Trump endorses McCain on Larry King

[saulpaulus]

Again false. Overall, he will lower taxes. He will lower taxes especially on middle and working class people who tend to put their money into the economy. On the very richest Americans, he will return their tax rates to what they were in the 1990s. These people will simply have less money to invest with overseas.

 

[Kandahar]

Obama would also raise the tax rate on incomes over $250,000. to over 50%. This would affect almost all small business owners. This would put many out of business, lay off employees, or force them to raise prices.

Well, then you're talking about the LEGAL definition of "small business," not what is ACTUALLY a "small business." A person earning over $250K is doing pretty well, whether they're a doctor, a lawyer, a banker, or a "small business" owner. This is intentionally deceiving. You aren't talking about someone owning a mom-and-pop coffee shop, which is what most people think of when they think of "small business." Those people aren't earning over $250K.

And Obama wouldn't raise the top rates to over 50%. Where do you even come up with this crap?

 

[Kandahar]

Obama will hike taxes during a weak economy.

:shock:

Anyone who favors this is insane.

In your opinion, when is the best time to hike taxes?

If your answer is "never," then the fact that it's a weak economy is irrelevant and a blatant appeal to emotion, because you know you can't win on the merits of your argument.

 

[obvious Child]

Can any of your blatant partisans cite a reputable source like a non-partisan tax policy center so that I, who HAS tax training can look at it? :2wave:

Kthxbye.

 

[Kandahar]

Can any of your blatant partisans cite a reputable source like a non-partisan tax policy center so that I, who HAS tax training can look at it? :2wave:

Kthxbye.

Here's a brief description from the Chicago Sun-Times. Nothing too in-depth, just a basic overview of the plans:

By the numbers: The tax plans :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Here's a more thorough analysis from the Tax Policy Center:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

 

[obvious Child]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

I've seen the tax policy center one. It's the best so far. It's a partial reason why I'm not voting for either of these insolvency candidates.

 

[Yayasmom]

Again false. Overall, he will lower taxes. He will lower taxes especially on middle and working class people who tend to put their money into the economy. On the very richest Americans, he will return their tax rates to what they were in the 1990s. These people will simply have less money to invest with overseas.

Wrong! Making over $250K a year and being a small business owner is NOT synonymous with investing money overseas! That is laughable!

 

[Kandahar]

Wrong! Making over $250K a year and being a small business owner is NOT synonymous with investing money overseas! That is laughable!

You can continue being dishonest and using the LEGAL definition of "small business owners" to elicit sympathy and conjure up images of mom-and-pop stores struggling to survive on a meager income, but the fact is that if you're making over $250K per year, you're doing fine. You're doing well enough to pay a higher percentage than someone making $20K.

Furthermore, Obama's tax increases are modest even on this upper bracket. They would still be lower than under the Clinton Administration, and those tax rates hardly caused a Great Depression in the 1990s. :roll:

 

[Yayasmom]

You can continue being dishonest and using the LEGAL definition of "small business owners" to elicit sympathy and conjure up images of mom-and-pop stores struggling to survive on a meager income, but the fact is that if you're making over $250K per year, you're doing fine. You're doing well enough to pay a higher percentage than someone making $20K.

Furthermore, Obama's tax increases are modest even on this upper bracket. They would still be lower than under the Clinton Administration, and those tax rates hardly caused a Great Depression in the 1990s. :roll:

Did I mention Great Depression? :shock:

Being dishonest? My, y'all sure do make assumptions around this joint.

 

[Kandahar]

Did I mention Great Depression? :shock:

Being dishonest? My, y'all sure do make assumptions around this joint.

OK, they didn't even cause a recession. In fact, the economy was booming. :roll:

 

[Yayasmom]

OK, they didn't even cause a recession. In fact, the economy was booming. :roll:

Love the eyerolls! I didn't even mention recession. You said he will raise taxes on the "very rich" which includes those making over $250K and they would just invest their money overseas. I'm telling you that's not true. You can turn this into something else if you want, but I was simply responding to your inaccurate assumptions about what "very rich" folks do with their money.

