Useful table that shows how McCain's and Obama's tax plans will affect you

Hi ladyluna, good response, you are right that the whole picture should be taken into account, not just one element. I wonder if you, or anyone else, has got information that takes all the different types of taxes, etc into account? I would have thought these research companies would have done something by now, or perhaps they are still waiting for the candidates to clarify all aspects of their plans?

Hello Evanslf, To anyone who might take seriously the Tax Policy Center's "independent analysis", as presented by another respondent, please note the 'small print' below the full analysis. It reads as follows: "Information is as reported on candidates' websites and public statements. TPC has not verified claims made." Bobmnu has presented a graph from the Tax Payers Union. I would urge interested voters to peruse the Tax Payers Union website. At least they accept responsibility for the information disseminated on their website! To your specific question: I am not personally aware of any current, comprehensive, non-partisan comparison of the candidate's economic/tax proposals. I suspect that the conspicuous absence has much to do with the fact that both candidates proposals are fluid. There are general overview analysis, like the information offered by: http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/06/12/mccain-vs-obama-your-future-tax-bill/ "In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax. The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%... Obama’s plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax. Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups… The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama’s plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%. and http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-obama-mccain-taxes.php Yet, there are glaring oversights and omissions in the overwhelming majority of analyis. For example: Why is the Alternative Minimum Tax ignored in many of these underlying 'partisan' comparisons? In order to get a real glimpse of the comparative economic tax proposals, I believe it is far more telling to seek out analysis of how the plethora of proposed policy changes will impact employment figures. It doesn't matter how much of a tax break people get from Uncle Sam if they don't have a job!!!

One of the things that the people who are retired or close to retirement have to keep in mind is that if the Capital Gains tax is increased it could affect the tax you pay on your IRA and 401K plans. Just a note on the Capital Gains tax. The Company pays taxes on the profit they make and return to shareholders. The Share holders pay taxes on the money they invest in company stock. The Capital gains tax is one that is taxing the money again. The company makes $100 profit and pays 15% on that profit. They take the remaining $85 and returns it to the investors who have to pay 15% tax on it ($12.75). This would be like you earning $100 and having the government tax it so you take home $85 and then you give your wife money to buy food and the government steps in and takes another $12.75 just because you are transferring the money. Sound fair doesn't it.

This analysis assumes that every one will continue as they are now. This will not happen. Why should I work to increase my business only to lose it all in tax increases. Why should I invest in the stock market when I will be taxed more on the money I earn there. I will then invest in tax exempt bonds that pay less interest but I am not taxed on that money. By doing that business will have less Capital to invest in expansion and more jobs. With Senator Obama's increased Corporate Tax rate the prices of goods and services will go up. So I will be paying more, earning less and earning less in my retirement account so I will have to work longer to make the same money in retirement there by depriving some one of a job. Every time there has been a tax increase, even just on the rich, it leads to a down turn in the economy. When taxes are cut, as Kennedy, Reagan and Bush did the economy grows. Under the Bush tax cuts the government took in more taxes revenue.

Let me ask you something--do you think the economy is doing better now than it was in 2000? With all this talk of a downturn in the economy if we do what Obama wants, I'd like to point to the fact that Clinton did something similar, and he was both preceded and succeeded by Republican Presidents who increased the defecit, while his Presidency achieved a balanced budget, a surplus even. Oh, also, small tidbit...Clinton's Presidency was the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in U.S. history. So how is it that anyone who isn't completely gullible is going to swallow the "Obama's tax plan will hurt the economy" line? The proof's in the pudding of history.

ClarusVisum, First, let's put the fault of the current economy fiasco squarely in the lap of whom it belongs, and that is your hero "slick willie" and his cohorts in the congress along with Alan Greenspan. This whole debaucle didn't just happen during the last 8 years it started when Bill Clinton tried to make sure ANYONE could buy a house! Now on the surface, that doesn't sound so bad but it is the type of deregulation that was necessary in order for many of these "high risk" people to get the mortgages that caused this crisis! Even one of Clinton's own appointees admits it was Clinton and the democrats that started this downward spiral. Here are Mr Riech's own words spoken on MSNBC and the a link to the transcript from Rush's site(Iknow, I know you don't like rush but all he does here is quote Mr. Riech) (Mr. Riech)In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed. And the link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091608/content/01125109.guest.html Then there is the real knife twister where GWB AND John McCain BOTH tried to head this off at the pass and the Democrats blocked it at every turn! Bush proposed an agency to oversee Freddie and Fannie in 2003 (five years ago, how could such a dolt have known?)and a couple years later McCain also tried to head it off at the pass! Here is that link! http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance You need to do a little research before you try to place blame where it doesn't belong! Have a good day!