What are you more excited about?

[boarderboy]

My vote in this election, and in the last one, and in the one before that was cemented by my late '60's experiences as a lowly swabbie.

No political ad since, has influenced me in any way. And I'm tired of having to avoid my usual R & B and rock stations because of all the attack ads. Life's too short, and my heart to weak for all that.

So here's to the end of this election, and of the last eight years.

And if Fin comes up with with a nice, forgiving, step-in for us old freecarvers, I'll buy it in a heartbeat (or two.)

pax

[b0ardski]

the coin has an elephant on one side, an ass on the other side, and engraved on the edge is the word LIBERTY.

when the coin lands on edge wake me up,

I like being up on edge:biggthump

[kjl]

I'm excited for the election, hopefully the "right" guy wins and all my hard earned money won't be redistributed to the lazy guy down the street. Then I can afford to take my hard earned income or "wealth" as some call it and spend it on a plane ticket to the SES. Thus, stimulating the economy.

I really, really don't want to get into politics again on my favorite forum, but I have to chime in, because this bit of misinformation really bothers me.

If you make less than ~$220,000 a year, it looks like you get a tax cut compared to this year no matter who you vote for. If you make less than ~$110,000 a year you will keep more money with the "left" candidate than the "right", although in either case you keep more than you will this year. If you make between ~$110K and ~$220K a year, you will keep more money with the "right" candidate than the "left", but again, in either case, you keep more than you will this year. You don't have to worry about either candidate stealing your hard earned cash and redistributing it any more than the government already does.

I believe the "socialism" charge is basically nonsense, unless you happen to draw the line between "socialism" and "not socialism" exactly between 36% and 39% for the highest tax bracket. Both Obama's and McCain's tax plans are very similar. They are both progressive tax systems (the more you earn, the more you owe). You can argue that a progressive tax system is not fair (I happen to think it is), but then you are against both of their proposals, and our current tax system as well.

The reason the "socialist" charge has me so worked up this time around is I see all these people at McCain rallies proudly proclaiming themselves plumbers or other middle/lower class job, who are deathly afraid Obama will "steal their money", despite the fact that Obama's plan is actually better off for all of them than McCain's (unless plumbers make significantly more money than I think they do).

Chart below shows proposed percentage change in taxes you owe in total compared to this year.

[kevbo]

bottom 40% don't pay taxes(federal). one word and I'm done...welfare:(

[Fastskiguy]

I really, really don't want to get into politics again on my favorite forum, but I have to chime in, because this bit of misinformation really bothers me.

If you make less than ~$220,000 a year, it looks like you get a tax cut compared to this year no matter who you vote for. If you make less than ~$110,000 a year you will keep more money with the "left" candidate than the "right", although in either case you keep more than you will this year. If you make between ~$110K and ~$220K a year, you will keep more money with the "right" candidate than the "left", but again, in either case, you keep more than you will this year. You don't have to worry about either candidate stealing your hard earned cash and redistributing it any more than the government already does.

I believe the "socialism" charge is basically nonsense, unless you happen to draw the line between "socialism" and "not socialism" exactly between 36% and 39% for the highest tax bracket. Both Obama's and McCain's tax plans are very similar. They are both progressive tax systems (the more you earn, the more you owe). You can argue that a progressive tax system is not fair (I happen to think it is), but then you are against both of their proposals, and our current tax system as well.

The reason the "socialist" charge has me so worked up this time around is I see all these people at McCain rallies proudly proclaiming themselves plumbers or other middle/lower class job, who are deathly afraid Obama will "steal their money", despite the fact that Obama's plan is actually better off for all of them than McCain's (unless plumbers make significantly more money than I think they do).

Chart below shows proposed percentage change in taxes you owe in total compared to this year.

Could you clear up a couple of things for me? I'm not trying to confrontational, I am just trying to figure this out.

Isn't Obama going to to remove the social security cap? Because if that is done then if you own a business you're looking at 39 federal + 15 social security + your state (0-??) or 54% plus state tax on anything in the top bracket.

And wasn't it 250K before, now it's 220K, and I heard somebody saying it was lower now....has it always been 220K? I could have sworn it was 250K a few weeks ago.

