person should pay in income tax should be they almost always come up with a number well below the actual figure applied to someone making a large income. If we want to count payroll taxes as income taxes then we should at least be honest about and let the American worker know that when they get a benefit from the federal government - retirement or medical - it is a welfare-type transfer payment. They can then decide if a plan like that one is or isn't pushing us toward socialism and the rise of a welfare state mentality in place of the old go and make something of yourself mentality. When you start getting checks from the government and they go up every year with the cost of living you no longer look to hold politicians accountable for how well they spend the treasury - you only want to make sure that they keep sending you your monthly stipend.

The real problem w/ Obama's tax plan is it's fictional. What I mean by this is he won't do it. You think he's actually going to cut taxes when he gets in? Hah I say! When has he EVER cut taxes in the past? He's only raised them! Believing Obama is like believing that your drunk uncle will stay sober at your family reunion. Or that your spouse really won't cheat on you again after he/she has already done it five times. It's amazing how you liberals are falling for this!!

It really doesnt matter what Obama says about his tax plan. The fact is: Mr Obama is NOT a tax cutter and he never has been.

Michelle: "Umm. so under Obama $250K really means $110K? Because he said he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K. "

No. You just don't understand how this works.

In that quintile (top 20% of wage earners), the AVERAGE is an increase of $4,600.

That doesn't mean EVERYONE in that group will get a tax increase. Some of them will be getting a cut, some of them no change, and some an increase. It's the AVERAGE of all of those that's an increase of $4,600.

For example, say you've got five people, three earning less and getting a $1000 tax cut, one earning a bit more who has no change in his taxes, and one earning a lot more who's going to get a $26,000 tax increase. The average for that group is a $4600 tax increase - but only one of them, the one earning the most, is actually getting an increase. The others are getting cuts or no change.

Get it?

Bad interpretation of the analysis. You dont mention that the report says that people in the 80-95% ($111K to $226K) get over $2,000 in tax cuts under the Obama plan. Only people making over $226K under the TPC report pay more in taxes. Without breaking it down, you totally changed what the report was saying...

"Your capital gains rate is tied to your income bracket. "

Uh, no it's not. There are only 2 types of capital gains taxes. Short term and long term.

That's it. It's not "progressive".

Let's just ask one question.

What is wrong for the government to tax less from everyone?

According Jake's numbers, McCain is the only one who gives everyone tax cut.

Zero raises taxes on anyone/couples making more than $110K - not-so-good-middle-class income.

If you're in the top quintile, making above $110,000, McCain will give you a tax cut of $12,144 while Obama will raise your taxes $4,600 more. (Obama says it will not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000, or couples making less than $250,000.)
====

Zero has lied to the voters. A liar is not to be trusted.

For someone who likes to paint his opponent as a "socialist", I think John McCain's "let's spend $300 billion of tax payers' money to buy up and renegotiate mortgages!" sounds an awful lot like the definition of socialism he is using on Obama. Those who live in glass houses...

All I know is, if McBush wins next month, we are screwed.

Jiff

Greenback,

Obama reported accounts with Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management, an elite firm that deals only with the rich, as well as a host of retirement accounts, some in the name of his wife, Michelle.

Because the required disclosure forms allow candidates to report their assets in ranges, such as $250,001 to $500,000, Obama's net worth at the end of 2007 -- not including his home and other nonfinancial assets -- was pegged between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000.

Tax-free income
By far the largest account, valued between $1 million and $5 million, was in the Northern Municipal Money Market Fund. It generated tax-free interest in 2007 of between $15,001 and $50,000.

Northern Trust "has built a well-deserved reputation around being the banker for the überrich," says Andrew Richards, a Morningstar equity analyst. In a report on the Chicago company's stock, he writes, "The firm estimates it serves roughly 20% of the richest families profiled annually in the Forbes 400."

Obama the tax dodger isn't spreading his wealth with anyone but himself.

Umm. so under Obama $250K really means $110K? Because he said he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K. And some of you want to trust him with the budget? or anything else, for that matter? Scary.

Also, as others have pointed out...it is not a "tax cut" if you don't pay taxes--it is a "tax credit" (otherwise known as "welfare" or a "handout" or "spreading the wealth" or "socialism")

Here's a little reminder for everyone. Between 2000 and 2004 Barak Obama and his wife gave less then 1 Percent to charities on their 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR salary, far below the national average. While the McCain's gave well ABOVE the national average. I guess spreading the wealth for Obama means everyone else's money BUT HIS!!!!! And anybody who believes the rich will pay more taxes under Obama just has no clue and lives in a fantasy world. FACT, Jimmy Carter tried the same thing and the rich pulled their money out of the economy and placed it in TAX FREE treasury bonds and into offshore accounts. Inflation spiraled and interest rates on mortgages rose to 16 Percent. The rich paid LESS in taxes then any other time in the history of the US. So, if it makes you feel better to think the rich are getting screwed, go ahead, but it's just not going to happen, and the middle class will me screwed again. Learn some history before you vote for a fantasy!!!!

If you're in the fourth quintile, making between almost $66,000 and about $110,000, McCain gives you a $1,487 tax cut, Obama will give you a $1,264 tax cut.

If you're in the top quintile, making above $110,000, McCain will give you a tax cut of $12,144 while Obama will raise your taxes $4,600 more. (To suss this out a little more -- the Obama campaign says it will not raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000, or couples making more than $250,000.)

"So if you're voting at least in part based on the tax proposals a candidate is making ... "
-----
The mob-friendly "Democrat" has bought the imperial White House, but based on past performance, there's absolutely no reason to believe that "plans" and "proposals" running counter to the corporate will are actually going to happen.

To avoid personal responsibility for the fascist whirlwind we're about to reap, vote for Ralph Nader.

Greg h
Thats not true..

John McCain giving $200 Billion to the Rich and Compaines doesnt create a single new job...

Say its walmart that gets $30m from that $200 billion dollars of our money mccain is giving away thats not going to create one new job sure walmart will be $30m richer but no new jobs will be created..

The middle class are treading water (dept Labor) if there treading water they are not buying so Walmart wont hire more people..

Giving Tax breaks to the middle class..Cashing them up.. Then they will spend it..Which will create new demand and then which will help walmart and they need extra staff.. Its not rocket science..

Its just how economic stimulus works.

Baracks Plan puts the tax rates for those making above $250 000 back to where they were before Bush's tax cuts. The same rates that where in place under Clinton.

John McCains tax plan ads $3-$3.6 trillion dollars to the national debt.
(Washington post has different figure to the Tribune comp)

Baracks is paid for by the the rise on those making above $250 000.