Who Actually Pays The Taxes??

[Toro]

Funny thing is, when you cut the corporate tax rate historically, tax revenues increase. Now why do you want to raise the corporate tax rate?

High U.S. Corporate Tax Rates. The United States has the second highest total corporate income tax rate of any developed country. In 1986 President Ronald Reagan cut the corporate income tax rate from 43 percent to 34 percent, significantly improving America’s competitive advantage over high-tax countries. In 1993 President Clinton raised the corporate income tax rate 1 percentage point, which brought the federal tax rate to 35 percent, where it remains today. However, including average state corporate taxes, the combined total U.S. corporate income tax rate is 39.25 percent, second only to Japan’s 39.54 percent. In contrast, the average corporate tax rate of industrialized countries in the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was 27.6 percent in 2007 [see Figure I] and is due to fall even further.


Workers bear slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of high corporate
taxes in the form of reduced wages, estimates the Congressional Budget Office.

A $1 increase in corporate taxes tends to reduce real median wages by 92 cents, concludes an Oxford University study.n A 1 percentage-point increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates, according to an American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) study.
Economists caution that people ultimately pay taxes, not corporations.
Thus, corporate tax hikes unintentionally hurt workers.

Because they contribute to capital flight, high corporate tax rates also lower government revenue.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba633/ba633.pdf
Yeah let's get those damn corporations and tax 'em to death.

I didn't say I wanted to raise taxes on corporations. What I said was that raising the income tax on people how make more than $250k by 3% wasn't going to destroy the middle class, nor was it going to destroy the economy.

Also, you are quoting statutory rates of income tax. Those are irrelevant when comparing to what corporations actually pay. And corporations in America pay amongst the lowest effective tax rates in the industrialized world, as I linked above.

I generally support lower corporate taxes. However, the Republicans have been absolutely disastrous handling the books of this country - and I'm not talking about the bailout. Two of the past three Republican administrations - Reagan and W - have been utterly incompetent dealing with the fiscal affairs of this nation. At least George HW Bush understood that this bizarre fantasy amongst wide swaths of the GOP known as supply side economics, where you can balance the budget by cutting taxes, was utter nonsense, voodoo economics. And what did the GOP base do? They rebelled against him.

I'm sorry. I used to be a Republican until I realized how irresponsible the party had become, and how disconnected they had become from basic economics and math.

 

[pegwinn]

Iraq war spending is/was so out of control that the Federal Reserve had to print more money to send over. Remember that for 5 years now Bush has gone way over budget. Printing more money caused inflation. I'm sorry that fact bothers you. Bothered? Moi? Sorry, as I said, this thread isn't about Iraq. Redirection won't change that.

Iraq spending has a lot more than you think to do with the state of our economy.

And the constitution doesn't say the Federal Government can't tax corporations more and people less? Does it say you can? Show me. You will have to restate your question in the form of an actual question. Is this the part that had you confused? Maybe I am missing a nuance?

Yes you can do better than zero. In Alaska, palin taxes the oil corporations and she gives it to the broke ass citizens. Why's it cool for her to do that and we can't do that for our citizens? Because there is no provision in the US Constitution to do so that's why. To be blunt there is no authority for the fed to dish out charity of any form be it foriegn or domestic. What a state does is its' own business so long as the US Constitution isn't violated. Basic Civics.

Then read this as a homework assignment.

ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Look at how much corporations paid before Reagan. Don't just roll back Bush's tax cuts, but also REAGANS.

The article was nice but it left out some things that ought to be done.

First, we scrap the income tax (both personal and corporate) and replace it with a National Sales Tax. There is one stuck in the House Ways and Means Committee headed by Mr. Rangel. It is ironic that he who writes the tax laws is having tax issues and has tax reform stuck in his committee. Perhaps instead of Ironic we could say Karmic?

Next, we need a balanced budget amendment with the only exception being during time of war.

The President needs a line item veto.

Finally, the Enumerated Powers Act needs to be passed and implemented.

Two of these items are already bills being held up in Congress. If your Rep isn't a co-sponsor you might ask him/her why not.

 

[editec]

We need to raise tariffs on imported goods.

That's the taxation we need to improve the American economy.