And finally...will either be able to stick to what they promise? I can't imagine the next president won't have to say "gee guys, it's worse and we need to increase your taxes" after he gets in.

Thanks for the info. I still voted for the new bindings :)

[Phil]

And finally...will either be able to stick to what they promise? I can't imagine the next president won't have to say "gee guys, it's worse and we need to increase your taxes" after he gets in.

Do you mean that there is a possibility that some of what both candidates have been saying may have just been rhetoric??

No, I'll never believe that! :rolleyes:

[bobdea]

I can't wait for the elections to be over so we can all move on with our lives:smashfrea ones old and ones black other than that they are both socialists so whats the difference!

One has selected a VP that watches the Flintstones and the land of the lost as if they were documentaries.

[bobdea]

one thing here that's gotta be called to attention is that the tax rate now for the upper end of the bracket is quite low compared with the last century and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere and that's out of the pockets of the middle class. People in this country whine about the tax rate but the tax burden in this country is quite low compared with the rest of the first world

here's something to chew on

52.38% top marginal tax rate: Eisenhower, King of the Socialists

by mbzoltan

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM PDT

Only in 1988 and 1989 (Ronald Reagan's final 13 months in office) was the TOP MARGINAL rate down to 28%. It was 69.13% when he went into office, and went from 69.13%-50% from 1981-1986, then 38.5%, then 28%.

Barack Obama has proposed a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, which was the rate under Bill Clinton. So with the exception of 13 months of Reagan's time in office, Obama's rate is lower than Reagan's.

Read on for more...

mbzoltan's diary :: ::

Furthermore, really look at those rates. Take the Tax Policy Center's historical top marginal tax rate chart. Under previous Republicans:

Taft: (1909-1913)--income tax began in 1913 at 7% for top rate

Harding: (1921-1923): 56%-73%

Coolidge (1923-1929): 24%-56%

Hoover (1929-1933): 24%-63% (63% after Roosevelt took power)

Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%

Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%

Ford: (1974-1977): 70%

Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%

Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power)

Low taxes for the TOP RATES are the exception even under Republican presidents, not the norm.

Under all Republican presidents since federal income tax began, NOT including the years where the Republican transfered power to a Democrat (i.e the Republican was only in office for 1-3 months at the beginning of the year), the top marginal tax rate average was 52.38%, a full 12%+ HIGHER than Barack Obama's proposal. I took the 49 years during which the Republican was in power for the majority of the time, added the tax rates, and divided by 49 to get the figure of 52.38%.

Kevbo, the 40% figure is ONLY for federal income tax and is specifically a anti poverty measure that MANY middle income and upper income couples take advantage of by way of loopholes. these people still pay all the other taxes and it can be argued that the people that qualify(without hiding income) for EIC and so on actually have a much higher real world tax burden than the people who are actually in highest taxed group. http://mediamatters.org/items/200810160021

Also, 50% or more of corporations don't pay taxes and actually get payed to outsource jobs to india or where ever.

not to mention the people who make the most money in this country tend to use infostructure to make their money which is largely paid for by the public and then in many cases literally given away to the private sector and in return we're all robbed. Either way, the more you make the more you tend to use these resources so the more you should pay

It also blows my mind that people who worry about the economy continue to vote republican and the republicans can't stop spending on wars and yet suggest cutting taxes as if that will pay for it.

[Ernie00]

I'm more excited about riding more than anything else.

I'm really looking forward to see the new goodies from Bomber and I'm curious about the election in the US. I hope things will settle down after that.

[Michelle]

I can tell you without a doubt I CAN'T WAIT until the elections are over!!!! I've early voted, and I'm done. I'm so incredibly sick of all the ads on tv, and seeing all the crap cluttering everyone's yards.

New Bomber products? Pfft. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

[kjl]

And wasn't it 250K before, now it's 220K, and I heard somebody saying it was lower now....has it always been 220K? I could have sworn it was 250K a few weeks ago.

I think Obama's plan has always been: if you make less than $250K your taxes will not go up, and if you make less than $200K you get a tax break, but those are rough numbers because the progressive tax bracket system makes it confusing to figure out.

