ABC News: Tax Facts

[The Paperboy]

Simple analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans here

Notes:

The analysis does not point out that the 40% of people who do not pay any Federal tax will receive "tax cut" checks from the IRS.

The upper brackets (over 100K) have significant tax increases. If you also increase capital gains taxes I think you really end up hurting the middle class as the rich will cut back on their spending, cut back on investing and not be as interested in creating or investing in new businesses. Just my humble opinion.

Cut everyones taxes and everyone wins.

Also the chance of Obama changing his plan and increasing taxes on everyone is highly probable.

 

[jreeves]

Simple analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans here

Notes:

The analysis does not point out that the 40% of people who do not pay any Federal tax will receive "tax cut" checks from the IRS.

The upper brackets (over 100K) have significant tax increases. If you also increase capital gains taxes I think you really end up hurting the middle class as the rich will cut back on their spending, cut back on investing and not be as interested in creating or investing in new businesses. Just my humble opinion.

Cut everyones taxes and everyone wins.

Also the chance of Obama changing his plan and increasing taxes on everyone is highly probable.

Over 100 million American families will be effected by the capital gains taxes being raised.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The analysis does not point out that the 40% of people who do not pay any Federal tax will receive "tax cut" checks from the IRS.

McCain wants to hand everyone 5 grand a piece per year to pay for health care - tax payers and non-tax payers.

 

[jreeves]

McCain wants to hand everyone 5 grand a piece per year to pay for health care - tax payers and non-tax payers.

That is completely wrong, he gives a tax credit that would go toward health insurance costs or a portable health savings account.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That is completely wrong, he gives a tax credit that would go toward health insurance costs or a portable health savings account.

Its a REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT. That means you get it whether or not you paid the tax. You pay $0 in taxes - you still get $5,000 from McCain for your health insurance.

This way the financially dysfunctional healthy young people of American can afford to get stellar health care while the financially dysfunctional sick and old still can't afford what they need. Brilliant plan McCain.

 

[jreeves]

Its a REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT. That means you get it whether or not you paid the tax. You pay $0 in taxes - you still get $5,000 from McCain for your health insurance.

This way the financially dysfunctional healthy young people of American can afford to get stellar health care while the financially dysfunctional sick and old still can't afford what they need. Brilliant plan McCain.

The money would go into healthcare spending accounts, so that you can afford to pay for healthcare.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The money would go into healthcare spending accounts, so that you can afford to pay for healthcare.

OK. What's your point? Does the fact that it goes into a bank account somehow negate the fact that it could cost 1.5 trillion dollars a year? Does it negate the fact that its a refundable tax credit - therefore socialist by Republican standards - therefore meaning that John McCain is a socialist by Republican standards? Does it negate the fact that it will provide plenty of health care to those who need it the least and wholly inadequate health care to those who need it the most?

 

[jreeves]

OK. What's your point? Does the fact that it goes into a bank account somehow negate the fact that it could cost 1.5 trillion dollars a year? Does it negate the fact that its a refundable tax credit - therefore socialist by Republican standards - therefore meaning that John McCain is a socialist by Republican standards? Does it negate the fact that it will provide plenty of health care to those who need it the least and wholly inadequate health care to those who need it the most?

No it will eliminate this sort of healthcare gap....
http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/op...r_in_the_presidential_health_care_debate.html
Nearly 200,000 American women are diagnosed with the disease every year. However, they have the best five-year survival rates for breast cancer and the lowest age-adjusted death rates from the disease in the world.

American women have access to the best drugs and high rates of screening for cancer. They also wind up getting more effective treatments earlier than in other health care systems.

In making health care coverage more available and affordable, it is important to ensure that reforms don’t try to save money by discouraging investment in new tools to prevent and predict breast cancer or deny women the right to choose what’s best for them.

Which of the two candidates’ health plans would protect women from the ravages of breast cancer? The nonpartisan Lewin group estimates that Sen. Barack Obama’s health care proposals would increase health care coverage by about 22 million people.

The difference is, under Obama’s plan, private coverage would fall by 21.6 million people. Government-run coverage would soar to nearly 50 million, as employers and individuals dropped their private insurance to enroll in a new national plan and an expanded Medicaid program.

The shift to government-run health care would be the result, as the Lewin report notes, “of lower premiums due to the use of lower health care provider payment levels, as is in Medicare and other government programs.”

Cutting payments to doctors, hospitals and drug companies will hurt women with breast cancer. We have seen the effect government-run health care has had on women with breast cancer before.