Anything else we do is merely rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ocean liner.

 

[Toro]

We need to raise tariffs on imported goods.

That's the taxation we need to improve the American economy.

Anything else we do is merely rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ocean liner.

I don't think that's a good idea, especially now.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Navy1960]

Actually, yes, throughout the 20th century raising taxes on the wealthy and redistributing the income, either in the form of higher social payments or tax cuts to lower income has helped decrease the income gap between the wealthiest and the middle class, detailed here. It is not the only reason, but it is a reason. Nor has it hurt American productivity, nor has it hurt US growth, nor has it hurt job growth.

Job growth was faster under Clinton than it was under Bush. Now, that certainly is not all due to the differences between Clinton and Bush of course, or even mostly because of the two Presidents, but the same things were being said about how badly taxes were going to hurt the economy back then. And one has to remember that even though the economy did well in the 1990s, it wasn't until about 1994-95 when job growth and incomes began accelerating, and it also was during the worst rout in the bond market ever, at least until now.

The point of all this is that it is alarmist to suggest that raising taxes on those making $250k by 3% is going to hurt the middle class. There is no empirical evidence of this.

As for corporate taxes, the effective corporate tax in the US - not the stated amount - is amongst the lowest in the industrialized world.



ataxingmatter: Tax Foundation and Competitive Environments: more bunk!

So raising income taxes a bit on the highest earners isn't going to hurt job growth.

Lets take a look at your argument , your claim that the Clinton era tax hikes, are an example of wealth redistribution in the form of higher social security payments et al. The Tax hikes you speak of did the following,

* An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.

* Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.

* A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

* An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.

* A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.

* Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.

The difference that you in all your posts seem to neglect to mention is quite obvious, one, that the Clinton era tax hikes came at a time of 8 consecutive quarters of economic growth and NOT at a time of economic slow down according to the GAO and whatever govt. agency you want to pull your figures from. Two, these tax hikes were an ACROSS the BOARD tax hike effecting every American and were not selective of an INCOME group as the Obama tax hikes are. Three, the Clinton tax hikes did not offer a tax cut for middle class income earners from the revenue generated from the collection of revenue from the top income brackets. Four, your conclusion also omits the fact that the Obama economic agenda includes almost 1 trillion dollars in new spending on top of the already 1 trillion that has been authorized to be spent. What you neglect to point out in your arguments is that combined with tax increases during the Clinton era was a reduction in spending that the Obama plan clearly does not have.

Another glaring omission from your evaluation is your neglect to mention the 1997 tax bill that reduced taxes across the board , including the cap gains tax that resulted in an even further period of economic growth. So I thought I would be kind to point that omission out to you as well, it is as follows;

* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs; * Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

In conclusion your support with selective data of the Obama tax plan , with a lack of real supporting data , and omissions of data show that you base this support only on partial conclusions and do not reflect historical reality. It would not matter if the top rate was raised 0.5% , the point is not that the top rate is raised, the point is, that this tax is selective and offers a benefit that other tax payers do not enjoy. Call it what you will, but to take the earned income of others to give a benefit that has NOT been earned in any shape or form is social engineering at its core. This tax plan is a disaster and has no supporting data other than the selective data with GLARING omissions of the real facts. They are, that your candidate wishes to raise taxes on the top earners during an economic downturn without reducing spending , not only that he plans to increase spending, thereby increasing the debt, for benefit of the Middle Class who will see this tax cut on it's surface, but will see the tax cut leave them in the form of higher energy, food, transportation, and taxes on goods and services as well as job loss. When you can show me supporting historical data of a selective tax increase on wage earner's above 250,000.00 that takes the revenue from that tax increase and uses it to offer a tax deduction while at the same time doing so during an economic downturn , and increasing spending beyond the means to pay for it, then perhaps I will take another look at the Obama tax plan. Until that time however, I will continue to see it for what it is, a short sighted, attempt to pull in suffering Middle Class voters who need some real reform and not just talk.

 

[Navy1960]

New York City’s latest personal income and sales tax increases will result in the loss of an additional 18,250 private sector jobs in the city, and will raise $70 million less than expected, according to the Manhattan Institute’s NYC-STAMP tax model.

