McCain is "technically" correct: Obama Will Raise Your Taxes, He Will Lower Them...

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Whatever... At that rate for bozack and those that make 111k to 160k McCain will cut your tax by 2.5% and Obama will cut it by 2.1%.

The point is clear on the chart that 1. Obama will lower taxes and 2. Obama will lower them more than McCain for all but the highest earners.

When McCain lies anda says Obama will raise our tazes, he is NOT talking to the middle classs, he is talking to those that make more than 600k per year. Everyone 225k to 600k will stay the same and everyone under 225k will get lower rates - basically going back to where we were under Bill Cliton when the economy was solid.

But by going back to where we were under Clinton he will be raising taxes on the middle/upper middle class.

If you go by that site listed, every household making 111K/year or more will pay more under Obama.

And to clarify what I was saying to eskimo, I don't see it as black and white as household earning...if you're talking single income family or individual with no or one kid then sure, 111K is what I would consider middle class, but if your talking dual income household with one kid plus then I would hardly consider 111K upper middle, if anything that is solidly middle class or lower middle in these parts considering the cost of real estate as well as daycare and other expenses.

Even above 111K you're still getting a tax cut. Just $400 less of a tax cut than McCain.

Personally, I look at McCain tax cuts and I get scared. One, he plans to cut tax rates for rich much more than for middle class clearly pushing for flat taxation, which any way you go about it is a bad idea. Second, he plans to cut rates across the board. With the current deficits that's another bad idea. I probably would be fine with it, if R's could balance the budget under new decreased revenues but past 8 years shows they cannot.

 

[Slew Foot]

All this talk about taxes and yet no one ever talks about cutting expenses. Ill vote for the first guy to eliminate a bunch of stupid government nanny state BS.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
All this talk about taxes and yet no one ever talks about cutting expenses. Ill vote for the first guy to eliminate a bunch of stupid government nanny state BS.

Like social security and various medical aid programmes?

Cut the military. That's where the pork is. But that is the last thing that will happen ofc. The MIC is the US economy.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
i think they asked obama and mccain what they consider rich - obama said $250k plus and mccain said 5 million plus

Sounds like McCain has a better understanding of this than Obama, as I have yet to meet anyone who would honestly find 250K "rich"

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Even above 111K you're still getting a tax cut. Just $400 less of a tax cut than McCain.

Which is what I said in my first response.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
The Republicans love to talk about how we "should not penalize people for being successful". I just think it's quite ironic that lots of the most successful people on the planet actually feel like they AREN'T doing their fair share, and are willing to INCREASE the amount of money that they pay in taxes by 12%. THAT IS NEARLY 3/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS EACH, ON AVERAGE, WITH SOME PAYING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THAT.

Tell them to write a check to whomever they want if they think they're making too much.

People making $100-250k are tired of being soaked by politicians.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: bozack
Going by that chart I am better off with McCain. I wonder if that chart considers households making $111 - 160K/ "upper class", personally I put that as pretty solid middle class.

That's upper class. Just because everyone in America considers themselves "middle class" doesn't make it so.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: mshan
"Business costs in Virginia are very low, particularly tax and energy costs, which are the seventh and ninth lowest in the country." http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/...z_kb_0815virginia.html

It's amazing what fiscal discipline can do for the long term health of a state...:

"He turned a $6 billion shortfall in the state budget into a billion-dollar surplus, a narrative he used to re-brand Virginia's Democratic Party as the party of fiscal discipline.

Mayors of rural towns applaud him for creating jobs. Teachers say their schools have more money. Governing Magazine cited his efforts in areas including procurement and technology consolidation as proof that Virginia is better managed than any other state.

More children have insurance. Graduation rates are higher. The state's sprawling and still underfunded Department of Transportation now finishes most projects on time and under budget."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/AR2006010901944.html

How?

Business costs in Virginia are very low, particularly tax and energy costs, which are the seventh and ninth lowest in the country. Overall, business costs in Virginia are 9% below the national average. The corporate income tax has remained unchanged at 6% for more than 30 years.

