Obama vs McCain - The $ Issue
I just got an e-mail from a friend that discussed the differences between the two candidates for president. It was OBVIOUSLY leaning right with some real "fuzzy math" that put McCain ahead of Obama.
So, I used one of the CNN links that it offered to take a further look into what the e-mail was based upon. (Loosely, to say the least!) It is sad, but there was a great deal of truth to the e-mail. For example, McCain has proposed huge tax cuts and McCain promised to "sign into law a reform to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology." He also vowed to keep capital gains taxes low."
"McCain vowed to keep the estate tax low, referring to it as "one of the most unfair tax laws on the books." He criticized his campaign rival, Obama, for wanting to increase the estate tax to a maximum rate of 55%."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/10/
news/economy/mccain/index.htm
The estate tax (or death tax as it's known) is also an interesting debate between the two.
"Prior to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the estate tax levied a 55% maximum tax rate on all inherited assets above a $1 million exemption - including business assets passed on by a founder. Bush's cuts set into motion a gradual phase-out of the estate tax; the exemption level has risen and the tax rate has been dropping since 2001, down to a planned 45% rate in 2009 with a $3.5 million exemption."
Sounds great right? However, if it isn't continued in 2010, things go back to 2001 rates. Neither candidate wants that. Yet, they have differences in how they will handle this. Obama wants to stick with the 45% that 2009 will bring. McCain wants to drop it to 15%.
What this means is that should a business owner leave all that he has to his next of kin when he dies, he will pay a great deal less under McCain. I'm wondering why have a tax on already purchased items in the first place?!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/
smallbusiness/estate_tax.fsb/index.htm
Another interesting battle is social security. With everyone going green, we may have overlooked the green we need for our nursing homes in the future. "Benefits are projected to exceed the Social Security system's tax revenues in about nine years. " Thus, the next president is going to have to deal with Social Security. McCain rejects Obama's tax increase solution and instead favors moving the retirement age back a few years. "When Social Security started in 1935, the average American's life expectancy was just under 60 years... Current estimates show that by 2040, 65-year-old men and women could live at least 18 more years after becoming eligible for full Social Security benefits."
One thing that Obama did propose that may fall into his "increase taxes position" that sounds like a good idea is that he "called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year, compared with the current $102,000 threshold."
Makes sense. Make more - contribute more. Why not?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/01/
news/economy/social_security.ap/index.htm
What about income? Well, you guessed it, the democrats want to tax the rich and give the money to the poor.
"His (Obama's) plan calls for short-term relief, such as a $500 tax credit per person to offset rising gas prices and an extension of unemployment benefits. He also wants to put in place longer-term measures, including a $10 billion infusion for state and local governments and a $150 billion investment in clean energy, both of which he says will spur job growth. Obama has suggested raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 to pay for the policies."
Well, sounds ok. I am kind of on his side on this one. The only issues that I have are moral ones. Such as why penalize those doing well for themselves and give it to those who aren't. Yes, the merits of a society are rooted in how those less fortunate are treated. However, if you are getting more money for doing nothing or the bare minimum, what is the incentive to move up? On the other hand, if you are making more, you should contribute more. The Steve Forbes flat tax is sounding more and more like a great idea to me. EVERYONE - Pay 10%. That way it would be even across the board, right? No more brackets?
"The Illinois senator would raise the national minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, up from today's recently increased rate of $6.55, and index it to inflation." Awesome. I'm all about raising the minimum wage. But, only if it is done in small incriminates. Should it go up too fast, those signing the checks will not be able to compensate for it.
"The Arizona senator (McCain) supports lifting taxes and other government-imposed burdens from small businesses, the nation's job engine. He would overhaul unemployment insurance and worker training programs to make them more focused on getting people into new employment. McCain's philosophy is that by making America more competitive, companies will be able to create more jobs."
AWESOME! Best idea yet. Maybe mix in a few of Obama's suggestions and we have a solid plan. Remove useless government taxes, revamp unemployment insurance (take care of welfare abuse too!) and get people some experience to get better jobs. The more jobs an economy has, the more money gets tossed around.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/01/
news/economy/wages_candidates/index.htm
I'm all about helping the environment out. I don't litter and I use as little gas and electricity as possible. (Hell, they can get expensive!) However, I'm not completely sold on the Global Warming Theory. (Don't forget - it is still a theory, not a fact!) See my 7-7-7 blog for more information.