Including the latest rate increases, the negative impact of all broad-based tax hikes enacted by the city since the start of 2002 is now approaching 91,000 lost jobs, as estimated by NYC-STAMP. This includes 62,000 job losses linked to last year’s record property tax increase[1] and 10,700 job losses resulting from a previous personal income tax increase.[2]

The NYC-STAMP model, developed by the Beacon Hill Institute of Boston, Mass., uses standard statistical methods to estimate the significance of relationships between economic variables, such as private sector employment, and changes in the city’s income tax, sales, property tax and general corporation tax rates. The model’s findings stem from correlations based on a quarter-century’s worth of tax and economic data.[3]

New City Tax Hikes Raise Likely Job Loss Toll

 

[Navy1960]

New York City’s latest personal income and sales tax increases will result in the loss of an additional 18,250 private sector jobs in the city, and will raise $70 million less than expected, according to the Manhattan Institute’s NYC-STAMP tax model.

Including the latest rate increases, the negative impact of all broad-based tax hikes enacted by the city since the start of 2002 is now approaching 91,000 lost jobs, as estimated by NYC-STAMP. This includes 62,000 job losses linked to last year’s record property tax increase[1] and 10,700 job losses resulting from a previous personal income tax increase.[2]

The NYC-STAMP model, developed by the Beacon Hill Institute of Boston, Mass., uses standard statistical methods to estimate the significance of relationships between economic variables, such as private sector employment, and changes in the city’s income tax, sales, property tax and general corporation tax rates. The model’s findings stem from correlations based on a quarter-century’s worth of tax and economic data.[3]

New City Tax Hikes Raise Likely Job Loss Toll

 

[Navy1960]

Apologies for the double posting everyone.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Interesting article: Sort of reflects these boards.

Ordinary Joes have mixed feelings on wealth - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK – The war of words waged by John McCain and Barack Obama for the votes of plumbers and other average Joes is a reminder of the nation's long-standing doubts about concentrated wealth — and its qualms about doing something about it.

Americans have voiced concerns about putting too much wealth in to too few hands since the country was founded, but the public's views also come with contradictions.

Now it's clearer than ever — thanks to Obama's much scrutinized talk about taxes with a certain Ohio voter and McCain's dogged criticism — that these mixed feelings about income inequality are a long way from being resolved.

 

[Toro]

Navy

First, let me commend you for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of your post.

I'm going to be brief and not respond in detail to the post as it deserves, at least for the time being, since I have several things I must attend to this afternoon.

First, tax increases under Clinton, were, indeed, more heavily borne by the upper earners. You can see here that in 1993, the top quintile spiked higher.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Tax Rates by Income Quintile

The bottom four quintiles either saw their tax take stay the same or go down.

Next, I have no problem with wealth distribution that Obama is proposing, since it is not very drastic. I am one of those fortunate enough to not have to worry about income and may see a tax increase. The past 10 years have been good to me. Unfortunately, it has not been good for most. At best, the majority of households have been treading water this decade.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Over the past decades, the wealthiest quintile have seen their incomes grow at a much faster rate than the general population.

Over the past 10 years, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

If you dig even deeper, the real wages of white uneducated males have fallen over the past 40 years. (Black females, especially those that are educated, have risen the most, given that they started from the lowest level.)

Your point about the economy being much different in the early 90s compared to now is a valid one, which is why taxes should not be risen in aggregate, why its okay for the government to go further into debt now (it was unconsciousable for the Bush administration to run deficits during an economic expansion and a time of war), and why the country should start spending on its dilapidated infrastructure. However, unless those earning more than $250k are going to lose their jobs, they will be little effected by the recession, certainly far less so than those earnings $50k. Also raising taxes on those over $250k and giving a tax cut to everyone else would change the aggregate structure of the marginal propensity to consume within the economy given that those earning less consumer relatively more, which is better for the economy in the near-term.

When the economy gets better, then the Obama administration (and the 2010 Republican Congress) should work towards balancing the budget.

Gotta hop.