A spokeswoman for MeadWestvaco says that Richmond and Virginia appealed to the company because of its "pro-business environment and quality of life that was available to its employees." "There has been a real bipartisan tradition in Virginia of wanting to have a strong business climate. That political consensus has helped the legal and regulatory climate," says Kaine. The governor and the legislature strive to keep taxes and regulation "low, fair and business-friendly."



So why are Demcrats trying to do the opposite on the national level, again?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
i think they asked obama and mccain what they consider rich - obama said $250k plus and mccain said 5 million plus

Sounds like McCain has a better understanding of this than Obama, as I have yet to meet anyone who would honestly find 250K "rich"

250K a year every year is no middle class income. This is especially so if you make that kind of money based on your intelligence and ability, rather than dumb luck. It would also tell me that you invest your money smartly, rather than just getting by. So, when you add it all up, including assets, you can consider yourself rich.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
That's upper class. Just because everyone in America considers themselves "middle class" doesn't make it so.

If you think that is "upper class" then we have two very different ideas of what "upper" is...again, if your talking single income household with one or no kids then sure, but if your talking dual income household with one or more kids then I'd hardly consider that even middle class, if anything it is solidly middle to lower middle in these parts.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Dari
250K a year every year is no middle class income. This is especially so if you make that kind of money based on your intelligence and ability, rather than dumb luck. It would also tell me that you invest your money smartly, rather than just getting by. So, when you add it all up, including assets, you can consider yourself rich.

No, I would put 250K per year household as upper middle class, especially if you're talking joint incomes of a household, if your talking one wage earner then that individual is upper class, but if the family has a few kids then no, they are back in the upper middle segment.

 

[retrospooty]

Does it really matter if you label $225k as upper middle or as Rich? What matters is the tax tables, and Obviously McCain will give large breaks to the rich and do nothing for the middle. Obama will give good breaks to the middle and do nothing for the rich.

To me, and the 95% of the country that isnt rich - Obama wins this one by a mile.

Looking at it on a economic scale, not a personal one. Obama wins again. - These tax rates are the same as the CLinton era where our economy prospered.. http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Ac...nts/eightyears-03.html

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton?s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation?s history."
? Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan?s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
? Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Does it really matter if you label $225k as upper middle or as Rich? What matters is the tax tables, and Obviously McCain will give large breaks to the rich and do nothing for the middle. Obama will give good breaks to the middle and do nothing for the rich.

To me, and the 95% of the country that isnt rich - Obama wins this one by a mile.

Looking at it on a economic scale, not a personal one. Obama wins again. - These tax rates are the same as the CLinton era where our economy prospered.. http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Ac...nts/eightyears-03.html

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton?s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation?s history."
? Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan?s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
? Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

You forgot this is AT where middle class is earning $250k per year and the average poster makes six figures and drives sports cars with supermodel girlfriends. :roll:

The people trying to argue that $250k thru $600k income is middle class has me laughing my ass off right now.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

If you go by that site listed, every household making 111K/year or more will pay more under Obama.

They'll pay more than they do now?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

If you go by that site listed, every household making 111K/year or more will pay more under Obama.

They'll pay more than they do now?

No, both plans will drop it. McCain will drop it slightly more for that income group.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

But by going back to where we were under Clinton he will be raising taxes on the middle/upper middle class.

If you go by that site listed, every household making 111K/year or more will pay more under Obama.

And to clarify what I was saying to eskimo, I don't see it as black and white as household earning...if you're talking single income family or individual with no or one kid then sure, 111K is what I would consider middle class, but if your talking dual income household with one kid plus then I would hardly consider 111K upper middle, if anything that is solidly middle class or lower middle in these parts considering the cost of real estate as well as daycare and other expenses.

I'm sorry but I don't see why that is relevant. If you are making more money per year as a household than 90% of other households, that makes you upper class.

