Taxes

[edeevee]

Anyone else having trouble figuring out the whole presidential candidate tax cut thing? Personally, I am against ANYBODY getting a tax cut when our government owes so much money. Both candidates tax plans rely partially on keeping the Bush tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 in place. Under those tax cuts ...

If You Earned -- You Saved This Much in Taxes Each Year

Less than $10,000 :$ 5.00
$10k-$20k :$ 205.00
$20k-$30k :$ 567.00
$30k-$40k :$ 668.00
$40k-$50k :$ 840.00
$50k-$75k :$ 1,257.00
$75k-$100k :$ 2,313.00
$100k-$200k :$ 3,755.00
$200k-$500k :$ 7,666.00
$500k-$1 million :$ 24,717.00
More than $1million :$127, 407.00

These tax cuts cost our country $211 billion dollars in 2007. For 2008 through 2011 leaving the tax cuts in place will cost: $233 billion, $245 billion, $269 billion, and $215 billion.

An independent study shows both candidates tax plans would increase the deficit. Obama's could increase it by 3.3 trillion. McCain's could increase it by 4.5 trillion. That's way stupid, but it looks likes there's going to be a tax cut (kinda, sorta) no matter which way you vote. So which one makes more sense? I guess it depends on who you are:

Obama- Obama would leave some of the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax cuts in place instead of letting them all expire in 2011. He would make those tax cuts permanent on people earning low and middle incomes. He would let the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts for higher incomes end the way they were planned to.

He would also include new tax breaks like increasing: "... the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax," according to CNN Money.

There are 142,412,000 tax payers in this country who would receive tax benefits under this plan. How much money would Obama save YOU?

If You Earned -- You Would Save This Much in Taxes

Less than $19,000 :$ 567.00
$19k-$38k :$ 892.00
$38k-$66k :$ 1,042.00
$66k-$112k :$ 1,290.00
$112k-$161k :$ 2,204.00
$161k-$227k :$ 2,789.00

If you earned more than $227,000.00 you would have to pay more taxes. How much money would Obama cost you?

If You Earned -- You Would Pay This Much More in Taxes

$227k-$603k :$ 12.00
$603k-$2.9 million :$ 115,974.00
More than $2.9 million :$ 701,885.00



McCain-would leave ALL of the 2001 & 2003 cuts in place instead of letting them expire in 2011. In addition, he would lower the corporate tax rate, make it easier for small businesses to exclude "expenses" from income, double the exemption for dependents, reduce capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends, estate taxes and the Alternative Minimum Tax*.

Every tax payer would save money under McCain's plan. How much would McCain save YOU?

If You Earned -- You Would Save This Much in Taxes

Less than $19,000 :$ 19.00
$19k-$38k :$ 113.00
$38k-$66k :$ 319.00
$66k-$112k :$ 1,009.00
$112k-$161k :$ 2,614.00
$161k-$227k :$ 4,380.00
$227k-$603k :$ 7,871.00
$603k-$2.9 million :$ 45,361.00
More than $2.9 million :$ 269,364.00

I have more to say on this but my head is spinning from all the numbers right now. I hope someone else will pick up the discussion and talk about how these different plans might impact the economy as a whole? Oh and, BTW ...

*The Alternative Minimum Tax is a tax rate that tries to insure that very wealthy tax payers are not able to take advantage of so many tax breaks and loopholes that they don't pay "their fair share" (whatever that is) of taxes. Still, more than 3 million taxpayers in the US who earned more than $50,000 paid NO TAXES -- 3000 people who earned more than $1 million paid NO TAXES. What's up with that?

[freemind]

A flat tax would be a much easier alternative. EVERYONE, no matter how rich or not, would pay a FLAT rate.

Why can't people see that?

[evilkumquat]

A flat tax would be a much easier alternative. EVERYONE, no matter how rich or not, would pay a FLAT rate.

Why can't people see that?

Because life is more complex than that.

I used to think a "flat tax" would be the most fair, until I actually gave the matter some real thought.

I KNOW I said this in another post elsewhere, but here it is again anyway:

Let's say our country adopts a flat income tax and the rate is 10%.

For a poor family that makes $10,000 per year, that would be $1,000. Now, to the very, very poor, even $100 is a TON of money to one just barely making it. $1,000 could mean the difference between starvation and being kicked out of whatever low-income rental they have.

For a rich family (or at least, a reasonably financially secure one) that makes $100,000 per year, 10% would make their tax $10,000... as much as the poor family makes in a year. Now, mathematically speaking, they're still paying the same percentage as their lower-income fellow citizens, but for a family that's making $100,000 per year, $10,000 means the difference between, say, a third car or an extra five days of vacation, or even another $500 worth of interest that year if the money would have been placed in a IRA (or whatever investment plan the wealthy utilize).

The whole thing is a matter of comparing the relative incomes of these families and the impact taxes have on them.

Now, I can already hear the argument: "Who gives a **** about the burden of the poor family? If they're poor, it's their fault because they didn't work hard enough, blah blah blah." Again, one has to look at the big picture.

The wealthy only remain wealthy if the poor allow them to be so. Part of the debt that the rich of any society pays is for protection of their wealth from the rest of the country. History shows that any civilization that ignores the needs of its poor breeds a social class that becomes more and more disillusioned every generation. Eventually, the lowest class will rebel against the upper, and then all those extra tax dollars saved by sticking it to the poor will seem like a bad idea.

This is, of course, a worst-case scenario. A more immediate example is that the rich get more value for their tax dollars. The laziest example I can come up with now (since a glance at the clock tells me I'm running out of time right now) is police protection. If an emergency occurs (robbery, assault, etc.) in both a wealthy neighborhood or a poor one, the natural police response will always be to the upper-class neighborhood before the lower. There are obviously more examples of the rich getting more bang for their tax-dollar buck, but I'm out of time.

[LuciusBeebe]

A flat tax would be a much easier alternative. EVERYONE, no matter how rich or not, would pay a FLAT rate.

Why can't people see that?

I see the value in only using a sales tax.












WHY CAN'T THEY SEE IT











whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[freemind]

I see the value in only using a sales tax.





ANd I can see a very good point in that LB. I would be for a "national sales tax", if it were offered to replace the system we have now. I am not stuck to the flat tax idea.


EK, we are all supposed to be citizens equally right? Or would you prefer there are all sorts of "classes" of citizens?

Would it be fair if we "taxed" your health insurance benefits, because you have health insurance and I don't? Penalizing people that are sucessful, breeds people to NOT suceed. Whats the point of "getting more" if you have to give it all back to Uncle Thief?

You quickly forget who employs you. People with MORE money than you. If you take away their money, where do you think they will come up with the money to employ you? A tax based upon either what you buy (Thanks LB) or buy the amount of money you make (flat tax) is fair for everyone. You might not think so, because SOMEONE will have more money than you do, but it IS the right thing to do.

[LuciusBeebe]

Penalizing people that are sucessful, breeds people to NOT suceed. Whats the point of "getting more" if you have to give it all back to Uncle Thief?

First, nobody is "giving it all back".

Second, I don't have a second point.

[freemind]

First, nobody is "giving it all back".



Really?
You pay a "corporate tax rate"?

Who do you think pays the majority of the taxes? You and me or the "rich"?
It has been stated MANY times, mant different sources, that the bottom 50% don't pay squat. We don't even pay 30% of the tax burden.

[LuciusBeebe]

Really?


Yes. Nobody pays taxes at a 100% rate.

Nobody gives it all back.

[freemind]

Yes. Nobody pays taxes at a 100% rate.

Nobody gives it all back.


Never SAID anyone paid 100% tax rate.

To "give it back" (meaning money in your arguement) one would HAVE to derrive their income solely from the tax-or.
What I ment origanally was, any extra profit, government would see fit to take.