 

[Care4all]

hey navy!
How much of a tax break did they get for the first $250k under obama's plan, do you know?

let's just say they got a 9k tax break under obama's plan up to the point of $250k NET -with the marginal tax rate cuts for the lower brackets that the dems plan had put in...

then over the $250k they have to pay $300 extra for every $10k extra in NET EARNINGS that they make.... take the $9000 they saved and devide it by $300 to see how much the small business of $250k net can increase his business without paying out any more taxes than he does today...

it comes to netting $300k more before he has to pay a dime more in taxes....over $550k NET before more taxes are having to be paid...this really is absolutely nothing to sweat imo....especially since these are individual income taxes and only an exception of small business owner would even have that kind of earnings LEFT OVER for themselves....as noted before the average small business including businesses of one that filed his taxes under individual income taxes, average NET income was around $45k in the usa.

all that they REINVEST in the company is NOT taxable and not included in the NET earnings that are taxed....no?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
fyi....regarding one of your other posts....
under bush's tax cuts, the marginal rates for ALL tax bracket incomes were lowered EXCEPT the 15% RATE, where 50% or more americans resided.

they were not given anywhere near proportionate and were weighted moreso to the higher income tax earners where there entire tax bracket's income range was reduced, not so with the middle class bracket of 15%....only the first 5k or so got reduced from 15% to 10% of which every tax group bracket benefitted as well.

i'm telling you this so you realize that even if all people are given a tax break, giving some groups a $100 break more for the entire year while giving the next man $10k or 100k is not really anything for the guy getting 100 bucks, though you gave a tax break to ''everyone''....i don't see that as ''everyone getting a tax break'' that they can really benefit from...


------------------------------------------------

also, i do not think any taxes for anyone should be raised for the next year or so, until we work our way out of this recession mess....our gvt should kill 2 birds with one stone by spending on rebuilding the worst of our worst infrastructure and in growing our alternative to fossil fuel industries with business incentives...this will put people to work which we desperately need and put us on the path to true energy and otherwise security....imo!!

care

 

[Navy1960]

hey navy!
How much of a tax break did they get for the first $250k under obama's plan, do you know?

let's just say they got a 9k tax break under obama's plan up to the point of $250k NET -with the marginal tax rate cuts for the lower brackets that the dems plan had put in...

then over the $250k they have to pay $300 extra for every $10k extra in NET EARNINGS that they make.... take the $9000 they saved and devide it by $300 to see how much the small business of $250k net can increase his business without paying out any more taxes than he does today...

it comes to netting $300k more before he has to pay a dime more in taxes....over $550k NET before more taxes are having to be paid...this really is absolutely nothing to sweat imo....especially since these are individual income taxes and only an exception of small business owner would even have that kind of earnings LEFT OVER for themselves....as noted before the average small business including businesses of one that filed his taxes under individual income taxes, average NET income was around $45k in the usa.

all that they REINVEST in the company is NOT taxable and not included in the NET earnings that are taxed....no?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
fyi....regarding one of your other posts....
under bush's tax cuts, the marginal rates for ALL tax bracket incomes were lowered EXCEPT the 15% RATE, where 50% or more americans resided.

they were not given anywhere near proportionate and were weighted moreso to the higher income tax earners where there entire tax bracket's income range was reduced, not so with the middle class bracket of 15%....only the first 5k or so got reduced from 15% to 10% of which every tax group bracket benefitted as well.

i'm telling you this so you realize that even if all people are given a tax break, giving some groups a $100 break more for the entire year while giving the next man $10k or 100k is not really anything for the guy getting 100 bucks, though you gave a tax break to ''everyone''....i don't see that as ''everyone getting a tax break'' that they can really benefit from...


------------------------------------------------

also, i do not think any taxes for anyone should be raised for the next year or so, until we work our way out of this recession mess....our gvt should kill 2 birds with one stone by spending on rebuilding the worst of our worst infrastructure and in growing our alternative to fossil fuel industries with business incentives...this will put people to work which we desperately need and put us on the path to true energy and otherwise security....imo!!

