You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. TaxProf Blog: Comparison of the McCain and Obama Tax Plans
A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans
Read and compare at your leisure.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is FAR more important HOW and WHERE the govt is going to spend this "windfall" of cash they'll be getting than where they are getting it from. Both parties spend a lot (regardless what the Reps say). Tax and Spend is the same as Borrow and Spend, IMO.
Is this tax money going to a failed welfare system or a stupid war in Iraq? I'd much rather see where the candidates propose to do with this money.
McCain's idea is gearing toward the supply side I suppose (do I have that right?) but that will end up making the govt borrow more. Obama wants to give breaks to the poor. Fine but instead of handouts how about some incentivies to WORK? I really do believe the more you give away the more people want...unfortunately. EDIT: It seems Obama's "solution" raises the debt also...bad idea.
On the Corporate side, I find many Corp handouts an abomination but many can do good. I don't buy into the liberal idea and Corps are evil and that crap. The fact is Corps are where we get jobs the last I checked. However, there seems to be a larger disparity between what CEOs get and the janitor does. It used to be something like 30X but now it's, what, 400X salary or some such? Things have changed in the wrong direction there. Maybe the govt can realign the power of the sharehold or something to prevent these windfall CEO buyouts like Home Depot did a couple of years ago to their CEO.
Anyway, just some (obviously random) thoughts...heh
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
To me, it's not just a matter of how much people get after the taxman takes his piece, it's how many people benefit from a plan that can spur economic growth. I would like to thank President Bush for one thing - handing out tax cuts to uber wealthy people does NOT mean that they will go out and hire people and grow the economy. An eight year experiment that has failed. The tax rebates are probably a wiser idea, although maybe too little, too late. It might have been better policy to ensure that American families had $600 to $1200 extra in their pocket EVERY YEAR under a different tax schedule. Trust me, the smart wealthy people in this country are going to find a way to get ahold of that money eventually.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is FAR more important HOW and WHERE the govt is going to spend this "windfall" of cash they'll be getting than where they are getting it from. Both parties spend a lot (regardless what the Reps say). Tax and Spend is the same as Borrow and Spend, IMO.
Is this tax money going to a failed welfare system or a stupid war in Iraq? I'd much rather see where the candidates propose to do with this money.
McCain's idea is gearing toward the supply side I suppose (do I have that right?) but that will end up making the govt borrow more. Obama wants to give breaks to the poor. Fine but instead of handouts how about some incentivies to WORK? I really do believe the more you give away the more people want...unfortunately.
jom
jom,
Just wanted to respond to this first part of your thoughts, specifically, "Is this money going to a failed welfare system" and "instead of handouts how about some incentives to WORK."
I may be wrong here, but I think because the welfare system (that part directed at the poor, not the middle class and elderly) was understood to be a wasteful and socially destructive mess for so long many of us got into the habit of thinking about it in those terms and haven't noticed the general agreement that now exists among economists, lawmakers of both parties and scholars of the issue that the welfare reforms of a decade ago have worked remarkably well.
The system is no longer a bottomless pit of waste that produces a self-renewing culture of poverty among its recipients.
There is a TON of evidence about this, but read this short and very clear piece.
It needs to be remembered that this legislation was negotiated by Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton across party lines and is probably the major bi-partisan success of the last many years.
I think Obama is the most likely of the two candidates to try (and to have the will and the power) to do equally constructive things on other long term problems while in office.
Last edited by Leonidas; June 12th, 2008 at 01:09 PM.
How about something simple like "When 100,000 or more troops are deployed in a foreign country, a 5% tax on all goods kicks in to pay for it." Maybe we'll see some people a little more eager for proper planning and a workable exit strategy.
We definately need a more direct "Pay-as-you-go" model for both military AND domestic issues. The idea that we have to cut back so much on our domestic spending, but the Pentagon continues to get blank checks with no ideas how to actually pay for it - it's not working.
How about something simple like "When 100,000 or more troops are deployed in a foreign country, a 5% tax on all goods kicks in to pay for it." Maybe we'll see some people a little more eager for proper planning and a workable exit strategy.
We definately need a more direct "Pay-as-you-go" model for both military AND domestic issues. The idea that we have to cut back so much on our domestic spending, but the Pentagon continues to get blank checks with no ideas how to actually pay for it - it's not working.
Or just cut peripheral military spending which has nothing to do with the current war. Cut all stealth fighter and submarine programs immediately. Neither are are any use in a war against international terrorist organizations. 300 billion dollars a year freed up.
How about something simple like "When 100,000 or more troops are deployed in a foreign country, a 5% tax on all goods kicks in to pay for it." Maybe we'll see some people a little more eager for proper planning and a workable exit strategy.
We definately need a more direct "Pay-as-you-go" model for both military AND domestic issues. The idea that we have to cut back so much on our domestic spending, but the Pentagon continues to get blank checks with no ideas how to actually pay for it - it's not working.
Or just cut peripheral military spending which has nothing to do with the current war. Cut all stealth fighter and submarine programs immediately. Neither are are any use in a war against international terrorist organizations. 300 billion dollars a year freed up.
Ive been thinking along these lines for about 5 years now. Our previous stategic thinkers greatly misunderstood the military conflicts that were going to grow out of the end of the cold war and continued to build along those lines. Now, if our primary military concern is China... then lets ramp up the Stealth bombers... but if our primary concern is small scale conflict/occupation... then the emphasis of spendingt and research needs to be directed elsewhere. Rumsfelds smaller/faster/deadlier theories have a place, but not when an occupation is imminent.
Ive been thinking along these lines for about 5 years now. Our previous stategic thinkers greatly misunderstood the military conflicts that were going to grow out of the end of the cold war and continued to build along those lines. Now, if our primary military concern is China... then lets ramp up the Stealth bombers... but if our primary concern is small scale conflict/occupation... then the emphasis of spendingt and research needs to be directed elsewhere. Rumsfelds smaller/faster/deadlier theories have a place, but not when an occupation is imminent.
Our military has pretty much decided if we go to war with China it is going to be nuclear. That's what the subs are for. Here is an article on the subject
Our military has pretty much decided if we go to war with China it is going to be nuclear.
I remember reading (years ago) the original "mission" of the Stealth bomber (before they changed it 100 times). Evidently, it was originally supposed to be able to go into the Soviet Union and bomb the crap out of them if we (the US) had already come under attack from them. I always thought that was incredibly stupid. I mean, what's the point? Everyone is dead anyway...who the **** cares?
As to the tax: Yes, a "pay as you use" style is far better. The flat-tax doesn't work but a PROGRESSIVE sales tax would, IMO.
Leonidas: Good article there on the welfare system. I stand corrected on that.
These Two Sites Break Down the McCain and Obama Tax Plans 
FlyBoeingJets
