Compare 2009 income tax under McCain/Obama

[elder999]

http://www.electiontaxes.com/

The results might surprise some of you.

From This article:

For example, the model indicates that a couple with two children earning $100,000 with $20,000 in itemized deductions would have a net tax bill for 2009 of $9,555 under McCain and $9,002 under Obama. That compares with a $9,505 tax bill for this couple under current law, the electiontaxes.com site says. In another example, a single taxpayer making $50,000 and using the standard deduction would pay $6,867 under McCain and $6,325 under Obama, compared with $6,827 under current law.

 

[DavidCC]

1) the differences seem trivial, or within the margin of error for the guesses

2) Congress passes laws, including tax laws, so what the candidates propose now is mostly not very relevant

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Interesting.

 

[elder999]

1) the differences seem trivial, or within the margin of error for the guesses

2) Congress passes laws, including tax laws, so what the candidates propose now is mostly not very relevant

1) I gather that for some, paying $542 less under Obama than they would McCain is not trivial-in fact, I would think there'd be some consternation since the common thought among many is that "Obama is going to raise your taxes...." (He's going to raise mine, but it looks like McCain is as well, no matter what he says, though maybe a little less.)

2) Sure, that's kind of what happened to Bush I, when they figured out that we had to pay for 8 years of Reagan's deficit spending somehow, but the President's input is extremely relevant-or haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

Now that the first debate is over, and they both spent a little time bickering over who was going to cost the taxpayers more, I'd just like to suggest that some of you go ahead and plug in your figures and see what it tells you.......

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I pay the same amount either way it seems.

 

[elder999]

I pay what Rita-that's the wife-calls "a little bit more" under Obama than with McCain, though it's way more significant than the "trivial difference" of $542 dollars, but she's a Quaker, and swallowed the Obamessiah kool-aid quite some time ago. We actually would pay slightly more under McCain than we have with Bush, but that's no surprise either-fact is, the government is going to have to raise my taxes to pay for the last few years of fiscal stupidity,no matter who gets elected. Damn.

 

[grydth]

1) the differences seem trivial, or within the margin of error for the guesses

2) Congress passes laws, including tax laws, so what the candidates propose now is mostly not very relevant

Right on the money. Too many variables remain, to include who's elected to Congress, Iraq, the cost of any Wall Street bailout, the fate of the Bush era temporary tax cuts. Both candidates admitted during the debate last night that the economy will impact what plans they are able to carry out.

I'm guessing whoever gets in, the average citizen will not be happy for a great many April 15's to come.

 

[Ninjamom]

Don't forget to look at the overall size of government and budgetary spending. All that $$ for new spending has to come from somewhere. Under Obama's plan, the money would come from higher taxes on evil corporations and the "very wealthy", but these foks and institutions get their money somewhere, too.

Any additional corporate tax (or reduced loopholes, depending on whose propaganda you're buying) equates to increased prices. There's no benefit to having more money if you can't buy anything with it.

My father used to explain it this way: "I'm too rich to benefit from a Democratic adminstration and not rich enough to benefit from the Republicans. I can either vote Republican and have less money that's worth more, or vote Democrat and have more money that's worth less."

Like Mr. Hubbard says, you're going to pay either way.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Or, Elect Bob Barrr with a surprise landslide and save $200-B.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Something to consider when discussing taxes.
Half of the population makes under $32,000 a year, and their combined tax contribution is 3% of Federal Tax income.

The examples "a couple with two children earning $100,000" or more is about 10% of the opulation, and they are currently paying collectively 70% of Federal Tax income.

So, who are these "Rich" that Obama wants to tax more out of again to pay for all his extra programs?

Seeing these numbers, it explains why so many are leaving the country and working abroad as of late.

Maybe the answer isn't more taxes, it's creating an environment that encourages people to go out and earn more. Not punishes them for succceeding and rewarding the failures who sit back and don't bother to go forward.

Oh, tax info from http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

 

[Andrew Green]

wow... that is a little surprising

Without any deductions on $50,000 in Canada you'd pay $6801.78 (federal tax) in '08

Without any deductions on $50,000 in USA you'd pay $8843.5 (federal tax) in '08

This is just going off the tax brackets I found online.

I'm going to assume that our provincial taxes and sales taxes are higher though. But I am a little surprised that you folks pay more then we do into federal income tax...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sales tax rates(state/county/city) combined are on the average 6-9%
We currently have no federal level sales tax

 

[Ninjamom]

In our state (Maryland), state income tax is a straight percentage of your Federal tax bill, and the county 'piggyback' tax is a percentage of that.

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://www.electiontaxes.com/

The results might surprise some of you.

From This article:

Questions:

1) Why do they assume income increase? I am not guaranteed in annual increase as a matter of fact in the 00's there have been more years with no increase then years with an increase.

2) There are break points from some numbers I put in. In 09 I would pay less with Obama ($70) and in 10 I would pay less with McCain ($500). What is their break points? I saw an article about $200,000 for increase by Obama, but I make lots less than that. ( I do make 7 figures, but I count my pennies. xx,xxx.xx *)

3) I heard that a portion of the Obama plan included the Carbon Emission credits that would be sold annual at auction. As the companies the producce carbon, would then have an increase variable cost, they would have to raise their prices to offset these costs that were not there today. While I agree having limits would help companies to get better on emissions, but the cost of doing such will be past upon to the customer. With the increase of the sale of the credits to the companies this cost would also be past on. Is this "Tax" understood in their plans?


I did like the site to see. Thanks for sharing.