OT: Unbiased analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=marion]

I don’t agree with a flat tax rate. If you earn more, you should pay more taxes. A flat tax rate wouldn’t be good for our society because it would be no break for the poor.

[/quote]

Marion most flat tax proposals has anywhere from the first 35-50k people make not taxable. I’d say paying zero is a break.

Also once you factor in the amount of “free income” available, you’ll find the flat tax is also still progressive. i.e. let’s say the first 35k is free. You make 50k so we take away and 15k is taxed at 20% for simplicity.

You make 50k and 15k in taxable income so that is 3K in taxes.

The next guy makes 100k, subtract 35k and his taxable income is 65k of which 13k goes to the flat tax.

So you make 50k and pay 3k, while the next guy makes 100k, but pays in 13k instead of 6k. Do you see how the tax is still progressive?

[Eugene]

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

[Eugene]

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

[Eugene]

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

[Eugene]

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

[Eugene]

One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration. McCain has said on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — although, straight-talker that he is, he has also denied having ever said such a thing. But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

[an]

esmith, saying McCain wants to fight the war for 100 years is pretty bad spin for me, even though I don’t support him. He said he would stay there 100 years if it’s needed to keep the region stable. I’m pretty sure that Obama will have no choice but to stay as well if the region is not stable. The glass has already been broken and now we’re trying to put it back together. You can’t just leave, and hope the 1/2 mended glass will fix itself.

Didn’t McCain say he’ll cut earmarks and reign in spending to the point where it’s a % of GDP similar to the Clinton years? I’m also pretty sure his tax cut plans won’t go through Congress since it’s Democrat control. That’s one way to have check and balance. No stupid policy from McCain will ever go through due to Congress control. We all saw what happened when one part control congress and presidency over the last 6 out of 8 years.

[an]

esmith, saying McCain wants to fight the war for 100 years is pretty bad spin for me, even though I don’t support him. He said he would stay there 100 years if it’s needed to keep the region stable. I’m pretty sure that Obama will have no choice but to stay as well if the region is not stable. The glass has already been broken and now we’re trying to put it back together. You can’t just leave, and hope the 1/2 mended glass will fix itself.

Didn’t McCain say he’ll cut earmarks and reign in spending to the point where it’s a % of GDP similar to the Clinton years? I’m also pretty sure his tax cut plans won’t go through Congress since it’s Democrat control. That’s one way to have check and balance. No stupid policy from McCain will ever go through due to Congress control. We all saw what happened when one part control congress and presidency over the last 6 out of 8 years.

[an]

esmith, saying McCain wants to fight the war for 100 years is pretty bad spin for me, even though I don’t support him. He said he would stay there 100 years if it’s needed to keep the region stable. I’m pretty sure that Obama will have no choice but to stay as well if the region is not stable. The glass has already been broken and now we’re trying to put it back together. You can’t just leave, and hope the 1/2 mended glass will fix itself.

Didn’t McCain say he’ll cut earmarks and reign in spending to the point where it’s a % of GDP similar to the Clinton years? I’m also pretty sure his tax cut plans won’t go through Congress since it’s Democrat control. That’s one way to have check and balance. No stupid policy from McCain will ever go through due to Congress control. We all saw what happened when one part control congress and presidency over the last 6 out of 8 years.

[an]

esmith, saying McCain wants to fight the war for 100 years is pretty bad spin for me, even though I don’t support him. He said he would stay there 100 years if it’s needed to keep the region stable. I’m pretty sure that Obama will have no choice but to stay as well if the region is not stable. The glass has already been broken and now we’re trying to put it back together. You can’t just leave, and hope the 1/2 mended glass will fix itself.

Didn’t McCain say he’ll cut earmarks and reign in spending to the point where it’s a % of GDP similar to the Clinton years? I’m also pretty sure his tax cut plans won’t go through Congress since it’s Democrat control. That’s one way to have check and balance. No stupid policy from McCain will ever go through due to Congress control. We all saw what happened when one part control congress and presidency over the last 6 out of 8 years.

[an]

esmith, saying McCain wants to fight the war for 100 years is pretty bad spin for me, even though I don’t support him. He said he would stay there 100 years if it’s needed to keep the region stable. I’m pretty sure that Obama will have no choice but to stay as well if the region is not stable. The glass has already been broken and now we’re trying to put it back together. You can’t just leave, and hope the 1/2 mended glass will fix itself.

Didn’t McCain say he’ll cut earmarks and reign in spending to the point where it’s a % of GDP similar to the Clinton years? I’m also pretty sure his tax cut plans won’t go through Congress since it’s Democrat control. That’s one way to have check and balance. No stupid policy from McCain will ever go through due to Congress control. We all saw what happened when one part control congress and presidency over the last 6 out of 8 years.

[Author]

Posts