The candidates are pretty much on the same page as each other when comparing this issue. Each want to put a cap on greenhouse emissions by businesses. McCain wants them down to 60% of 1990's levels by 2050, Obama is at 80%. Neither will probably be around then, so why not 257 billionty %?
"The trouble is, limiting greenhouse gases will raise energy prices, because industries are forced to pay for cleaner technology - a hard sell at a time gas prices have hit an average of $4 a gallon." This sounds like they have to be careful who they tell their 2050 goals to.
"McCain would give away most of the carbon permits - currently estimated to be worth $100 billion a year, or a staggering $4 trillion between now and 2050 - to big energy producers. If the utilities and oil companies don't have to pay the government for their permits, McCain's thinking goes, they will have more to invest in carbon-reducing technology, and energy prices probably won't rise as much. "
"By contrast, Obama would auction 100% of the carbon permits to industry. Some of the $100 billion raised annually would go to low-income Americans to buffer the shock of rising energy prices. Some would fund green R&D and speed the commercialization of solar, wind, and other green tech."
Ok, I like Obama's plan better. Sure it's a little more optimistic, but I think it is still viable. Be careful that you don't fall for hope, but root your thoughts in plausibility.
Wait. Did I speak too soon about Obama's plan?
"Obama's plan does have a weakness, which McCain's supporters are quick to point out. The $100 billion pouring into the U.S. Treasury annually would be mother's milk to special-interest groups. A chunk of the money, for instance, would be earmarked for green-collar training - whatever that is. Senator John Kerry has suggested that federal funds be used to protect New England's lobster industry from the effects of global warming."
Damnit. Just when I thought I could agree with him 100% on something, Kerry and other dirt bags have to step in and ruin it!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/
news/economy/election_green.fortune/index.htm
McCain and Bush want to drill in new places. Alaska and the coasts, to be specific. "...experts say additional drilling would only boost production by about 2 million barrels a day. That's about 20% of domestic oil production, but only about 2% of total worldwide demand, so its impact on prices would likely be marginal. In short, it's not a long-term solution to the nation's energy challenge."
So, something more permanent. How about renewable energies?
"Supporters (of government funded renewable energy programs) are calling for the government to boost funding from about $4 billion a year now to $30 billion a year."
"Barack Obama is halfway there. The presumed Democratic nominee wants to fund renewable energy to the tune of $15 billion a year for 10 years, paid for by auctioning off permits to companies that emit greenhouse gases.
McCain also wants to issue permits to pollute in an effort to gradually reduce greenhouse gasses - a plan known as "cap-and-trade" - but he doesn't want to charge companies for them, at least at first."
Damnit. Obama, make that program air-tight and you have my support. No room for Kerry and friends to stick their crap in it, ok?! If he can do that, I'm sure that he will have McCain beat on this issue.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/
news/economy/apollo_energy/index.htm
Anyone invest? Obama wants more of your money. How much? He didn't say. "Barack Obama has made one part of his plan for the capital gains tax perfectly clear: He wants to raise the rate above 15% for high-income investors. But to what level: 20%? 23%? 27%? All Obama has said is that it would be at least 20% and less than 28%."
Why would he do this? We know that he is all about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but what is his angle? "...Obama is also banking on revenue from a higher capital gains rate to help pay for some of his proposals, such as new tax cuts for less-than-flush families and a system to make health insurance affordable for all."
Let's look at that again. It isn't just for health insurance, but for other stuff too. It seems that with every tax increase he brings up health insurance. Surely it can't cost that much. But, I haven't work the numbers, so I don't know. What I do know is that people will be less likely to follow a talking baby switching stocks on e-trade. Surely the economy will be fine with a 10% capital gains tax increase.
Bob Carroll, a former Treasury official, was asked about Obama's increase and said "there'd be significantly negative economic consequences."
Ooops. Maybe that's why no number has been stated yet.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/
news/economy/obama_capgains/index.htm
There's so much else.
Read it for yourself. Don't be influenced by the media or anyone else. Get the facts first then make up your mind!
There is actually a great deal on the table for this next election. No one is going to get it all right, but hopefully they will get majority of it right or we are in trouble.
For more financial differences between the two candidates, check out the following link:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
So, I used one of the CNN links that it offered to take a further look into what the e-mail was based upon. (Loosely, to say the least!) It is sad, but there was a great deal of truth to the e-mail. For example, McCain has proposed huge tax cuts and McCain promised to "sign into law a reform to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology." He also vowed to keep capital gains taxes low."
