Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

The Election Choice: Taxes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Election Choice: Taxes

    From the WSJ
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488938501868507.html

    When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. Most of the campaign debate has been over whose taxes would be raised, and whose cut.

    Here are the facts:
    [The Election Choice]

    Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.

    The Democrat would also reinstate the phaseout of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions for married couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those phaseouts would raise the top marginal tax rate for millions of taxpayers by another 1.5 percentage points.

    Capital gains and dividend taxes would increase to 20% from 15% for those making more than $250,000, although capital-gains taxes on investments in "start-ups" would be eliminated.
    The Election Choice: Further Reading

    Health Care – The candidates differ on the merits of tying insurance to a job.

    * For full coverage of the election issues, please visit our Election Choice page.

    Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

    In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

    Taken together, these add up to about a 10-percentage-point hike in marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that pay taxes at individual rates. The "marginal" rate refers to the rate paid on the next dollar of income, and it has an especially strong influence on decisions to work and invest.

    Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has proposed an additional 4% "surtax" on incomes above $200,000. This would further increase the top marginal federal income tax rate to close to 50% -- or slightly above that, depending on the rate of the new Social Security tax -- when combined with Mr. Obama's hikes.

    Mr. Obama is also famously promising that 95% of all Americans will get a tax cut. However, he would not reduce tax rates. His tax cuts come in the form of tax credits, most of which are also "refundable." In tax jargon, "refundable" means that you get the credit even if you owe no income taxes at all -- which means the government cuts you a check. These credits include:

    - a credit of $500 to offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 in earnings;

    - a 10% mortgage-interest credit for those who don't itemize their deductions and so don't currently benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction;

    - an expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would raise the income eligibility, reduce the EITC "marriage penalty," and increase payouts for families with three or more children;

    - an increase of the college tuition tax credit to $4,000, from $1,800;

    - a 50% "savers" credit of up to $500.

    - The child-care credit would be made fully refundable and the credit increased to 50% of child-care costs, from 20%-35% now.

    According to the Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's tax credits would increase the share of Americans who pay no income tax to 48% from an estimated 38% this year.

    On corporate taxes, the Obama campaign has proposed to eliminate "loopholes" for oil and gas companies and rewrite the rules for how multinational corporations are taxed. In particular, he has proposed to treat foreign-source income the same as income earned domestically -- which means subjecting all income earned by American companies around the world to the 35% U.S. corporate rate, which is the world's second-highest. He is also promising a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies.

    As for Mr. McCain, the central plank of his personal income-tax proposals is to make permanent almost all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This would leave the top marginal rate at 35%. The one exception is the death or estate tax, which expires for one year in 2010. Mr. McCain wants a 15% death tax on estates larger than $5 million. Mr. Obama wants a 45% rate on estates larger than $3.5 million.

    Mr. McCain would also increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds -- to $6,000 per dependent from $3,500.

    Mr. McCain would lower the corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35% today, and allow full expensing, temporarily, of some investments in plant and equipment. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain has said he would "close loopholes" on oil and gas companies and reconfigure the tax regime for multinationals.

    The Republican's most dramatic proposal is to introduce an optional simplified tax system with only two rates and larger standard deductions and exemptions. Although Sen. McCain first put forward this proposal months ago, the details of it remain sketchy. In rough outline, taxpayers would be able to choose to pay under the current tax code or file under the optional semiflat tax.

    Both candidates have said they would permanently index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. In reality, both would have to do far more to change the AMT, which hits more middle-class taxpayers each year, and which members of Congress have many proposals to alter or repeal.

    In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates.

    By contrast, Mr. McCain is proposing some kind of tax reduction for most Americans who pay taxes. He says he would finance those cuts by reducing the rate of growth in federal spending.

    -- By Brian M. Carney
    ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
    ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

  • #2
    Re: The Election Choice: Taxes

    Kris -

    I'm curious how you would have viewed HRC's tax plans (total disclosure: I have not read anything on hers, but am assuming that it would have to be somewhat similar b/c she and Obama had virutally identical platforms)?

    I get not wanting to pay more -- believe me. We had an $8K tax bill over and above what had been witheld all year. We aren't in the uber-wealthy -- but are just above the cut off, so get hit with all the joy and none of the huge cash influx. I just can't get behind supporting McCain's foriegn policy plans, healthcare plans (TAXING employer healthcare contributions), and Sarah Palin.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Election Choice: Taxes

      Hillary Clinton opposed lifting the social security cap. This would have the greatest impact on us, I believe. Also, Hillary Clintons' proposed healthcare plan would have been mandatory for anyone w/o health care insurance. No one could have opted out. I believe that this is the only way to go on that issue.