care

While I really do respect your opinion and that of others, Obama's plan is flawed on several levels, it strives to level the playing field on wealth when the playing field on wealth is NEVER level. That is the very reason your supposed to strive to increase your wealth, education, business, working, saving, etc etc etc. This attempt at managing wealth for those that clearly did not earn it is a complete and utter ruse. I don't care how much people say, it's not fair how much the delta between rich and poor has widened. Then do something about it, by holding those that represent you responsible for doing what it is in their charter to do, regulate commerce. All that aside, the biggest and most glaring hole in this plan is Obama's spending plans in conjunction with the economic situation and and his absolute joke of a plan to reduce the deficit. Oh his plan will I am sure make many people who DID NOT EARN the tax refunds they will get very happy initially but what's the real cost? I see this for exactly what it is, a play to get votes. Playing upon a terrible economic situation in order to secure votes by promising to take from those that provide real jobs, real wealth , and give tax breaks and incentives to others that have not earned them. This tax scheme and thats all it is Care will wreck havoc on this nations economy in a time when our economy is fragile enough.

Now don't take everything I said as an endorsement of McCain because his tax plan is no better in my opinion. I don't advocate, any tax cuts whatsoever at this time. As a matter of fact what needs to be done is a reduction in spending on a massive scale on the part of the Feds. and barring that increase revenue. Now how do you do that? raise taxes on everyone? Or finally start to manage the budget in a proper fashion, rather than go about dumping money on every single problem that comes along. The one key to this nations success or failure is energy and spending, You reduce the amount of energy you purchase from foreign sources and quit borrowing money to purchase foreign energy. You increase domestic energy supply and on a MASSIVE scale and in a rapid fashion. Do that and watch how fast the economy and many of this nations current ills suddenly start to quiet down. I know what most of the Obama supporters will tell me, well Obama does have an energy plan, well I'm not talking about some pie in the sky plan written by the head of some environmental lobby, I'm talking about a real energy plan that brings all sources of American energy online. Do you realize Care, how many jobs and I mean real American jobs just one Nuclear power construction project creates? Can you imagine a National project dedicated to the construction of 60 reactors. Since we seem so bent on becomming the model of European social engineering why not go all the way. Well thats enough ranting lol, As you can see the candidate you support, I am not in favor of, nor has his glossy presentations swayed me. He is as I have seen him from the first time I saw him Care, a highly intelligent man that has been packaged and marketed to the American public like the iPod. It's the next big thing!!, well as I tend not to be fad prone, I will sit back and watch this disaster play itself out, as I have already begun the process of protecting myself financially from a pending Obama Administration.

 

[jreeves]

I didn't say I wanted to raise taxes on corporations. What I said was that raising the income tax on people how make more than $250k by 3% wasn't going to destroy the middle class, nor was it going to destroy the economy.

Also, you are quoting statutory rates of income tax. Those are irrelevant when comparing to what corporations actually pay. And corporations in America pay amongst the lowest effective tax rates in the industrialized world, as I linked above.

I generally support lower corporate taxes. However, the Republicans have been absolutely disastrous handling the books of this country - and I'm not talking about the bailout. Two of the past three Republican administrations - Reagan and W - have been utterly incompetent dealing with the fiscal affairs of this nation. At least George HW Bush understood that this bizarre fantasy amongst wide swaths of the GOP known as supply side economics, where you can balance the budget by cutting taxes, was utter nonsense, voodoo economics. And what did the GOP base do? They rebelled against him.

I'm sorry. I used to be a Republican until I realized how irresponsible the party had become, and how disconnected they had become from basic economics and math.

Well considering, a ton of small businesses pay their taxes using individual tax forms. Yes it would...

If workers take 70% of the corporate tax burden, do you really want to raise the "effective" or "statutory" corporate tax rate?

 

[Care4all]

While I really do respect your opinion and that of others, Obama's plan is flawed on several levels, it strives to level the playing field on wealth when the playing field on wealth is NEVER level.

of course the playing field isn't level, congress writes laws and puts in tax codes to favor their wealthy donors so the playing field has been TILTED.

building a bigger middle class is good for america and has been our nation's goal for over a century.

That is the very reason your supposed to strive to increase your wealth, education, business, working, saving, etc etc etc.

do you really believe all of us in the middle class, with few exceptions are not?

