- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today. - The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986. - The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends. - The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000. Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html More Tax Deceptions August 8, 2008 Updated: August 12, 2008 McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again. McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals. A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year â if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway. A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected. The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000. The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate. A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so. These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals. Update, Aug. 12: The tax falsehoods continued with the release of a McCain Web ad Aug. 11 claiming that the "perks" of joining the Obama "fan club" include "a tax incease for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year."
Doesnt matter if you spend more than you take in. This isnt a Dem/Rep thing by the way. Personally, I think United States would survive an Obama adminstration just fine. He certainly couldnt be worse than Carter and he would be hard pressed to spend more the King Bush II without another 9/11, Katrina, a "war" thats lasted longer than WW2 and whatever other excuse, the Reps have had to spend greater than the "evil" Clinton. As soon as Dems in Congress get smoked in 2010 races each side will cancel the other out. Im sick of all these jokers.
You've referenced and article from the WSJ supporting Obama's Tax plan that was WRITTEN BY OBAMA'S OWN ADVISORS. This is hardly a reliable source this close to an election- it's simply spin. It is also NOT an endorsement by the WSJ. If you'd like an even-handed analysis of BOTH candidates tax plans, seek them out- they are out there everywhere. If you simply want to tell us who you're voting for, save the time and just say so.
Put it this way . . . Do you think that the Democratic Congress would give McCain everything he wants . . . including extending the Bush tax cuts? I don't think so.
WRITTEN BY MCCAIN'S OWN ADVISOR: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser. "I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced," he told me in a phone interview this week. "I stand corrected [about Obama's plans]." http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826219,00.html
Yeah- it would really suck if things went back to being like the 90s. What did you hate more about the 90s, the Peace or the Prosperity?