      I'm not opposed to paying taxes, but I also want to have something for what I pay in. If I could be certain that my tax dollars were truly going to fund social agendas I would have less of a problem. I think HRC was more dedicated to those issues that are closest to my heart..and that is why I so strongly supported her. I hear Obama talk about Change, but I don't for a second think that he will deliver on the kinds of change that are important to me personally....and the biggest issue that I have in my mind is health care for people (probably because I have seen the terrible effects of people who don't have it or lose their health care mid bone marrow transplant etc...and have lived in countries where people don't have to worry about health care). I do not believe in the idea of a redistribution of wealth...We might as well get over calling America a capitalist democratic country then and start calling it what it is. Don't take money from my pockets and hand it to the 38% of people who don't even have to pay IN to jump start the economy. nope. nope. and nope.

      I'm happy to pay my fair share towards health care, education and necessary social programs like funding for orphans or treatment for mothers on crack....really. But my pocket is only so deep. I also have 5 children and I will not benefit at ALL from the democrats current direction. My children will not qualify for any kind of government funding for college or govt. backed loans. We will have to pay for it all and it will be expensive. My children will not qualify for any free dental care or medications.....why not? If I'm paying for other people to have it, why not give it to us too? :huh:

      When we were doing fellowship, we couldn't afford the dental care and were not provided dental coverage. Alex had terrible dental problems because his teeth had no shiny enamel as they were coming in. Thomas earned too much working as a fellow to qualify for any aid and we couldn't afford the treatments for Alex. As a result, his teeth were in terrible shape by the time they all grew in. He had to have oral surgery after we were finished with fellowship and had dental/medical coverage. So....what about us? Thomas was working 100 hours/week as a fellow...and getting about 40k. If he hadn't been working, Alex's care at UF would have been free.

      Where is the incentive to work hard? I'm still mad about all of that. I really am. Now I get to pay into those same programs that rejected us even though Thomas worked for the system. It makes my blood boil. I want to know that if I am paying into a program that it will be available to my own children now or later when they are adults.

      rant, rant, rant...

      Kris
      ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
      ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Election Choice: Taxes

        Interesting article about how people feel about the "rich":

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27377873/


        What's really interesting is the negative vibes that we sometimes get about doctors. I have heard the sarcasm so many times that I just blow it off now. People have no idea what the time investment is and the amount of work involved in getting through medical school, residency and fellowship. They don't 'get' how much these guys (and we) sacrifice to get where we are and how hard the lifestyle can continue to be.

        If I had a tax free dollar for every time I heard "I would never tolerate that" followed by a long explanation about how perfect someone else's husband is when talking about dh's schedule, I'd belong to the "rich" :>
        "Well, I would never let my husband work until 10:30 at night all week....he gives our son a bath every night while I cook dinner. Uh. uh...no way" Right...until you or your child is sick and then if my husband wasn't there you'd be complaining about that!

        I just feel...resentful, I guess.

        I hate that we worked this hard for so long and now we have lost a huge chunk of our retirement (but rest assured, 100 billion of the bailout went to the CEO salaries and bonuses so they don't lose anything ), 25% of the value of our home AND we are the bad guys.
        ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
        ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Election Choice: Taxes

          Thank you for posting this article. I hadn't heard all those details about their tax plans. I have problems with some of McCain's choices, but for me, taxes are the most important issue of this election. I think that wealth redistribution hurts all of our society in the long run. It seems like the carrot and stick in reverse. You can chug along at a 40 hour per week minimum wage job, and the government will provide you with health care, low mortgage, college for your kids, retirement for you, and occasionally give you a "rebate" check on taxes you don't actually pay. Lots of yummy carrots. But, if you decide to start a business or get an advanced degree, here comes the stick - not only do they take away the carrots, but you'll essentially work from January through May without getting to keep that income. How do you justify encouraging people to work hard, take risks, and make sacrifices for a better life, if you're making the simple way the better option?

          Besides not wanting to pay more when DH gets finished, I think that wealth redistribution is a very slippery slope. The $250,000 cutoff Obama has proposed sounds nice. Most people would have a hard time arguing that living on the $150,000 you have left over after paying 40% in taxes isn't a really nice lifestyle. That's still more than a lot of doctors make. But Obama is proposing a LOT of carrots. What if it's not enough? The median annual household income in 2007 was $50,233 (from Wikipedia). At what point do we decide to start lowering the "redistribution" cutoff? How low should it go? At what point does it start to discourage progress and hard work?
          Laurie
          My team: DH (anesthesiologist), DS (9), DD (8)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Election Choice: Taxes

            Both are interesting articles.
            Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
            With fingernails that shine like justice
            And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

            Comment

            Working...
            X