Women with breast cancer on Medicaid do not live as long as women with private insurance. In large part that’s because private insurance pays more for care than Medicaid and doesn’t restrict access to certain procedures such as breast-conserving surgery or radiation after mastectomy.
Indeed, Obama proposes to keep costs down by having government decide what drugs and services to pay for. A new government agency that would determine what treatments are most “valuable” already has breast-cancer drugs and surgery in its sights.
In Britain, a similar organization – the model for Obama’s so-called Best Practice Institute – has refused to allow women access to new cancer drugs such as Avastin, Herceptin and Taxol until years after they were in use in America. The result – breast cancer survival rates in Britain are far worse than they are in America.
Does the McCain plan offer women who have or may be diagnosed with breast cancer a better deal? According to the Lewin report, the McCain proposal would expand coverage through private insurance and decreased regulation of health insurance markets.

His plan would provide a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for single filers and $5,000 for families that have private health insurance from an employer or as an individual in the non-group market. Insurers would be permitted to sell insurance across state lines, thus side-stepping state minimum-benefit and insurance-rating regulations.

People could buy less (or more) expensive insurance as they saw fit based on their health and needs. Money left over from the credit could be invested, tax-free, in a health savings account. That also goes for women on Medicaid, who would have the choice of converting their dollars into tax credits.

Why not allow families to save money they otherwise would be forced to spend on premiums to cover services they rarely use? That way, using their own dollars and the coverage of their policy, women diagnosed with breast cancer could go to any physician or any treatment center they wanted. No government agency could tell her what treatment she could have or when.

Women without insurance who already have breast cancer would not be denied coverage. Instead, they would have their insurance premiums subsidized and their care coordinated through a high-risk reinsurance disease management program paid partly by the federal government and partly by insurance companies. Programs that saved money and helped people stay healthy or get better would get more government subsidies.
Health care is not just a necessity, it’s a choice. And for women with breast cancer, it can mean the difference between life and death.

The fact is, in government-run health systems, women with breast cancer live shorter lives and suffer more. In this one respect, the choice this election could not be clearer or more important.

So in the end the $2500 individual healthcare tax credit/ $5000 healthcare family tax credit would save the government money and provide better treatments.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No it will eliminate this sort of healthcare gap....

No it won't. 5k a year ISN'T ENOUGH for the people who need health care the MOST, and Its way more than enough for those who need health care the LEAST. Don't you get that? If you have cancer as a pre-existing condition you really think you're going to find insurance for less than 2.5k a year?

 

[jreeves]

No it won't. 5k a year ISN'T ENOUGH for the people who need health care the MOST, and Its way more than enough for those who need health care the LEAST. Don't you get that? If you have cancer as a pre-existing condition you really think you're going to find insurance for less than 2.5k a year?

That's the reason Mccain advocates this...
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008
As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
John McCain will work with Congress, the governors, and industry to make sure this approach is funded adequately and has the right incentives to reduce costs such as disease management, individual case management, and health and wellness programs.

 

[jreeves]

No it won't. 5k a year ISN'T ENOUGH for the people who need health care the MOST, and Its way more than enough for those who need health care the LEAST. Don't you get that? If you have cancer as a pre-existing condition you really think you're going to find insurance for less than 2.5k a year?

Furthermore, the 5k/2.5k will allow American families to choose their insurers and medical treatments. Instead of having a beaucratic system choose it for them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

that's The Reason Mccain Advocates This...
johnmccain.com - Mccain-palin 2008
As President, John Mccain Will Work With Governors To Develop A Best Practice Model That States Can Follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan Or Gap - That Would Reflect The Best Experience Of The States To Ensure These Patients Have Access To Health Coverage. One Approach Would Establish A Nonprofit Corporation That Would Contract With Insurers To Cover Patients Who Have Been Denied Insurance And Could Join With Other State Plans To Enlarge Pools And Lower Overhead Costs. There Would Be Reasonable Limits On Premiums, And Assistance Would Be Available For Americans Below A Certain Income Level.
John Mccain Will Work With Congress, The Governors, And Industry To Make Sure This Approach Is Funded Adequately And Has The Right Incentives To Reduce Costs Such As Disease Management, Individual Case Management, And Health And Wellness Programs.

Ok - So Where Does The Money Come From Exactly?

 

[jreeves]

Ok - So Where Does The Money Come From Exactly?

www.baltimoreexaminer.com >> Opinion
Instead, they would have their insurance premiums subsidized and their care coordinated through a high-risk reinsurance disease management program paid partly by the federal government and partly by insurance companies.

Having high risk patients get proper treatment would save the federal government money.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Furthermore, the 5k/2.5k will allow American families to choose their insurers and medical treatments..

How does that change anything? What's stopping them from choosing their insurers and medical treatments how?

And are you completely ignorant of the fact that the health care plan provided to federal employees actually allows them to choose from amongst several providers - or just pretending to be?