 

[Kandahar]

Love the eyerolls! I didn't even mention recession. You said he will raise taxes on the "very rich" which includes those making over $250K and they would just invest their money overseas. I'm telling you that's not true. You can turn this into something else if you want, but I was simply responding to your inaccurate assumptions about what "very rich" folks do with their money.

Actually I said no such thing. But regardless, even those earning $250K wouldn't see much of an increase. The brunt of the increase would affect those earning more than $1M per year.

 

[bhkad]

Again false. Overall, he will lower taxes. He will lower taxes especially on middle and working class people who tend to put their money into the economy. On the very richest Americans, he will return their tax rates to what they were in the 1990s. These people will simply have less money to invest with overseas.

Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.”

Obama’s Big-Government Vision by Larry Kudlow on NRO Financial

Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

The Gallup poll taken after the Democratic debate reveals that Hillary’s pit-bull routine may have worked. We’ll learn more on that front come Tuesday when Pennsylvanians head to the voting booths. But that’s a different issue. What I’m saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama’s shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he’s going to help.

Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it — after tax — to invest in those new businesses and new jobs.

That’s exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing.

This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn’t read much history either.

Did someone say inexperience?

Why Not Blame Obama? by Larry Kudlow on NRO Financial

 

[Yayasmom]

Actually I said no such thing. But regardless, even those earning $250K wouldn't see much of an increase. The brunt of the increase would affect those earning more than $1M per year.

My apologies! Sorry. I confused you with someone else. :3oops:

We would likely see a difference of approximately $1500/month. That does make a difference.

 

[Kandahar]

My apologies! Sorry. I confused you with someone else. :3oops:

We would likely see a difference of approximately $1500/month. That does make a difference.

Well, here's what the Washington Post concluded:

Looks to me like a person earning $250K wouldn't see much of a tax change in either direction under Obama's plan.

Also, check out this nifty tax calculator:
Presidential Candidates Tax Calculator Comparison

To keep things simple, I plugged in $250K as a single person with no dependents and the standard deduction. Under Obama's plan, a person with that income would pay $68,024 in taxes. Under McCain's plan, a person with that income would pay $66,152 in taxes. In other words, the difference between the plans at that income level would be $1,872, or less than 0.75% of your gross income.

If we do the same calculation with a married couple - earning $250K with no dependents and using the standard deduction - they would pay $55,528 in taxes under Obama's plan, or $55,553 under McCain's plan. The difference would be just $25, or 0.01% of their gross income.

 

[Yayasmom]

Well, here's what the Washington Post concluded:

Thank you for the links

 

[Gill]

Well, then you're talking about the LEGAL definition of "small business," not what is ACTUALLY a "small business." A person earning over $250K is doing pretty well, whether they're a doctor, a lawyer, a banker, or a "small business" owner. This is intentionally deceiving. You aren't talking about someone owning a mom-and-pop coffee shop, which is what most people think of when they think of "small business." Those people aren't earning over $250K.

I don't know what you are referring to regarding a LEGAL definition of a small business. What I'm talking about is that the vast majority of small business, probably over 90%, would see a tax increase under Obama. Most small businesses are set up either as a S-Corp. or a LLC. As such, the business income is taxed as the Owner's income. Just about any small business will have $250,000. or over as its business income, regardless of how much the business owner actually takes out of it. Based on my experience, a business with $250,000. in income would net the owner less than $40,000.

Under Obama, the business owners will be taxed at higher rates when their business have over $250,000. in income, regardless of how much they actually take home for their families to live on.

This is not even considering the onerous health care costs that Obama is proposing for ALL businesses.

And Obama wouldn't raise the top rates to over 50%. Where do you even come up with this crap?

I got it from Obama's tax plan.

Obama plans to raise the tax rate for those making $250,000. to 36%. He also plans to force those making over $250,000. to pay FICA tax. Currently, FICA tax is paid on all income up to $102,000. The FICA tax rate is 15.65%. Add the two together and you get 51.65%.

The actual top rate for the highest income earners would be over 55% !! That would be one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Any more questions??