Oct

TAX PLANS: Compare McCain and Obama

Posted by: Scott @ 11:12 am in Barack Obama, Economy, John McCain, Politics

Visited 1277 times, 1 so far today

Every tax increase has positives and negatives, and the same is true for every tax cut. This site gives a VERY good comparison and a detailed look at both the McCain tax plan and the Obama tax plan (guess which candidate is going to increase the amount taken from your paycheck for Social Security?). I found it informative, not all that surprising but far more informative than,
“I’m only gonna tax the top 5%”(LIE) or
“I’m gonna give 95% of Americans a tax cut”(LIE),
and so forth

PLEASE check it out, and be informed.
link

Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Economy, John McCain, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

3 comments so far

Rocky_B

Thanks Scott, Going to have to look more deeply into it. This is definitely not the same tax plan that was showing for Obama just 2 months ago. The no income taxes on seniors making less than $50K is definitely new. However, his 45% inheritance tax plan for businesses worth $3.5 million would likely destroy many family owned businesses that would have to sell the business just to pay the taxes. Examples:

The costs for opening a fast food franchise restaurant starts at around $1-2 million. You often have to be able to prove you have a net worth of $2 million, and $500K of it in hand before many corporations will even talk to you. Depending on location and market, you can rake in around $1 million profit per year. So theoretically if a single parent with $1.5 million in real estate, double mortgages their property and life savings, let’s say for the $1.5 million investment into a restaurant. After a few years clears $2.5 million total. Should the parent die, the profits are then liquidated to pay off their mortgage and other debts. Total asset worth after death is $3.6 Million. Their will awards the real estate to one child and the business to another. Obama’s inheriance tax has the estate owing the government $1,575,000. Presuming neither wants to give up their property, now it goes into litigation and probate. The Judge orders both properties sold at auction so each can pay their share. The business is forced to close and in today’s buyer’s market, by the time the legal costs and probate and everything else is finished both children would probably be lucky to walk away with $500K each.

The scenario is just as bad when all assets are one, such as with a family-run farm. This is one business particularly vulnerable to inheritance tax destruction.

October 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

charles

Obama’s tax plan will destroy the Social Security system.

Obama says his income tax plan will lower taxes for 95% of Americans. There is just one problem with this, 40% of Americans already pay no income tax. Obama’s response to this is that these people pay Social Security tax. Well, that’s not income tax, but a contribution to their retirement plan. So if he wins and implements his tax plan, for the first time in the history of Social Security, 40% of the people who will get retirement benefits will have paid nothing for them. Social Security will then loose all pretext of being a retirement plan, and will become a national welfare program.

This will cause Social Security to lose public support in a massive way. Leave Social Security contributions out of income tax plans. If you take some peoples income taxes to pay others Social Security taxes, Social Security will be destroyed forever.

http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-tax-plan-will-destroy-social.html

October 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Jacob

Charles, I don’t think that what you state is even close to being possible. First off, Obama plans to cut taxes for “95% of workers and their familes,” taken right from his site. This has been verified by the Tax Policy Center. Those who are not working and not paying taxes are not included in this. I think this 40% number gets batted around a lot without much understanding about what it actually is. Also, most all of his credits (aside from the EIC) would not be applicable to those who are not working.

October 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm