Election Tax Calculator

[MadScientist]

See how you would do under each candidate's plan.

http://www.electiontaxes.com/

[SkinBasket]

I'm putting my full faith in this internet calculator. Although it seems to be full of crap according to just about every other source I've read.

[LL2]

If this tax calculator is correct I would be paying less taxes under Obama. Can that be true?

[Partial]

I will be taxed less under Obama but earn less because of my employer being taxed to high hell.

[hoosier]

If this tax calculator is correct I would be paying less taxes under Obama. Can that be true?

If your taxable income is under 200,000, yes, it could be true.

[mraynrand]

I'm getting a $1000 check from the federal government (a Tax cut). That will pay for groceries for a month or so, Barack willing. Too bad that I won't be able to find a job as businesses flee overseas! But for a month, I'll be sitting pretty on that free 1K, courtesy of Barack, may he be blessed. And after that month, I'm sure I'll be able to sign up for the CCC, Obama be praised.

[Scott Campbell]

If this tax calculator is correct I would be paying less taxes under Obama. Can that be true?

If your taxable income is under 200,000, yes, it could be true.

Wouldn't everybody make less than $200K if the Dems get there way?

[mraynrand]

If this tax calculator is correct I would be paying less taxes under Obama. Can that be true?

If your taxable income is under 200,000, yes, it could be true.

Wouldn't everybody make less than $200K if the Dems get their way?

SCORE!

[hoosier]

If this tax calculator is correct I would be paying less taxes under Obama. Can that be true?

If your taxable income is under 200,000, yes, it could be true.

Wouldn't everybody make less than $200K if the Dems get there way?

Nah, just whiteys in Western states.

[texaspackerbacker]

This is kinda a strange poll.

With a Democrat majority in Congress that could get bigger, and with the Bush tax cuts expiring and needing a positive vote for extension--not merely an effort to repeal which probably could be defeated, it makes little difference what McCain wants to do. To a lesser extent, that is also true of Obama.

Obama keeps harping away at how he would CUT taxes for 95% of the population--everybody with income under $250,000 per year. How is that a LIE--when he keeps repeating it? The answer is that Obama would NOT renew the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, the net effect--the major INCREASE from that non-renewal of the Bush cuts combined with the lesser DECREASE of Obama's redistribution program--cutting for lower income, raising for higher incomes amounts to a net increase--even for the great majority of the 95% Obama claims to be cutting taxes for.

McCain, of course, WOULD renew the Bush tax cuts and would cut taxes more, but all of that is moot with a rotten tax-raising leftist Congress.

[sheepshead]

Any increase in taxes for anyone is nuts. Is the middle classes federal tax bill really a problem? property taxes, sales taxes etc are out of control, but how much is this really an issue? Negligible, it's just the typical dem election year BS. Stick it to fat cats crap. Problem is Bill Clinton is correct, the American voter doesnt pay attention and is really ignorant and doesnt want to take the time to learn the issues. They'll spend more time on the Simpsons and American Idol.

[mraynrand]

Any increase in taxes for anyone is nuts. Is the middle classes federal tax bill really a problem? property taxes, sales taxes etc are out of control, but how much is this really an issue? Negligible, it's just the typical dem election year BS. Stick it to fat cats crap. Problem is Bill Clinton is correct, the American voter doesnt pay attention and is really ignorant and doesnt want to take the time to learn the issues. They'll spend more time on the Simpsons and American Idol.

I thought that was Obama, may he be praised.

[MadScientist]

Obama keeps harping away at how he would CUT taxes for 95% of the population--everybody with income under $250,000 per year. How is that a LIE--when he keeps repeating it? The answer is that Obama would NOT renew the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, the net effect--the major INCREASE from that non-renewal of the Bush cuts combined with the lesser DECREASE of Obama's redistribution program--cutting for lower income, raising for higher incomes amounts to a net increase--even for the great majority of the 95% Obama claims to be cutting taxes for.

Tex I pointed out in the other thread (complete with an independent link) that your statement is bullshit. Obama's plan would continue the existing tax cuts for the under $250K taxpayers ($200K for individuals). If you wish to argue merits of various proposals fine, but start with actual facts instead of ignorance or outright lies.

[HowardRoark]

Obama keeps harping away at how he would CUT taxes for 95% of the population--everybody with income under $250,000 per year. How is that a LIE--when he keeps repeating it? The answer is that Obama would NOT renew the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, the net effect--the major INCREASE from that non-renewal of the Bush cuts combined with the lesser DECREASE of Obama's redistribution program--cutting for lower income, raising for higher incomes amounts to a net increase--even for the great majority of the 95% Obama claims to be cutting taxes for.

Tex I pointed out in the other thread (complete with an independent link) that your statement is bullshit. Obama's plan would continue the existing tax cuts for the under $250K taxpayers ($200K for individuals). If you wish to argue merits of various proposals fine, but start with actual facts instead of ignorance or outright lies.

Madscientist, of all the Lefties, I enjoy reading your posts; they conspicuously avoid “bumper sticker” arguments.

This thread is a good “trap” for Conservatives. As I listen to Obama’s plan, you are correct, unless you earn over $250,000, you really won’t be affected by his tax policy. But that’s just on its face.

This is where a Conservative has to have true convictions. What about the general belief that we want to strive to be above $250,000? Or, that we don’t believe that the Fed. Gov’t should take that wealth from the so called “wealthy” and give it (outright to certain people) to the less wealthy. That it is immoral to fund certain policies with money that those who give do not believe in. Etc, etc.

Obama did play it right with his little “donut” of people at $102,500 (or whatever the Social Security wage is this year) to $250,000. The vast, VAST majority of people are under $250,000….so the votes are there.

I would pose another question to Obama though; shouldn’t he index this arbitrary number to the cost of living of where you live. $250,000 in Manhattan is squat…..whereas in Rapid City, you live like a king.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama keeps harping away at how he would CUT taxes for 95% of the population--everybody with income under $250,000 per year. How is that a LIE--when he keeps repeating it? The answer is that Obama would NOT renew the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, the net effect--the major INCREASE from that non-renewal of the Bush cuts combined with the lesser DECREASE of Obama's redistribution program--cutting for lower income, raising for higher incomes amounts to a net increase--even for the great majority of the 95% Obama claims to be cutting taxes for.

Tex I pointed out in the other thread (complete with an independent link) that your statement is bullshit. Obama's plan would continue the existing tax cuts for the under $250K taxpayers ($200K for individuals). If you wish to argue merits of various proposals fine, but start with actual facts instead of ignorance or outright lies.

Forgive me if I don't believe that, MadScientist. I'm fairly sure Obama is on record as saying he would vote against extending the Bush tax cuts as a senator. Do you have evidence that Obama claims he wants the Bush tax cuts extended? I really don't believe he advocates that. If you already posted that, please repost it, as I missed it.