Obama's Tax Cut for the Rich (and Red)

It's time for a real man to step up and turn this country around. That man is not Barack Obama, but John McCain. I can't believe some people would vote for Obama with a clear consious. Change is coming, and his name is John McCain!

Well said. I agree 100% and I live in Kansas. I recently moved from the East Coast (VA) to KS and got a great deal on a house. However I also agree with MZ, I live in Kansas, there is not much to do. If you visit KC you will find a lot of nice restaurants, because there isn't much to do besides nice eats. You will find a lot of golf courses (some with nice hills). I miss the coast but don't miss the traffic and high-cost of living. I think we have a much bigger problem than a $1,800 credit will cover. Nice subject and great view point.

First off, let me say I am not an Obama supporter, so this comment doesn't come from that perspective. That being said, I think an important detail has been left out of this argument. There is a reason that the cost of living is higher in some areas than others. Many of these cities/states enjoy excellent weather, easy access to cultural activities and other entertainment, fine dining, public transportation, and better job opportunities. You are paying for the access and enjoyment these places have to offer. In a way, it is apart of your "lifestyle" spending. You are choosing to live there and accept the higher cost of living in return for a better quality. We live in Texas. Yes it's cheaper. However, we're sweating our butts off 11 months out of the year, I don't live on the ocean or any body of water, there is no "change of seasons" to enjoy, and limited entertainment. Yes I'd love to live in Northern California (where I grew up) or the East Coast, but I can't afford it. I don't complain about it, I just live where my budget allows. By giving up the "ideal" climate and lifestyle conditions I can provide more for my family. I don't feel this makes one family "richer" than the other, they just choose to spend there money somewhere else.

Mr. Obama should "lead by example"- "charity begins at home" - Maybe he should "redistribute" his own campaign funds to those already in the "entitlement" food chain. What is doing with the monies he is charging the News media for the "good" spots in Chicago on Election night?

"3. Giving more to those truly in need is one thing, but the guy in Massachusetts should be livid that some of the money from the tax hikes he faces will be given to those living in a larger home." Well, the guy "living in the larger home" is also "doing without the things in Boston". So the person who decided to be "wise" with their money and invest in a "larger home" at the expense of living near a huge city like Boston trades off the advantages of living near Boston (w/e those could be... i don't see any) and get's the advantage of owning a bigger home. Awwwweee... that's not fair. Although I agree with the direction of this post, the post is crap. Why get mad at the person who decided to live in the middle of the country, where the cost of living is lower due to demand, instead of getting mad at the POLITICIANS who keep raising taxes in those "HIGH DEMAND" populated area's? (i'm speaking to this post itself and not the Obama plan) If the cost of living in the middle of the country is lower... there might be a reason for it... like NO OCEAN.

OOOOBAAAAMAAAAAA Yes, I am on the OBAMA DRUG, FAct do not matter, What my parent said "Judge a man by his actions do not matter, He just soundsssss sooooooo wonderfulllll, Change, Hope, Peace you can believe in.... Trying to talk to these drug addicts with the FACTS is impossible.. We had to have jimmy carter to get RR.

If America elects Barry H. O. ... we will, unfortunately, get what we deserve.. a collapse of our economy, the "rich" will stop hiring and start firing.. it will be "The Great Depression"..but it will still be Bush's fault! The "intelligent" world is afraid that Obama will be elected and that is the main reason for the world economy troubles. It happened right before Jimbo and Billy got elected in 1976.. anyone remember the Carter years..??? When the poor have no one to turn to for everything Obama promised (that re-distribution of wealth) what will happen then??... by the time the total collapse happens, the new, larger class of poor will have manifested itself into a group too large for whats left of our government to care for! Who is going to feed them? Who is going to provide housing?..sure won't be the Democrats...they will be living in their gated communities, guarded day and night, and not worrying about US. The fairness doctrine will have eliminated all other opposing view points.. where will the rest of turn? Maybe I'll win the lottery before January!

oops.. I mean fair tax.

Absolutely correct! About time someone wrote this - I've been saying it to anyone who will listen for months. We live in California as that is where I am required to be for my job. Together we earn around $180 000. Our house is currently worth at least 150K less than what we paid, so we can't just 'sell and move somewhere cheaper' as someone suggested in an earlier response. Its also no mansion - a 2 bedroom 1200 sq ft house - which is all we could afford in the CA environment. We also pay over $7500 property tax every year. Fuel is the most expensive in the nation. We have taxes to save frogs, trees, water and the town we live in (which will prbly be bankrupt in the next 2 years). Within the next 4 years we hope to earn over the 250K that Obama is touting. So as a reward for our determination and hard work, we will AGAIN pay more tax. That is if his corporate tax hikes don't see us become unemployed before then. As McCain says - raising taxes in a recessionary environment is a recipe for disaster. Bring on the flat tax!

That is exactly why I left the southwest for Ohio! I love it here! Now, just keep everyone's taxes low...PLEASE!

Reform the tax code? Go to a flat tax? It will never happen, too many accountants, CPA's, bookkeepers, taxprepares, lawyers and IRS employers make their living off the system. Oh forgot to mention lawmakers who get paid to write laws that favor speacial groups, and the social engineering that our "leaders get to do using tax as a whip or a carrot. Bah Humbug!