For example, if the tax rates for all the brackets under $130K go DOWN but the tax rate of the brackets above $130K go UP, and you make, say $150K, you might still end up paying fewer taxes because you're getting a tax break on the vast majority of your money ($130K), and only paying higher taxes on the last $20K. All the various charts and stuff are just analyst guesstimates on what the bottom line is given your yearly wage. AFAIK, neither the Obama or McCain plans have been changing from day to day; the confusion with the numbers is simply because it's confusing. There are different tax brackets for single people, married couples, married coupled filing separately, etc..

And finally...will either be able to stick to what they promise? I can't imagine the next president won't have to say "gee guys, it's worse and we need to increase your taxes" after he gets in.

Yeah, that's always a concern; it's impossible to tell. With previous democrats and republicans I always had a general (and possibly completely uninformed) gut feeling that a democrat would raise taxes if necessary, while the republican would keep taxes lower but balloon the federal deficit. Both parties (with the exception of the last 8 years) seemed equally adept at growing the amount of government spending, so the choices seem to always be to raise taxes or go into more debt. Six of one, half dozen of the other. With the current economy exploding, I have the gut feeling that to avoid a depression, both candidates would choose the latter (keep taxes lower and go into more debt).

bottom 40% don't pay taxes(federal). one word and I'm done...welfare

I just don't see the differences between Obama's and McCain's plans that would make you consider one a welfare state and the other not.

Here is McCain back in 2000 eloquently defending taxing rich people more and poor people less ("When you reach a certain level of comfort there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Hans]

I can tell you without a doubt I CAN'T WAIT until the elections are over!!!! I've early voted, and I'm done. I'm so incredibly sick of all the ads on tv, and seeing all the crap cluttering everyone's yards.

New Bomber products? Pfft. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

I am just so done with Bomber, Fin and Michelle. They keep us waiting and waiting and waiting. I bet they have a bunch of serious new stuff out there.... They better be

[Fastskiguy]

I think Obama's plan has always been: if you make less than $250K your taxes will not go up, and if you make less than $200K you get a tax break, but those are rough numbers because the progressive tax bracket system makes it confusing to figure out.

I was just reading over here

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106069/Your-Money:-McCain-vs.-Obama;_ylt=Au3nbsly4lpu.Fo4o1eGnawy0tIF#14

about some of the details...it's not just that if your family makes over $250K that you'll pay 39% or whatever, it's that you'll pay more in capital gains (20%), pay an additional 2-4% tax for socialized security, and get taxed at regular income for interest.

But having said that, I guess I may have more of a problem with progressive taxation in general. It's just when Joe Biden made $320K (ish) and paid only 13% in tax that made me so pissed off I can't even tell you. Then he had the nerve to say it's your responsibility to pay more....I want to pay what he pays, 13% on his income just doesn't seem fair.

[tex1230]

a friend sent this...good stuff.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e83_1224880224

[Steve Prokopiw]

Just another guy tellin republicans what they want to hear without checking the facts.All based on so called conservatism that has allowed the middle class to get the rug swept out from under them.The drill for oil thing and the arguments against universal healthcare the most deceiptful and short sighted points of all.Didn't change my mind.Just made me more sure of my vote.

[Fastskiguy]

I agree drilling won't help much but you *do not* want the government in charge of your healthcare. You might want for them to pay for it but that won't come without them getting a say in what happens to you.

Just another guy tellin republicans what they want to hear without checking the facts.All based on so called conservatism that has allowed the middle class to get the rug swept out from under them.The drill for oil thing and the arguments against universal healthcare the most deceiptful and short sighted points of all.Didn't change my mind.Just made me more sure of my vote.

[kjl]

But having said that, I guess I may have more of a problem with progressive taxation in general. It's just when Joe Biden made $320K (ish) and paid only 13% in tax that made me so pissed off I can't even tell you. Then he had the nerve to say it's your responsibility to pay more....I want to pay what he pays, 13% on his income just doesn't seem fair.

Hey, do you have a link for that? That would piss me off, too, but I did some googling and found the opposite; it looks to me he plays it very (overly?) fair with taxes (he doesn't do a bunch of itemized deductions, only deducting state and local taxes, and deducting mortgage interest payments).

