The tax policies of Obama and McCain

[CraigD]

I believe you’ve made a typographical error, Jackson

288350 - UP 29.6%

should read

288350 - UP

3

9.6%

(source: Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008) A tax schedule in which higher income brackets have a lower tax rate is regressive, while most tax schedules are progressive.

 

It’s interesting to note that, in the 95 year history of the US federal income tax, the schedule is at near its least progressive, with the top tax rate at 35% and the bottom at 10%. By this measure, 1991-1992 was the least progressive, at 31% to 15%, the most progressive in 1929 at 24% to 0.375%. When the top tax rate was at its maximum of 94% in 1944-1945, the lowest tax rate was 23%. (source: “History of progressivity in federal income tax” section of wikipedia article “History of progressivity in federal income tax”).

 

Here’s a full sorting of the source table by highest rate divided by lowest:

      2.0667  1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS 
     2.2000  1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS 
     2.6067  2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS 
     2.6400  1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS 
     3.5000  1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS 
     3.5000  2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS 
     3.8600  2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS 
     4.0870  1944-1945 - 23% 94% Census 
     4.1441  1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% Census 
     4.1667  1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS 
     4.4608  1951 - 20.4% 91% Census 
     4.5500  1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% Census 
     4.5500  1954-1963 - 20% 91% Census 
     4.6316  1942-1943 - 19% 88% Census 
     4.8125  1964 - 16% 77% Census 
     4.8483  1950 - 17.4% 84.36% Census 
     4.9476  1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% Census 
     5.0000  1965-1967 - 14% 70% Census 
     5.0000  1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS 
     5.1250  1970 - 14% 71.75% Census 
     5.3750  1968 - 14% 75.25% Census 
     5.5000  1969 - 14% 77% Census 
     7.0000  1913-1915 - 1% 7% Census 
     7.5000  1916 - 2% 15% Census 
     8.1000  1941 - 10% 81% Census 
    12.1667  1918 - 6% 73% Census 
    14.0000  1922 - 4% 56% Census 
    15.7500  1932-1933 - 4% 63% Census 
    15.7500  1934-1935 - 4% 63% Census 
    16.6667  1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% Census 
    18.2500  1921 - 4% 73% Census 
    18.2500  1919-1920 - 4% 73% Census 
    18.4318  1940 - 4.4% 81.1% Census 
    18.6667  1923 - 3% 56% Census 
    19.7500  1936-1939 - 4% 79% Census 
    22.2222  1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% Census 
    30.6667  1924 - 1.5% 46% Census 
    33.5000  1917 - 2% 67% Census 
    64.0000  1929 - 0.375% 24% Census 

[Moontanman]

Moon, your hatred of conservatives has blinded you to the real culprits in the genesis of the sub-prime meltdown. Why not examine the roles of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Democrats in the congress and their insistence on issuing loans to unqualified buyers? In addition, why do you think conservatives were the main participants in manipulating the sub-prime market? Wasn't Acorn a large player here? Why don't you find out the percentages of manipulation by both sides? You may be wasting steam over the wrong people.

 

Questor I don't hate anyone, I think hatred is immoral, I also have no doubt there is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis, you are the one who blames only Liberals and glosses over any Conservative involvement by saying it's not true Conservatives who were involved in this sub prime crisis. I simply asked you to back up your statements about spread the wealth and your insinuation that Liberals are primarily to blame. I don't even hate you Questor, i think there is still time for you to save your soul, come on over the side of light and love, there is still time if you want it.

[CraigD]

Why not examine the roles of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Democrats in the congress and their insistence on issuing loans to unqualified buyers?

By all means, questor, do – but support your claim with credible sources, not your own or other’s unsupported claims.

 

Wasn't Acorn a large player here [in manipulating the sub-prime market]?

By any credible source I can find, the answer to this question is simply no. Just the opposite, ACORN has strongly opposed lending “predatory” and other lending practices likely to lead to mortgage loan defaults, while advocating for lower cost resident-owned and rental housing, and increased wages and job security for lower income people, both goals that reduce the likelihood of mortgage defaults.