I'm a small business owner who made a little over $250,000 in 2006. I paid income tax (individual, it's an "S" corporation) on that amount. However, I didn't use a penny of that money personally. It all went back into the company to fund additional inventory, payroll, etc. I had to take money from my savings to pay the taxes. The economy started going south in 2007 and crashed this year. I'm considering shutting down the business. My two employees will be looking for another job if that happens, and I'm in a low wage rural area. I'm one of the few businesses that pays a living wage.

We need to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax on the revenue side, and a line item veto and balanced budget amendment on the spending side of the federal government. Then, a president could be truly held responsible for the economy during his administration. Under our current rules, politicians campaign on promises to change the tax code to favor a majority of voters, and incumbents in congress buy votes with earmarked pork hidden in omnibus spending bills that bloat government spending because they can't be vetoed without shutting down the government.

we have a flat tax now. Check out the Fair Tax plan. Everyone will pay the same thing rich, poor, illegal immagrant, drug dealers, prostitutes. Just think noone gets out of it. Not even congressmen/women www.Fairtax.org No whinning red states, it's youor patriotic duty to pay more taxes :o)

When will Americans wise up? Every election year we get the same dribble out of the politicians, about what wonderful things they are going to do for us by manipulating the tax code. They use it to buy votes, at the expense of whatever part of the population happens to be out of favor at the moment. In the end we all pay, so why not say "STOP IT RIGHT NOW"! The flat tax will never be instated because it would put an end to the politicians favorite weapon.

We need to push for the flat tax, Huckabee had it right. It's the only true and fair way to do this. Just think how much money the goverment would save by abolishing the IRS!! And think of all the paper that would be saved! That should make the tree huggers happy too!

Also, does anyone else find it odd that Warren Buffet and Colin Powell have endorsed Sen. Obama? Sen. Obama has asked how he can be a socialist but be endorsed and funded by the wealthy. (Buffet $62.3 Billion est. net worth, Colin Powell $28.2 Million net worth.) The answer to that is that those who have already earned their wealth will not be as greatly affected as those who are trying to build it now and in the future. the taxes on Buffets billions and Powells millions have already been paid. If Sen. Obama was truly interested in "spreading the wealth" he would be pushing the idea of seizing the assests and bank accounts of the super rich and redistributing those among the less fortunate. But lets be honest with ourselves. If that were the case Bufett and Powell and many highly ranked democrats would be voting for McCain in November.

We need two things in this country. Flat Tax and Term Limits. And, maybe we should prevent anyone who is a lawyer from serving in Congress or the White House as an elected official.

One more vote for the Fair Tax. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the fair tax is the only way to take class distinction and cost of living differences out of the equation.

I agree that a tax hike on small business will not put people out of work nor will it prevent businesses from hiring more employees. The point that seems to have been missed is that a business owner is not going to just eat the loss caused by an increase in taxes. He or she will most likely raise their prices by the tax amount to maintain thier current profit level. I do not have a problem with taxes in and of themselves. They are needed to fund services that are required for a civil society (e.g. police, fire protection, education, national defense, infrastructure.) The biggest problem regarding taxes is the irresponsible manner in which we are allowing the government to spend our money. Raising taxes to fund better education, more public safety officers, and better, more efficient infrastructure I believe we could all agree on. It is only when someone speaks of taxing in order to level the field that I really become concerned. Increasing taxes for this reason becomes a dissincentive to success. Why would one strive for success if only to be punished for it. One can work as a drone and keep $.85 of every dollar earned or one can work hard, do well in school, get scholarships to college or take out loans, graduate, marry, and be tosssed into a tax bracket that only allows you to keep $.595 of every dollar you earn. Throw in increased taxes on investments and you could be rewarded with better than half of your income being pilfered by the government to compensate disproportionate income for someone who did not take the innitiative to better themselves.

Obama's plan is a ploy to get votes. Do you really think that the majority of middle class democrats go along with this plan? If they do then they are more screwed up then I thought.

I just ran the Obama tax calculator and found I would get over a $1200 tax cut (for now). Since I got around $2000 with the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2010, I lose $800 overall. And that's if Barney Frank and others don't get their way and raise taxes in the meantime. The $500 tax credit for retirement savings means nothing to me. I'm within 5 years of retiring. One tax increase from these guys will eat that up. BTW, the $0 tax cut shown in the calculator for the McCain tax plan may be true. But I don't lose $2000 in 2010 either.

This is looking at one aspect of the Obama tax plan - to raise taxes on those making $250,000 per year verses a tax cut on those making less. There is another side on this - the lower income side. With refundable tax credits (I believe that this is the correct term, but please forgive me if it is not), more people who pay notaxes will actually receive a check from the government. This is already the case with the Earned Income Tax Credit, but under the Obama plan more people (including some people who already receive checks that will get more) who pay no taxes will receive a "refund" greater than what they pay. This may be a different topic, but it is another example of the redistribution of wealth - the rich pay more and it will be given to the poor. I'd call is socialism, but if you do that, then you would have to say that we're already socialistic; this makes it more so.

Of course, a FLAT TAX would solve all of these inequities.

Bravo. Good analysis.