You are certainly trying to devert from the issues, and misdirect the discussion. You avoided answering the "who pays the most taxes" part of my last post. You once told me you wanted civil discussion. Is it also "civil" to blow smoke and avoid points of a discussion because you don't have an answer?

[matt_s]

A tax based upon either what you buy (Thanks LB) or buy the amount of money you make (flat tax) is fair for everyone.
Ummmm, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a tax rate based on "the amount of money you make" isn't a flat tax. It the current system that we have now.

A flat tax would have me paying the same as Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, a homeless guy in Chicago, and Bill Gates. Everybody pay's X because everybody is of equal standing from a tax standpoint. That is a flat tax.

[freemind]

Ummmm, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a tax rate based on "the amount of money you make" isn't a flat tax. It the current system that we have now.

A flat tax would have me paying the same as Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, a homeless guy in Chicago, and Bill Gates. Everybody pay's X because everybody is of equal standing from a tax standpoint. That is a flat tax.

Matt when I refer to a "flat tax" I mean like a flat 10% on income. We have a progressive tax scale now, which I don't agree with.

[LuciusBeebe]

You are certainly trying to devert from the issues, and misdirect the discussion. You avoided answering the "who pays the most taxes" part of my last post. You once told me you wanted civil discussion. Is it also "civil" to blow smoke and avoid points of a discussion because you don't have an answer?

You're the one that said:


Whats the point of "getting more" if you have to give it all back to Uncle Thief?

I'm addressing the things you've said.

[freemind]

I'm addressing the things you've said.

Funny, you didn't address:



Really?
You pay a "corporate tax rate"?

Who do you think pays the majority of the taxes? You and me or the "rich"?
It has been stated MANY times, mant different sources, that the bottom 50% don't pay squat. We don't even pay 30% of the tax burden.


You only address PARTS of the discussion. You ignore/fail to address other parts. I can only assume out of convinience.


Honestly LB, it is difficult to debate things with you. You only pick a small piece of the discussion, and run away with it. You fail to discuss the whole topic at hand. If you don't have an opinion or answer, it sure would be easier if you would just say so.

[Rebel101]

Really?
You pay a "corporate tax rate"?

Who do you think pays the majority of the taxes? You and me or the "rich"?
It has been stated MANY times, mant different sources, that the bottom 50% don't pay squat. We don't even pay 30% of the tax burden.

Table 7
Dollar Cut-Off, 1980-2006
(Minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles)

Year Total Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% op 25% Top 50%
1980 0 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 0 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 0 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 0 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 0 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 0 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 0 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI
1987 0 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 0 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 0 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 0 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 0 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 0 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 0 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 0 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 0 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 0 $227,546 $101,141$74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 0 $250,736 $108,048$79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 0 $269,496 $114,729$83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 0 $293,415 $120,846$87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 0 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
2001 0 $292,913 $127,904$92,754 $56,085 $28,528
2002 0 $285,424 $126,525 $92,663 $56,401 $28,654
2003 0 $295,495 $130,080 $94,891 $57,343 $29,019
2004 0 $328,049 $137,056 $99,112 $60,041 $30,122
2005 0 $364,657 $145,283 $103,912 $62,068 $30,881
2006 0 $388,806 $153,542 $108,904 $64,702 $31,987

Source: Internal Revenue Service

What I find interesting is the cut-off net income for the top 50% is $31,987--the 2008 poverty level is $28000 (give or take a couple of bucks) for a family of four.

FYI- the corporate tax rate is 15% up to $49,999 net income.

How's that for apples?