 

… why do you think conservatives were the main participants in manipulating the sub-prime market? … You may be wasting steam over the wrong people.

I believe that anyone suggesting that unsound lending practices are confined to self-described conservatives or liberals, or people who voted for office holders of a particular political party, is likely wasting steam/barking up the wrong tree.

 

Evidence indicates that the lending practices of the last decade, while disadvantageous to a large number of loan recipients and investors in banks and other financial companies, was very advantageous to a smaller number of people, many of whom were responsible for these practices. It’s a business axiom that some people profit extremely from any crisis, and a reasonable assumption that such people may even act to precipitate such crises. I’ve seen no evidence that such people are distributed between self-described categories such as social liberal, moderate, independent, conservative, etc, significantly differently than the population in general.

 

Except in the rare cases where such people actually committed criminal acts, they are not guilty of any crime, and neither will nor should be “brought to justice” or punished, other than by making it more difficult for them to profit in the future by the same techniques.

[jackson33]

Craig; Corrected my type-o, which feel you knew was.....

 

IRS/Government has attempted to keep total INCOME TAX collection at just under 20% of the GNP/GDP. They attempt to do this with potential deductions involved as well has to who is likely to have those deductions. What they have neglected IMO, is that State and local taxes have no formula for taxing, taxing by need only and they are relatively constant to the populace. State Income taxes are generally a percentage of whats paid to the Federal and Property or other taxes based on the value of an actually owned property. Additionally other tax collection are based purely on consumption, toll roads, fuel taxes to sales taxes.

 

The Federal in trying to involve themselves into what are State issues, has no other choice but a progressive tax, as no equality could serve a purpose. Keep in mind however, the brackets in my post represent the 'taxable incomes' AFTER deduction. Incomes are not necessarily progressive to what actual taxes paid. There can be nothing progressive possible in pre-determining actual incomes to what eventually owed and be fairly based. What Obama has offered, is loaded with those determinations to what should be a final tax owned. 'A' may make 250k, yet pay what the average 50k earner and so on...As said the Obama's tax plan is 'double talk'...

[Zythryn]

'A' may make 250k, yet pay what the average 50k earner and so on...As said the Obama's tax plan is 'double talk'...

 

And this is different than what we have now, or what McCain proposes in what way?

It is currently possible for someone making 250k to pay taxes on only 50k. Unless you totally change the way taxes work, I don't see this changing (although I would like to see it change).

[TheBigDog]

According to Barak Obama's platform, no person making under $250,000 will have their taxes increased.

Quoted from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

I'll see if I can find McCain's[/left]

It looks like McCain would not change anything regarding the Bush tax cut.

JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

Does this mean that is the Congress passed a budget that increased taxes down to say... $175,000 Obama would veto it on principle?

 

Bill

[jackson33]

And this is different than what we have now, or what McCain proposes in what way?

It is currently possible for someone making 250k to pay taxes on only 50k. Unless you totally change the way taxes work, I don't see this changing (although I would like to see it change).

 

Obama, will stretch the 'Earned Income' credits allowing a rebate to offset SS payments. This would actually be double credits since if he reduced SS payments, it would result in less available credits toward retirement, disability and/or unemployment, which won't happen since that payment is maintained. Both (Obama/McCain) are offering additional deductions. In fact its these deductions used to show savings on Obama's plan under the Clinton scale.

 

Deduction allowed or that have been dropped, to allow the differential in taxes paid in one 'bracket' have greatly changed over the years and usually with some agenda in mind. McCain wants to double allowable per child deductions (his big one) and both want allow more for higher education and use of Green technology. Some has to do with investments, especially where business is involved and they file as individuals and very hard to change. Its those investments that really do create jobs. I used 250k and 50k, but in reality many rather large unincorporated (file individual) firms earn (profit)millions, but invest so much each years they rarely pay any taxes. When they do lose money (most occasionally do) those loses are limited but ARE held over to following years. If your seeing a 'catch 22', you have got my point. More jobs, less taxes or the reverse, mandated by the politicians or not.