"McCain vowed to keep the estate tax low, referring to it as "one of the most unfair tax laws on the books." He criticized his campaign rival, Obama, for wanting to increase the estate tax to a maximum rate of 55%."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/10/
news/economy/mccain/index.htm
The estate tax (or death tax as it's known) is also an interesting debate between the two.
"Prior to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the estate tax levied a 55% maximum tax rate on all inherited assets above a $1 million exemption - including business assets passed on by a founder. Bush's cuts set into motion a gradual phase-out of the estate tax; the exemption level has risen and the tax rate has been dropping since 2001, down to a planned 45% rate in 2009 with a $3.5 million exemption."
Sounds great right? However, if it isn't continued in 2010, things go back to 2001 rates. Neither candidate wants that. Yet, they have differences in how they will handle this. Obama wants to stick with the 45% that 2009 will bring. McCain wants to drop it to 15%.
What this means is that should a business owner leave all that he has to his next of kin when he dies, he will pay a great deal less under McCain. I'm wondering why have a tax on already purchased items in the first place?!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/
smallbusiness/estate_tax.fsb/index.htm
Another interesting battle is social security. With everyone going green, we may have overlooked the green we need for our nursing homes in the future. "Benefits are projected to exceed the Social Security system's tax revenues in about nine years. " Thus, the next president is going to have to deal with Social Security. McCain rejects Obama's tax increase solution and instead favors moving the retirement age back a few years. "When Social Security started in 1935, the average American's life expectancy was just under 60 years... Current estimates show that by 2040, 65-year-old men and women could live at least 18 more years after becoming eligible for full Social Security benefits."
One thing that Obama did propose that may fall into his "increase taxes position" that sounds like a good idea is that he "called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year, compared with the current $102,000 threshold."
Makes sense. Make more - contribute more. Why not?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/01/
news/economy/social_security.ap/index.htm
What about income? Well, you guessed it, the democrats want to tax the rich and give the money to the poor.
"His (Obama's) plan calls for short-term relief, such as a $500 tax credit per person to offset rising gas prices and an extension of unemployment benefits. He also wants to put in place longer-term measures, including a $10 billion infusion for state and local governments and a $150 billion investment in clean energy, both of which he says will spur job growth. Obama has suggested raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 to pay for the policies."
Well, sounds ok. I am kind of on his side on this one. The only issues that I have are moral ones. Such as why penalize those doing well for themselves and give it to those who aren't. Yes, the merits of a society are rooted in how those less fortunate are treated. However, if you are getting more money for doing nothing or the bare minimum, what is the incentive to move up? On the other hand, if you are making more, you should contribute more. The Steve Forbes flat tax is sounding more and more like a great idea to me. EVERYONE - Pay 10%. That way it would be even across the board, right? No more brackets?
"The Illinois senator would raise the national minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, up from today's recently increased rate of $6.55, and index it to inflation." Awesome. I'm all about raising the minimum wage. But, only if it is done in small incriminates. Should it go up too fast, those signing the checks will not be able to compensate for it.
"The Arizona senator (McCain) supports lifting taxes and other government-imposed burdens from small businesses, the nation's job engine. He would overhaul unemployment insurance and worker training programs to make them more focused on getting people into new employment. McCain's philosophy is that by making America more competitive, companies will be able to create more jobs."
AWESOME! Best idea yet. Maybe mix in a few of Obama's suggestions and we have a solid plan. Remove useless government taxes, revamp unemployment insurance (take care of welfare abuse too!) and get people some experience to get better jobs. The more jobs an economy has, the more money gets tossed around.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/01/
news/economy/wages_candidates/index.htm
I'm all about helping the environment out. I don't litter and I use as little gas and electricity as possible. (Hell, they can get expensive!) However, I'm not completely sold on the Global Warming Theory. (Don't forget - it is still a theory, not a fact!) See my 7-7-7 blog for more information.
The candidates are pretty much on the same page as each other when comparing this issue. Each want to put a cap on greenhouse emissions by businesses. McCain wants them down to 60% of 1990's levels by 2050, Obama is at 80%. Neither will probably be around then, so why not 257 billionty %?
"The trouble is, limiting greenhouse gases will raise energy prices, because industries are forced to pay for cleaner technology - a hard sell at a time gas prices have hit an average of $4 a gallon." This sounds like they have to be careful who they tell their 2050 goals to.