If you want to tell me that the top 10% of income earners are middle class that's your business. Don't expect people to buy it though. In addition I have many many friends who live in Massachusetts, specifically in Boston which is one of the most expensive cities in America. I have never had someone try and tell me that income in the 98th percentile for America is solidly middle class.

Your view is simply distorted. I live near La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe, two of the richest areas of the entire country. If I lived there and made $100,000 a year I would be one of the poorest people in town. Guess what though? It still wouldn't stop me from being one of the richest people in America.

Get over it. If you're making $100,000-$150,000 a year, you're rich. You might not feel like it sometimes, but you are. Be happy about this! Don't try and paint yourself as middle class, because you aren't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dari
250K a year every year is no middle class income. This is especially so if you make that kind of money based on your intelligence and ability, rather than dumb luck. It would also tell me that you invest your money smartly, rather than just getting by. So, when you add it all up, including assets, you can consider yourself rich.

No, I would put 250K per year household as upper middle class, especially if you're talking joint incomes of a household, if your talking one wage earner then that individual is upper class, but if the family has a few kids then no, they are back in the upper middle segment.

So in other words two people in about the top 7 percent (guesstimate) of income earners for the entire country is a middle class household. What world do you live in? Should a 93% in school be a C?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry but I don't see why that is relevant. If you are making more money per year as a household than 90% of other households, that makes you upper class.

If you want to tell me that the top 10% of income earners are middle class that's your business. Don't expect people to buy it though. In addition I have many many friends who live in Massachusetts, specifically in Boston which is one of the most expensive cities in America. I have never had someone try and tell me that income in the 98th percentile for America is solidly middle class.

Your view is simply distorted. I live near La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe, two of the richest areas of the entire country. If I lived there and made $100,000 a year I would be one of the poorest people in town. Guess what though? It still wouldn't stop me from being one of the richest people in America.

Get over it. If you're making $100,000-$150,000 a year, you're rich. You might not feel like it sometimes, but you are. Be happy about this! Don't try and paint yourself as middle class, because you aren't.
....................

So in other words two people in about the top 7 percent (guesstimate) of income earners for the entire country is a middle class household. What world do you live in? Should a 93% in school be a C?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then, maybe this is my frustration perceptions of wealth by many.

Like I said, I have yet to talk with anyone who would feel $150K/ year for a household is anything but middle class here.

.......................

There is more to the equation for many than just household income, yet that is what it always comes down to.

So again, looking at the numbers, I am better off with McCain, which was what my initial statement was...that combined with I would hardly consider anyone making as a household up to 160K here in Massachusetts near Boston, not even in the city anything but middle class.

 

[frostedflakes]

Any sociologists here want to weigh in on this? I want to say that most consider $100-150k/yr household to be upper middle class, but I may be wrong. $250k/yr is definitely not middle class, though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry but I don't see why that is relevant. If you are making more money per year as a household than 90% of other households, that makes you upper class.

If you want to tell me that the top 10% of income earners are middle class that's your business. Don't expect people to buy it though. In addition I have many many friends who live in Massachusetts, specifically in Boston which is one of the most expensive cities in America. I have never had someone try and tell me that income in the 98th percentile for America is solidly middle class.

Your view is simply distorted. I live near La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe, two of the richest areas of the entire country. If I lived there and made $100,000 a year I would be one of the poorest people in town. Guess what though? It still wouldn't stop me from being one of the richest people in America.

Get over it. If you're making $100,000-$150,000 a year, you're rich. You might not feel like it sometimes, but you are. Be happy about this! Don't try and paint yourself as middle class, because you aren't.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then, maybe this is my frustration perceptions of wealth by many.

Like I said, I have yet to talk with anyone who would feel $150K/ year for a household is anything but middle class here.

Again, your problems stem from the people you live around. If you live in an incredibly wealthy area (which much of Mass. is), then you might feel that way. Since this discussion is about national politics though, we obviously need to take the nation in as a whole. In this nation, you are rich.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Any sociologists here want to weigh in on this? I want to say that most consider $100-150k/yr household to be upper middle class, but I may be wrong. $250k/yr is definitely not middle class, though.