[freemind]

Table 7
Dollar Cut-Off, 1980-2006
(Minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles)

Year Total Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% op 25% Top 50%
1980 0 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 0 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 0 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 0 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 0 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 0 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 0 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI
1987 0 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 0 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 0 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 0 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 0 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 0 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 0 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 0 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 0 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 0 $227,546 $101,141$74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 0 $250,736 $108,048$79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 0 $269,496 $114,729$83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 0 $293,415 $120,846$87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 0 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
2001 0 $292,913 $127,904$92,754 $56,085 $28,528
2002 0 $285,424 $126,525 $92,663 $56,401 $28,654
2003 0 $295,495 $130,080 $94,891 $57,343 $29,019
2004 0 $328,049 $137,056 $99,112 $60,041 $30,122
2005 0 $364,657 $145,283 $103,912 $62,068 $30,881
2006 0 $388,806 $153,542 $108,904 $64,702 $31,987

Source: Internal Revenue Service

What I find interesting is the cut-off net income for the top 50% is $31,987--the 2008 poverty level is $28000 (give or take a couple of bucks) for a family of four.

FYI- the corporate tax rate is 15% up to $49,999 net income.

How's that for apples?


You are showing adjusted gross incomes. What are the tax percentages for the groups?

[Rebel101]

You are showing adjusted gross incomes. What are the tax percentages for the groups?

$ Amounts in Millions (2006)
Taxpayers-------- Tax Paid------------Income--------Ave. Tax Rate
By Income
Top 1% ---------- $408,369---------> $388,806--------- 22.79%
Top 2-5% -------- $207,311---------------------------- 17.48%
Top 5% ---------- $615,680 ----------> $153,542-------- 20.68%
Top 6-10% -------$109,060 ----------------------------- 12.60%
Top 10% ---------$724,740-----------> $108,904------- 18.86%
Top 11-25%------ $158,413 ----------------------------- 9.36%
Top 25% --------- $883,153 ----------- > $64,702-------- 15.95%
Top 26-50%-------$110,023----------------------------- 7.01%
Top 50%----------$993,176 ------------> $31,987-------- 13.98%
Bottom 50%------ $30,563--------------< $31,987-------- 3.01%

[edeevee]

Thanks for the numbers, rebel.

Free, are you sure you want to go where I think you want to go with this? Cuz if you pull out that tired old Bottom 50% Only Pay ... line, then I'm gonna have to whip out my The Top 5% Have All ... line, and that doesn't really address what I wanted to talk about.

Then there's flat tax (free) and sales tax (lb). The more I read about sales tax, the more I like it. If you exempt food and medicine, it seems fair, but we're not likely to get either a flat tax or sales tax soon.

Between the two major candidates, which tax policy makes the most sense for our country?

I think it's got to be Obama's. For one, it puts less of a debt load on us. For twos, Top Down economics hasn't worked so great for us lately. Putting extra tax money in the hands of rich folks was supposed to lead to them spreading it around. They did spread it, but mostly amongst themselves. And when they invested it, they were just as likely to invest in foreign companies as ones here in the good old USA. Maybe it trickled down in China, but here? Not so much.

Obama's plan is more Bottom Up -- or kind of Middle Out. Give more people (a lot more people) a smaller amount of extra tax money and see what they do with it. I can just about guarantee you that most of the 95% of the population who would get a break are going to immediately put it back into the economy -- whether it's at the grocery store or paying our bills.

Anyone want to try to defend McCain's tax policy?

[blue adept]

Take it to him E!!!

[HomeyG]

Thanks for the numbers, rebel.

Free, are you sure you want to go where I think you want to go with this? Cuz if you pull out that tired old Bottom 50% Only Pay ... line, then I'm gonna have to whip out my The Top 5% Have All ... line, and that doesn't really address what I wanted to talk about.

Then there's flat tax (free) and sales tax (lb). The more I read about sales tax, the more I like it. If you exempt food and medicine, it seems fair, but we're not likely to get either a flat tax or sales tax soon.

Between the two major candidates, which tax policy makes the most sense for our country?

I think it's got to be Obama's. For one, it puts less of a debt load on us. For twos, Top Down economics hasn't worked so great for us lately. Putting extra tax money in the hands of rich folks was supposed to lead to them spreading it around. They did spread it, but mostly amongst themselves. And when they invested it, they were just as likely to invest in foreign companies as ones here in the good old USA. Maybe it trickled down in China, but here? Not so much.