"McCain would give away most of the carbon permits - currently estimated to be worth $100 billion a year, or a staggering $4 trillion between now and 2050 - to big energy producers. If the utilities and oil companies don't have to pay the government for their permits, McCain's thinking goes, they will have more to invest in carbon-reducing technology, and energy prices probably won't rise as much. "
"By contrast, Obama would auction 100% of the carbon permits to industry. Some of the $100 billion raised annually would go to low-income Americans to buffer the shock of rising energy prices. Some would fund green R&D and speed the commercialization of solar, wind, and other green tech."
Ok, I like Obama's plan better. Sure it's a little more optimistic, but I think it is still viable. Be careful that you don't fall for hope, but root your thoughts in plausibility.
Wait. Did I speak too soon about Obama's plan?
"Obama's plan does have a weakness, which McCain's supporters are quick to point out. The $100 billion pouring into the U.S. Treasury annually would be mother's milk to special-interest groups. A chunk of the money, for instance, would be earmarked for green-collar training - whatever that is. Senator John Kerry has suggested that federal funds be used to protect New England's lobster industry from the effects of global warming."
Damnit. Just when I thought I could agree with him 100% on something, Kerry and other dirt bags have to step in and ruin it!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/
news/economy/election_green.fortune/index.htm
McCain and Bush want to drill in new places. Alaska and the coasts, to be specific. "...experts say additional drilling would only boost production by about 2 million barrels a day. That's about 20% of domestic oil production, but only about 2% of total worldwide demand, so its impact on prices would likely be marginal. In short, it's not a long-term solution to the nation's energy challenge."
So, something more permanent. How about renewable energies?
"Supporters (of government funded renewable energy programs) are calling for the government to boost funding from about $4 billion a year now to $30 billion a year."
"Barack Obama is halfway there. The presumed Democratic nominee wants to fund renewable energy to the tune of $15 billion a year for 10 years, paid for by auctioning off permits to companies that emit greenhouse gases.
McCain also wants to issue permits to pollute in an effort to gradually reduce greenhouse gasses - a plan known as "cap-and-trade" - but he doesn't want to charge companies for them, at least at first."
Damnit. Obama, make that program air-tight and you have my support. No room for Kerry and friends to stick their crap in it, ok?! If he can do that, I'm sure that he will have McCain beat on this issue.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/
news/economy/apollo_energy/index.htm
Anyone invest? Obama wants more of your money. How much? He didn't say. "Barack Obama has made one part of his plan for the capital gains tax perfectly clear: He wants to raise the rate above 15% for high-income investors. But to what level: 20%? 23%? 27%? All Obama has said is that it would be at least 20% and less than 28%."
Why would he do this? We know that he is all about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but what is his angle? "...Obama is also banking on revenue from a higher capital gains rate to help pay for some of his proposals, such as new tax cuts for less-than-flush families and a system to make health insurance affordable for all."
Let's look at that again. It isn't just for health insurance, but for other stuff too. It seems that with every tax increase he brings up health insurance. Surely it can't cost that much. But, I haven't work the numbers, so I don't know. What I do know is that people will be less likely to follow a talking baby switching stocks on e-trade. Surely the economy will be fine with a 10% capital gains tax increase.
Bob Carroll, a former Treasury official, was asked about Obama's increase and said "there'd be significantly negative economic consequences."
Ooops. Maybe that's why no number has been stated yet.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/
news/economy/obama_capgains/index.htm
There's so much else.
Read it for yourself. Don't be influenced by the media or anyone else. Get the facts first then make up your mind!
There is actually a great deal on the table for this next election. No one is going to get it all right, but hopefully they will get majority of it right or we are in trouble.
For more financial differences between the two candidates, check out the following link:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
posted by John Mc. @ 8/22/2008 12:06:00 PM
1 Comments:
At 9:59 PM,
Looney73 said…
Great blog John! Lots of info and follow-up to the original e-mail. TAXES!TAXES!TAXES! We need them to pay for our firemen, schools, etc, but almost everything else is extra. Why are people who have FORCED to give to those who have not? Can't we give from our own hearts? I know it is not that simple,but maybe it is? Why not put incentives to help those who do not have to become like those who have?! I am not rich by any means. But just by living in the US, all of us have more than 98% of the world. Our Constitution states "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but it does not PROMISE these!
I am voting for McCain, although he is not the best choice (I voted for Romney in the primaries), he is the better choice.
I will now get down off of my soapbox.
Post a Comment
<< Home