I would put 250K /year as the top end of the spectrum for upper middle class if your talking a family of four, anything over that is upper class but not "rich" in my book.

As for upper middle class I view it as more of a not going paycheck to paycheck thing and being able to do some things without planning/budgeting so long as they lead a reasonable lifestyle...

and middle class is that which has to do regular budgeting to be able to afford a modest lifestyle.

I know alot like to look at this in simply terms of dollars, but I tend to see it more as what it really takes to live "comfortably" and not just comparison to the rest of society.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, your problems stem from the people you live around. If you live in an incredibly wealthy area (which much of Mass. is), then you might feel that way. Since this discussion is about national politics though, we obviously need to take the nation in as a whole. In this nation, you are rich.

It is interesting how this always comes back to the argument where it is basically the persons fault for living where they live...

Just another reason why I dislike using absolute terms/numbers for definitions of wealth and instead there should be other factors taken into consideration. The answer for people like myself (the number is growing as well with more affluent areas on the rise) shouldn't be "well that is your fault because you live there"...rather maybe the way we define these social classes should be expanded beyond simply your household makes X dollars so you must be wealthy.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Any sociologists here want to weigh in on this? I want to say that most consider $100-150k/yr household to be upper middle class, but I may be wrong. $250k/yr is definitely not middle class, though.

I would put 250K /year as the top end of the spectrum for upper middle class if your talking a family of four, anything over that is upper class but not "rich" in my book.

As for upper middle class I view it as more of a not going paycheck to paycheck thing and being able to do some things without planning/budgeting so long as they lead a reasonable lifestyle...

and middle class is that which has to do regular budgeting to be able to afford a modest lifestyle.

I know alot like to look at this in simply terms of dollars, but I tend to see it more as what it really takes to live "comfortably" and not just comparison to the rest of society.

Bozack's version of the class system:
$250k and up - top end of the "middle income" bracket.

Survey says: - top 1.5 % of the national income per household as of the 2006 census bureau.

So basically Bozack's version of the "middle class" income would be:
lowest 1.5 % (poverty): broke as a joke
1.5 % thru 98.5 % - middle class.
98.5% and higher - upper class.

Sorry Bozack, earning in the top 1.5 % doesn't make you middle class no matter what excuses you make. Around here making that kinda money means you are rich, and I could give two shits if you live in an expensive area, that doesn't change the fact that anything above 95% income ($167,000 and up) is upper class / rich.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, your problems stem from the people you live around. If you live in an incredibly wealthy area (which much of Mass. is), then you might feel that way. Since this discussion is about national politics though, we obviously need to take the nation in as a whole. In this nation, you are rich.

It is interesting how this always comes back to the argument where it is basically the persons fault for living where they live...

Just another reason why I dislike using absolute terms/numbers for definitions of wealth and instead there should be other factors taken into consideration. The answer for people like myself (the number is growing as well with more affluent areas on the rise) shouldn't be "well that is your fault because you live there"...rather maybe the way we define these social classes should be expanded beyond simply your household makes X dollars so you must be wealthy.

So you're saying you should get even more in terms of benefits for living in an area with high property values? Why? Should I go move up to La Jolla and get some extra tax breaks to compensate me for the burden of living in a very wealthy area?

I can't fathom a more fair way to determine who is rich or not than by income. If you are being so put upon by making 'only' 100k a year in Boston, by all means move to East Texas and make $30,000 instead.

When (if) you buy a car on your $100k salary, it consumes approximately 20% of your earnings for a year in debt. When someone in East Texas buys that car it consumes 66% of their income. Still think you're both middle class?

 

[StageLeft]

People need to realize that if lowered taxes is related to a bigger deficit and a weaker dollar, because these things are somewhat tied in together, a lowering of taxes at the front can be made up in the back. Look at now, for example, if the dollar wasn't as weak as it is, we'd be paying less at the pump; it's not like it's gone up so quickly against other currencies but its rise combined with a multi-year shedding of value of USD has had a compounding effect.