11 Responses So Far

• Most Recent
• Order Posted

• Free markets work best. Hands off! Government intervention into the economy is scary they already regulate too many aspects of our lives. Do you think bureaucrats know how to run a business or the economy? Let them profit or fall on their own like a private business should. Too much government, too much regulation is too much like central planning, what’s next?

  Hands Off 10 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• 
  http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

  This week’s carnage on Wall Street probably offset those tax breaks the top one percenters got under Bush. I bet they’d be really, really pissed off if they knew who was responsible for the tragic lack of government oversight.

  Martin 10 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• I noticed that it marks media male and female income. Does anyone know if this based on individual income or household income? In other words, should I be putting myself into a bracket based on my income or household income when i file jointly? Also is this this based on gross income or taxable income?

  justagirl 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• A McCain adviser on the economy this weekend: “Things just aren’t that bad.”

  washingtonpost.com

  Eric Buth 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• @Augie De Blieck: It is quite a bit harder to find job that pays $125,000 in Montana as well. Where in new york i’m sure the opportunities are more plentiful

  Chris Lee 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• Augie De Blieck:
  It is true that New Yorkers and people living in big cities get a bad deal - we contribute more total and as a percentage of our incomes to the federal government. The irony is that McCain’s support is strongest in exactly the geographic regions that would benefit most from voting for Obama - the South, industrial towns, small towns and other places where incomes are lower.  Re: the idea of encouraging people to earn more. The practical question is rather different. Money makes money. The rich get richer just by virtue of having money to invest. Tax policy in the US is really a question of “How much richer do we want to let the rich become?” A flat tax would result in the rich getting much much much richer. Progressive taxation adjusts for this - the more progressive the tax, the less quickly the rich become richer than everyone else. (Of course, taken to an extreme you get socialism or Communism but only a kooky candidate would ever suggest that level or progressive tax just like only kooky conservative candidates advocate a flat tax).  Finally, I agree that the rich are good at hiding income. But that is a totally different issue and not a good reason to just give up on taxing them. Should we only tax the middle class because the rich are better at getting around the law?!

  Jonah Peretti 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• There’s a big geographic issue that doesn’t get taken into account with the tax system, in general, though. Making $125,000 while living in New York City or San Francisco is a far different lifestyle than making $125,000 while living in, say, Montana. That person is rich in Montana. Should that person be taxed more, too? Then there’s the whole idealistic part of letting those who earn more money keep more money. Otherwise, where’s the incentive to earn more money if the government keeps taking it away? And as nice it may seem to some to suck money out of the rich, those are also the first people who can find ways to hide more income. The system is flawed above and beyond what a nice little “tax cut” bar chart will show.

  Augie De Blieck 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• I think the graph would be more visualy effective if it showed how much each candidates tax plan would COST the average American. Right now McCain’s tax plan looks “smaller” and simpler (better) because it is showing (lack of) savings - Obama’s plan looks bigger (bad) …. swap the data to how much each candidate will COST the Average american and I think that the graph will have the intended effect.

  Jonathan Jackson 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• Ransom Ellis: Check out the chart above if you want to see how Obama gets the “water out of the bucket”. It is not by taxing business, it is by taxing people who make between $603,403 and $2,870,00 a year 9% more than they are currently taxed and people making over $2,870,000 a year 11.5% more than they are currently taxed. Folksy millionaire Fred Thompson would end up with less water in his bucket but the entire middle class would have more.

  Jonah Peretti 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• I think Fred Thompson said it best: “Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they’re not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax “businesses.” So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don’t worry, it’s not going to affect you! They say they’re not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”

  ransom ellis 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse

• Anyone who makes between $18,981 and $111,645 will pay LESS taxes if they vote for Obama. But if you did a poll of people making that salary range probably 80% would think Obama would tax them more. How do we fix this problem? Is there a clear way to explain to the vast majority of Americans that Obama will tax them less and McCain will tax them more?

  Jonah Peretti 11 weeks ago
  • Permalink
  • Flag as   Boring   Spam/Abuse