This attempt at managing wealth for those that clearly did not earn it is a complete and utter ruse.

who didn't earn it? the WORKING poor, who do pay some income taxes and DO PAY FICA taxes that the gvt is using to pay for our military and other things income taxes are suppose to pay for...with the SS Surplusses? And do pay cigarette taxes and to pay liquor taxes and sales taxes and excise taxes and gas taxes...and licence fees and buy lottery tickets, all money going to our gvts.

this trick, of acting like income taxes are our only taxes paid is a real doozey of a ''trick''.

Giving to the WORKING poor is the BEST form of welfare we could have as a country, much better than letting them SIT AT HOME and make more from a WELFARE check than if they were working.

The EIC is critical to keep people working, instead of sitting on their rears collecting a welfare check that is larger than a low paying job. It also gives the poor a feeling of self worth because they are WORKING!

the question should be, why do we have 40 million WORKERS in poverty instead of the middle class?

I don't care how much people say, it's not fair how much the delta between rich and poor has widened. Then do something about it, by holding those that represent you responsible for doing what it is in their charter to do, regulate commerce.

yes this is important, but you underestimate the power of the almighty dollar and lobbying, they win out, every time, it seems...

All that aside, the biggest and most glaring hole in this plan is Obama's spending plans in conjunction with the economic situation and and his absolute joke of a plan to reduce the deficit. Oh his plan will I am sure make many people who DID NOT EARN the tax refunds they will get very happy initially but what's the real cost?

see my comments above on the earn it thing...

whatever the lower income gets back will be spent in the economy immediately and IT WILL trickle back UP to the wealthy....open your mind...there is always more than one way to do things, we tried your way or the trickle down way and it hasn't performed this time.

I see this for exactly what it is, a play to get votes. Playing upon a terrible economic situation in order to secure votes by promising to take from those that provide real jobs, real wealth , and give tax breaks and incentives to others that have not earned them. This tax scheme and thats all it is Care will wreck havoc on this nations economy in a time when our economy is fragile enough.

this is an economic strategy that differs with yours and is what we need as of now to stimulate the economy.

and the pandering -to use your word , to the rich that the republican politicians do because they know who lines their pockets with gold.

Now don't take everything I said as an endorsement of McCain because his tax plan is no better in my opinion. I don't advocate, any tax cuts whatsoever at this time. As a matter of fact what needs to be done is a reduction in spending on a massive scale on the part of the Feds. and barring that increase revenue.

I've said as much in several posts, it is going to take massive cuts, tax increases, and a shifting in how we prioritize our money and what we spend it on at the federal level.


Now how do you do that? raise taxes on everyone? Or finally start to manage the budget in a proper fashion, rather than go about dumping money on every single problem that comes along. The one key to this nations success or failure is energy and spending, You reduce the amount of energy you purchase from foreign sources and quit borrowing money to purchase foreign energy. You increase domestic energy supply and on a MASSIVE scale and in a rapid fashion. Do that and watch how fast the economy and many of this nations current ills suddenly start to quiet down.

It's hard to accept our government dumping over a trillion right now, 2 trillion within the next 6 months...mark my words on that, in to the hands of their big campaign donors because they need it to make them work again and not look out for the individual citizen in the same manner....

Energy, especially alternative energy is very important and Obama's plan is much stronger than mccains to getting us off of the middle eastern oil tit...it also is a JOBS program to get people back to work in america....on our ground.

Neither candidate's plan is strong enough though, i agree with you there.

I know what most of the Obama supporters will tell me, well Obama does have an energy plan, well I'm not talking about some pie in the sky plan written by the head of some environmental lobby, I'm talking about a real energy plan that brings all sources of American energy online. Do you realize Care, how many jobs and I mean real American jobs just one Nuclear power construction project creates?

Yes. agree it will create jobs.

Obama can not put in Nuclear power plants nor can McCain...it will be up to the individual communities where they will be built and local environmentalists and local citizen homeowners that usually object and will have to be overcome...this has always been the case, it is a State issue, not federal. But if there is something the Feds could do to expidite it, then they should.

Can you imagine a National project dedicated to the construction of 60 reactors. Since we seem so bent on becomming the model of European social engineering why not go all the way.

Yes, i can imagine a great 'going to the moon' project to develop energy, but i do not think it is all Nuclear, I think Wind and Solar are extremely KEY to making this work....and even then, we still need the auto industry to make cars that are electric or a hybrid or a natural gas running car and ALL of america would need to buy them which won't happen for at least 20 years...to get everyone in to one so oil will still have importance, but it can be our oil from Canada and mexico that could supply it.