Obama's plan is more Bottom Up -- or kind of Middle Out. Give more people (a lot more people) a smaller amount of extra tax money and see what they do with it. I can just about guarantee you that most of the 95% of the population who would get a break are going to immediately put it back into the economy -- whether it's at the grocery store or paying our bills.

Anyone want to try to defend McCain's tax policy?

Obama's tax plans sounds good in generalities. But, what about some hard numbers. Can you give me the dollar amounts for his tax plans? Lets do it the old fashion way of bookkeeping. Give me a column of credits, and give me a column of debits. Then we will see if its a positive or negative balance. I would even be satisfied with "ball park figures".

If you take tax money from the top 5 percent and give it to the bottom 30+ percent that don't pay any income tax, isn't that redistribution of wealth?

Can Obama give us any assurances that his increased taxes on the top 5 percent will not cause increase prices to the consumer, loss of jobs, or movement of entire companies or their assets outside the U.S.?

If he transfers the responsibilities for current expenditures from the bottom 95percent to the top 5 percent, where will the monies for new entitlements come from. Some will say from the Iraqi war, but isn't his plan to transfer assets from Iraq to Afghanistan, so these monies will not be available for new entitlements. I would like to go on record that if Obama is elected, there will be no tax cut for the middle class. They will pay for new entitlements.

[HoosierHelen]

Thanks for the numbers, rebel.

Free, are you sure you want to go where I think you want to go with this? Cuz if you pull out that tired old Bottom 50% Only Pay ... line, then I'm gonna have to whip out my The Top 5% Have All ... line, and that doesn't really address what I wanted to talk about.

Then there's flat tax (free) and sales tax (lb). The more I read about sales tax, the more I like it. If you exempt food and medicine, it seems fair, but we're not likely to get either a flat tax or sales tax soon.

Between the two major candidates, which tax policy makes the most sense for our country?

I think it's got to be Obama's. For one, it puts less of a debt load on us. For twos, Top Down economics hasn't worked so great for us lately. Putting extra tax money in the hands of rich folks was supposed to lead to them spreading it around. They did spread it, but mostly amongst themselves. And when they invested it, they were just as likely to invest in foreign companies as ones here in the good old USA. Maybe it trickled down in China, but here? Not so much.

Obama's plan is more Bottom Up -- or kind of Middle Out. Give more people (a lot more people) a smaller amount of extra tax money and see what they do with it. I can just about guarantee you that most of the 95% of the population who would get a break are going to immediately put it back into the economy -- whether it's at the grocery store or paying our bills.

Anyone want to try to defend McCain's tax policy?

Edeevee, very well said! It's exactly how I see it also. The trickle down was invested into other countries.

[evilkumquat]

If you take tax money from the top 5 percent and give it to the bottom 30+ percent that don't pay any income tax, isn't that redistribution of wealth?

From where, exactly, do you think those at the Top 5 Percent got their wealth in the first place?

What one man calls "redistributing" wealth, another may call, "giving it back to those who had it in the first place".

Not every rich family amassed its fortune from sticking it to the poor, but the system has always been skewed to benefit the wealthy. What's wrong with a bit of fiscal karma?

[Rockstarr]

So if the crats are so up with redistributing the wealth, why are Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Edwards, Obama and the rest still wealthy and we are not? Why don't they lead by example? Anyone call up the Obama campaign and ask them to share their wealth and give you $1000 to make your house payment this month?

Why hasn't Obama said he'll have his salary cut to $250,000 when he is President? That's what he feels is the standard for rich isn't it?

Anyone really think Ted Kennedy or John Kerry is going to give up $1 of their family fortune to anyone? B***S***!

If they feel that strong about sharing the wealth, why are they not doing it? Because they won't.

[edeevee]

Obama's tax plans sounds good in generalities. But, what about some hard numbers. Can you give me the dollar amounts for his tax plans? Lets do it the old fashion way of bookkeeping. Give me a column of credits, and give me a column of debits. Then we will see if its a positive or negative balance. I would even be satisfied with "ball park figures".