Instead of having a beaucratic system choose it for them

I used to be a federal employee. I got to pick from several providers. I never experienced any problems.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

www.baltimoreexaminer.com >> Opinion
Instead, they would have their insurance premiums subsidized and their care coordinated through a high-risk reinsurance disease management program paid partly by the federal government and partly by insurance companies.

Having high risk patients get proper treatment would save the federal government money.

So you're saying that part of the money used to pay insurance companies for the premiums required to care for the very sick - would come from the insurance companies?

Does that not impress you as a bone headed idea?


Where exactly will these federal funds come from? Thin air?

 

[jreeves]

How does that change anything? What's stopping them from choosing their insurers and medical treatments how?And are you completely ignorant of the fact that the health care plan provided to federal employees actually allows them to choose from amongst several providers - or just pretending to be?



I used to be a federal employee. I got to pick from several providers. I never experienced any problems.

Because as the earlier article states, patients aren't allowed to receive treatment because of the gap of healthcare funds.

 

[jreeves]

How does that change anything? What's stopping them from choosing their insurers and medical treatments how?

And are you completely ignorant of the fact that the health care plan provided to federal employees actually allows them to choose from amongst several providers - or just pretending to be?



I used to be a federal employee. I got to pick from several providers. I never experienced any problems.

www.baltimoreexaminer.com >> Opinion
In Britain, a similar organization – the model for Obama’s so-called Best Practice Institute – has refused to allow women access to new cancer drugs such as Avastin, Herceptin and Taxol until years after they were in use in America. The result – breast cancer survival rates in Britain are far worse than they are in America.

 

[jreeves]

So you're saying that part of the money used to pay insurance companies for the premiums required to care for the very sick - would come from the insurance companies?

Does that not impress you as a bone headed idea?


Where exactly will these federal funds come from? Thin air?

JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs.

Like I have said, pay attention, by providing care for high risk patients, the federal government will have a net savings.

 

[DavidS]

Simple analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans here

Notes:

The analysis does not point out that the 40% of people who do not pay any Federal tax will receive "tax cut" checks from the IRS.

The upper brackets (over 100K) have significant tax increases. If you also increase capital gains taxes I think you really end up hurting the middle class as the rich will cut back on their spending, cut back on investing and not be as interested in creating or investing in new businesses. Just my humble opinion.

Cut everyones taxes and everyone wins.

Also the chance of Obama changing his plan and increasing taxes on everyone is highly probable.

When George Bush gave his tax cuts, how many jobs over the past 8 years did Bush create? 4 million.

Obama wants to return to the level of taxation that we had under the Clinton administration.

How many jobs were created under the Clinton administration?
23 million.

You need to stop listening to Hannity. Seriously. Obama is raising the rich's taxes to where they were under Bill Clinton. Our economy was GREAT under Bill Clinton. Bush's tax cuts didn't do jack shit for the economy.

You're incorrect about your analysis. It's income over $250,000, not $100,000.

People keep using fear-based tactics to scare people into voting for the other candidate. They'll say "Ayres, Wright, ACORN, Rezko, API" they'll do everything in the world to scare you not to vote for Obama, when the truth is none of those things are scarier than G-d forbid something happening to John McCain and having this she-devil Palin in charge of our nuclear weapons. Not one intelligent person, conservative or liberal thinks this woman is anywhere near ready to be president. So, all I have to do is listen to this woman talk and watch her interviews, even with Sean Hannity, and I'm more scared of her than anything Obama has done.

 

[DavidS]

Over 100 million American families will be effected by the capital gains taxes being raised.

Political Radar: Obama Clarifies Scope of Capital Gains Tax Hike

NOT TRUE AT ALL. The only capital gains taxes that are being increased are on net profits made ABOVE $250,000 in the stock market. And the increase isn't that much!

Example: I make $300,000 profit after commission and fees to my broker, which means I'd probably have to make $500,000 profit. Anyway, the first $250,000 of my net revenue is is taxed at the current rate, 15%. So that's $37,500. Then, $50,000 of my revenue is taxed at 20%. Which is $10,000. So, in all, I'm paying $47,500 vs. paying 15% on all $300,000 which would be $45,000. You're talking about a $2500 difference.

The only way this REALLY impacts you is if you're already super rich. And if you are, the extra taxes won't matter because, hey, you're super rich! But first of all, the average American family doesn't make $300,000 net profit after comission and fees in the stock market. Second of all, the people that do are only taxed an additional 5% on the amount over $250,000. It's not that big of a deal to most of the people out there. And again, I remind you of the stock market under Bill Clinton's tax increases.

And again, Obama is only returning the taxes back to where they were under Clinton. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the stock market was at 3300. Under Bill Clinton, the stock market JUMPED all the way to 14,000. That's over a 300% jump in the market. Obviously Clinton's capital gains tax increases didn't hurt the market whatsoever.