Well thats enough ranting lol, As you can see the candidate you support, I am not in favor of, nor has his glossy presentations swayed me. He is as I have seen him from the first time I saw him Care, a highly intelligent man that has been packaged and marketed to the American public like the iPod. It's the next big thing!!, well as I tend not to be fad prone, I will sit back and watch this disaster play itself out, as I have already begun the process of protecting myself financially from a pending Obama Administration.

Well, i do not disagree with you in total...i summed up Obama the same way when i saw him for the first few times and especially the way i believe the DNC picked him over hillary during the primaries from the very beginning...I'm not a big fan of behind the scene picks made for me...

If i do vote though, I will be voting for Obama, not because of Obama, but because I do not in any way, want to see another republican administration, and i believe the republicans do NOT deserve a third chance and should be punished for what they have done to us.

I want to see a Democratic Secretary of Defense, a Democratic Secretary of State, a Democratic Justice dept, a Democratic director of homeland security and health and human services and chief of staff etc...

keeping all of the important advisory positions in the hands of republicans for ANOTHER 4 to 8 years with the same mind think that we just went through the last 8 years would be absolutely TRAGIC and DEVASTATING for our country imo.

Whoever wins though, i will accept them as my President.



care

 

[CockySOB]

If you are earning minimum wage you are either a high school kid with a part-time or summer job....or you are someone too stupid to find you own ass with both hands....

Or too lazy to try for anything more....

 

[editec]

I don't think that's a good idea, especially now.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That act had NOTHING to do with the stock market crash.

Doubt me?

Check the date of it.

June 17, 1930,

 

[Care4all]

Well considering, a ton of small businesses pay their taxes using individual tax forms. Yes it would...

reeves,

i read recently there are about 50 million small businesses that file under individual income taxes...about half of those 50 million are sole propriators, 1 person businesses...

the average NET income of all small businesses combined is a little over $45k....

that almost guarantees right there that small businesses will not be hurt by the democratic tax plan but helped. And helped much more so, than mccain's/the republican's tax plan...

the devil is in the details....

i would BET, that many of these small businesses pay zero in taxes at year's end and are probably some of those individuals getting a tax credit...money for nothing, as some leaning right people have complained about on the one hand, while also saying we need to help businesses create jobs not lose jobs on the other hand which i happen to agree with.

small businesses employ nearly 80% of the country, corporations like all the banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies etc that we just handed a trillion dollars of our tax monies to, only employ 20% of country.

the corporations have GOTTEN their tax break, so to say, ALREADY with the bailouts, don't you think?

I think it is time to support small businesses who employ this 80%.

Supporting the democratic tax plan, will do this, give small businesses a larger tax break....supporting the republican plan will put MORE tax monies in to the very hands of the corporations that just screwed us, from here to high heaven reeves, and i just couldn't stomach that.... still haven't stomached and am fuming on the trillion dollar bail out

And i really am not fond of obama...you know that, but looking at the plan of the D's vs the R's is what i am doing.

also, capital gains taxes....all a waste of time...both mccains and obamas imo to make any changes...NO ONE will have any Capital Gains for quite some time with the market crash...if anything they need to revise Capital losses to cover more imo.

care

 

[editec]

Rasing taxes won't help much.

Raising INCOMES will.

 

[jreeves]

reeves,

i read recently there are about 50 million small businesses that file under individual income taxes...about half of those 50 million are sole propriators, 1 person businesses...

the average NET income of all small businesses combined is a little over $45k....

that almost guarantees right there that small businesses will not be hurt by the democratic tax plan but helped. And helped much more so, than mccain's/the republican's tax plan...

the devil is in the details....

i would BET, that many of these small businesses pay zero in taxes at year's end and are probably some of those individuals getting a tax credit...money for nothing, as some leaning right people have complained about on the one hand, while also saying we need to help businesses create jobs not lose jobs on the other hand which i happen to agree with.

small businesses employ nearly 80% of the country, corporations like all the banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies etc that we just handed a trillion dollars of our tax monies to, only employ 20% of country.

the corporations have GOTTEN their tax break, so to say, ALREADY with the bailouts, don't you think?