If you take tax money from the top 5 percent and give it to the bottom 30+ percent that don't pay any income tax, isn't that redistribution of wealth?

Can Obama give us any assurances that his increased taxes on the top 5 percent will not cause increase prices to the consumer, loss of jobs, or movement of entire companies or their assets outside the U.S.?

If he transfers the responsibilities for current expenditures from the bottom 95percent to the top 5 percent, where will the monies for new entitlements come from. Some will say from the Iraqi war, but isn't his plan to transfer assets from Iraq to Afghanistan, so these monies will not be available for new entitlements. I would like to go on record that if Obama is elected, there will be no tax cut for the middle class. They will pay for new entitlements.

Homey, I GAVE you numbers -- lots of 'em. I showed you how McCain's tax plan would increase the national debt more than Obama's. I showed you how the Bush tax cuts, which are skewed to benefit the very wealthiest in our society, have already cost our country more than $100 billion in revenue so far and will cost us another $100 billion before they expire. I showed you how much most of the citizens in this country would save on taxes if Obama's tax plan is enacted. I even showed you how much money it would "raise" taxes on the wealthiest 5%, even though it's not really a raise -- it's just a reversion back to the tax rate before Bush took office.

As for the redistribution of wealth thing, isn't that what the original tax cuts did? True, they did give people making less than $10,000 an extra FIVE BUCKS a year to spend, but they gave people making more than a million dollars an extra ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVEN extra bucks to spend, per year, for the last seven years. Since Bush took office your average millionaire got to keep an extra $891,849.00. Your average poor person got to keep an extra $35.00 over the same amount of time.

AND SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO PAY.

When Clinton left office, spending was under control. We were living under a balanced budget. We had a budget surplus instead of the $400 billion dollar deficit that Bush proposed last year -- before the bailouts. We were even paying down the national debt. Since Bush took office we have added more than 4 TRILLION DOLLARS to our debt.

There are 519,000 millionaires in our country. If Bush hadn't given them all the big discount card for taxes we would owe $462,869,631,000 less than we do right now -- and that doesn't even account for all of it, because there's interest on all that money we owe too. Obama's plan to let the tax cuts expire puts $133 Billion dollars back into our treasury every year. McCain's doesn't. We're redistributing wealth all right -- we are giving to ourselves and taking away from our children and our grandchildren, who will have to pay our debts. Under Obama's plan, they will have to pay less.

You bring up entitlements and suggest that Obama will not stand by his plan to give tax "cuts" (again, they are not really cuts) to the middle class, but instead will make the middle class shoulder the burden of the cost of new entitlements. You offer no proof so I am tempted to not even address it.

But, cuz I like you so much Homey, here goes: The largest of Obama's proposed entitlements is his healthcare plan. Experts can't seem to agree on how much it will cost, but the figure I've heard most is $50 Billion a year. We already pay $35 billion a year in taxes to support medical care for the uninsured so it's really just an extra 15 billion a year.

And, if your treasured free market system works it would cost even less. For one thing, most of the people who currently don't have health insurance because they can't afford it are young and healthy. The more young, healthy people in the health insurance pool the less total cost for all insurance. For another thing, a lot of people who are currently on disability stay on there because they would lose their Medicaid or Medicare if they went back to work. A lot of them could manage to work if they could continue to take the medicine that helps them stay well -- but they can't afford the medicine w/o some kind of subsidized health insurance -- AND CAN'T STAY WELL ENOUGH TO WORK WITHOUT IT.

Do you have any idea how much medication for the mentally ill costs every month? It's astounding! And part of the reason drug companies can charge so much for it is because the government pays for most of it. If people could have guaranteed low cost health insurance and subsidies for the medication that helps them be able to work, there could be far less people in entitlement programs ... saving billions of dollars.

Okay, so I've given you some more support for Obama's tax plan -- and I've thrown in some info re his health plan too. When are you going to ante up and defend McCain's plan?