It looks like since Joe Biden has been in public service most of his life and has a blue collar background, he is actually not a very rich guy. Though it's hard to find actual numbers on his net worth it seems like they are mostly agreeing that his net worth is between ~$100K and ~$500K. That seems really low, since he has a ~$160K salary as a senator and has been doing it for decades, but I guess he has a mortgage, and this says he took a loan out for his son's college education.

Oh, and I just found his actual tax returns online HERE

It looks like he and his wife jointly made ~$320K last year, but that's abnormally high for him - A large amount was a one-time advance from his book - usually it looks like he and his wife make roughly ~$250K a year. His effective tax rate was ~20%, which actually seems high - I have a fairly high yearly income but only have an effective tax rate of ~15% since my mortgage interest payments are so high.

I have to admit to being biased, but I try to keep an open mind - I really like Biden - propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth aside, he seems like the everyman that people seem to really want as their president. He's not super rich, came from a modest background, has dedicated himself to public service his whole life, etc.. He's quite smart and has a ton of experience, now, too, which is nice. It's too bad he is in the position of "attack dog" now.

Back to the earlier discussion, I personally believe progressive taxation is "fair". There is a pretty nice list of pro and con arguments on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

But again, both tax plans (McCain, Obama), and any tax plan you are likely to see in the near future, is a progressive tax. With the exception of Ron Paul's, I guess, who wants to get rid of it altogether, and didn't Perot want a flat tax?

[Jack M]

I agree drilling won't help much but you *do not* want the government in charge of your healthcare.

I'm afraid it would turn out like this.

[Fastskiguy]

It looks like he and his wife jointly made ~$320K last year, but that's abnormally high for him - A large amount was a one-time advance from his book - usually it looks like he and his wife make roughly ~$250K a year. His effective tax rate was ~20%,

Um, my numbers are the same as yours. I got this info second hand, didn't check it out, got pissed, then spouted off on a message board, only to find he paid about 20%, not 13%. Thanks for checking the numbers. I was w...wwwr....wwwrooo....um "not right". (you might remember the Happy Days episode when Fonzie admitted he was wrong about something)

Now I'm off to bitch out my source. Sorry for being an idiot! Thanks for setting the record straight :)

[Steve Prokopiw]

I agree drilling won't help much but you *do not* want the government in charge of your healthcare. You might want for them to pay for it but that won't come without them getting a say in what happens to you.

By allowing us to be overcharged for healthcare related goods and services and to be denied coverage and be made to fight for coverage you paid for ...yes they already determine my healthcare`status;particularly that of my very hard working and ethical employer who will be filing soon for medical bankruptcy.By allowing lobbyists from big corps to decide my fate...Yes they do...To overide ethical and moral obligations to do the right thing for a larger percentage of the public based on economic benefits for a priviledged few....

I live in a half US half Canadian household.Don't worry though,only one of us gets to vote.

[Fastskiguy]

By allowing us to be overcharged for healthcare related goods and services and to be denied coverage and be made to fight for coverage you paid for ...yes they already determine my healthcare`status;particularly that of my very hard working and ethical employer who will be filing soon for medical bankruptcy.By allowing lobbyists from big corps to decide my fate...Yes they do...To overide ethical and moral obligations to do the right thing for a larger percentage of the public based on economic benefits for a priviledged few....

I live in a half US half Canadian household.Don't worry though,only one of us gets to vote.

I don't think anybody can argue with you that the system is not working now and lobbyists from big corps have a huge influence on your care, no doubt about it. But everybody knows you can sell the government a toilet seat for $700 and their ability to fix your crisis is crappy (New Orleans) so I don't think there's any question costs will go up and care will go down. Take Medicare or the VA hospitals for our military guys. Both of those programs need big time help and both are run by the government. Hospitals aren't run by doctors anymore either, it's big business, the professional staff is getting squeezed, the patients are getting squeezed, and the business/insurance/law part is getting fat. We need different rules, not the government taking over.

Look, I hope you are right and I'm all wrong. But I just can't see how it can possibly be good for you and me.