I think it is time to support small businesses who employ this 80%.

Supporting the democratic tax plan, will do this, give small businesses a larger tax break....supporting the republican plan will put MORE tax monies in to the very hands of the corporations that just screwed us, from here to high heaven reeves, and i just couldn't stomach that.... still haven't stomached and am fuming on the trillion dollar bail out

And i really am not fond of obama...you know that, but looking at the plan of the D's vs the R's is what i am doing.

also, capital gains taxes....all a waste of time...both mccains and obamas imo to make any changes...NO ONE will have any Capital Gains for quite some time with the market crash...if anything they need to revise Capital losses to cover more imo.

care

Here's the Obama position...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o]YouTube - 'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate[/ame]

He stated he would raise taxes to 39% on small businesses making revenue over $250K a year.

revenue definition | Dictionary.com

revenue 
1. the income of a government from taxation, excise duties, customs, or other sources, appropriated to the payment of the public expenses.
2. the government department charged with the collection of such income.
3. revenues, the collective items or amounts of income of a person, a state, etc.
4. the return or yield from any kind of property, patent, service, etc.; income.
5. an amount of money regularly coming in.
6. a particular item or source of income.

Yes most small businesses only have a net income of $50k. But most small businesses gross over 250k, Obama would raise their taxes. He specifically stated revenues over 250k.....not net income.
We are in agreement, small business is the engine of our economy. Mccain wants to give all small businesses a tax break, while Obama only wants to give tax breaks to the ones that are failing.

Corporations on a whole didn't get the bailout money, financial institutions and banks along with financial insurance companies did. Yes corporations only employ 20% of the workforce but with unemployment rates growing shouldn't we be looking to create whatever jobs we can?

 

[Care4all]

Here's the Obama position...

YouTube - 'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate

He stated he would raise taxes to 39% on small businesses making revenue over $250K a year.

revenue definition | Dictionary.com

revenue 
1. the income of a government from taxation, excise duties, customs, or other sources, appropriated to the payment of the public expenses.
2. the government department charged with the collection of such income.
3. revenues, the collective items or amounts of income of a person, a state, etc.
4. the return or yield from any kind of property, patent, service, etc.; income.
5. an amount of money regularly coming in.
6. a particular item or source of income.

Yes most small businesses only have a net income of $50k. But most small businesses gross over 250k, Obama would raise their taxes. He specifically stated revenues over 250k.....not net income.
We are in agreement, small business is the engine of our economy. Mccain wants to give all small businesses a tax break, while Obama only wants to give tax breaks to the ones that are failing.

Corporations on a whole didn't get the bailout money, financial institutions and banks along with financial insurance companies did. Yes corporations only employ 20% of the workforce but with unemployment rates growing shouldn't we be looking to create whatever jobs we can?

Reeves,

NO ONE, absolutely no one, gets taxed on their Gross income or Gross Revenues in our tax code....

That's your answer to your speculation....all of us, even you and me, according to the irs, get taxed on our NET INCOME/EARNINGS....

You are just misunderstanding this....there is no way Obama or anyone could tax people on their Gross income without some major tax code reform, which would NEVER pass muster in Congress....like i have said, Obama was speaking about thier TAXABLE income...which is everyone's NET income, not gross income.

And let me run this by you also....these larger 'small businesses' will be getting tax breaks up to the point of $250k NET much larger than mccain's plan, if these are as little as 9k in tax cuts up to that point, and obama is raising their taxes by $300 bucks for every $10k more in net earnings....they actually do not begin getting the tax increase of $300 for every $10k earned until they go over $500k...because the initial tax cuts of $9k for the lower bracket cuts that they also benefit from covers the increase from $250k up to the $500k.

And another thing, you do realize that these company profits that are taxed is the INDIVIDUALS yearly INCOME, one person's INCOME, not the businesses... all the money reinvested in to the business and payroll and expenses of the business are TAX DEDUCTABLE, so there is no taxes paid on this...let alone an increase tax on this....

*And btw, EVERY corporation got part of that Bail out, they are ALL on Wall street...

Care