Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama vs. McCain: Which Americans Can Afford A Tax Hike?
The McCain and Obama showdown is all set and it's gonna be a blast! During the race for the White House, we'll be taking a look at what separates the candidates on economic policy and how it will affect your money. Suggestions for a snazzy name are welcome. ("Mick and O: Who Wants My Dough?" was shot down)
If you're not willing to vote for a candidate purely by how much money he earns, you'll most likely be concerned with how much money he thinks you earn.
For instance, Barack Obama has proposed several plans for the government to assist with the housing market, free universal health care coverage, and alternative energy subsidies among other programs. All good things, but how will he pay for them?
Obama claims he is concerned about not raising taxes for those already struggling, therefore one of the sources of this needed revenue will come from tax hikes on 'wealthy Americans'.
McCain, for one, will be jumping on the cause that Obama's identification of America's wealthy is not as opulent as most would expect.
CNBC's Maria Bartiromo is not going to be happy if Barack Obama is elected President. She illustrates a perfect example of what McCain will no doubt make a major point in the election. According to this quote attributed to Maria in today's NY Post:
"Obama is going to take the capital gains tax at 15 percent right now all the way up to 25 to 28 percent," the "Money Honey" tells Avenue. "Sell anything, like a home or stocks, and make a profit . . . [almost] 30 percent of the profit will go to the government instead of 15." The income tax is also in for a bump. Bartiromo says, "Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think."
That's tough talk coming from Maria, but I have a real hard time believing all that crap about those earning $200,000 not being 'rich'. Of course it's all relative, but seriously, those type of earners don't consider themselves more well off than the vast majority of the country?
With McCain trying his best to court Wall Street and many other powerful investors, he will be fighting for the 'not so little guy.' Meaning - he'll take Obama to task on lawyers and doctors getting higher taxes and not just millionaire CEOs with corporate jets.
On the other hand, to get his programs paid for, Obama will be persuing solace with those on the lower end of the income spectrum. He'll also be hoping those big earners with an aversion to the Iraq war and the current state of conservative politics will be in his corner.
Look out for this to be a major point of contention between McCain and Obama in the future.
Do some typing in the comments section - give us your definition of what classifies as a wealthy American, and Who can afford a tax hike for the good of the country?
NY Post: Barack's Bite, June 10, 2008
CNBC: McCain and Obama: The Dramatic Differences Will Show, June 9, 2008
CATEGORIES:
Comments
All good things, but how will he pay
All good things, but how will he pay for them?
It's a funny thing. Democrats propose to spend some money on something that will help people and everyone asks where the money will come from. Republicans spend trillions on Star Wars or endless religious wars and the issue of cost never seems to come up. Wonder why that is.
It's a sort of bitter joke that over the last 20 years, the only US president that showed a lick of fiscal responsibility has been a Democrat (Clinton), yet Republicans still get treated like they're the responsible ones.
I'd like to see someone ask McCain how he'll pay for the war and the huge debt that Bush has saddled you with. That's many orders of magnitude more than health care.
Incidentally, Canada has universal health care, and spends less per capita than the US government already does. The government will save money by going to universal health care. It may cost something to transition, but it's ignorance on the part of the reporters.
tyro: Does money in fact grow on tree?
tyro: Does money in fact grow on tree? Seriously, you can't just shift money from one budget to another and not expect to have it come from somewhere. You can't print money. Show me how much the GOP is spending on "Star Wars". I need real data before I buy into your throwaway comment. "Religious wars"? I have no idea what you mean by that. Please define "fiscal responsiblity" under Clinton. Things cost most more now than they did in the 90's. If you're comparing sheer dollars vs dollars, you lose. And I'm not saying that Bush hasn't been spend-happy (he has), but show me the numbers.
As for how McCain will "pay for the war", trust me it's paid for. And show me a government that shifts military budget to social programs. It's simply NOT DONE.
OF COURSE Canadians spend less per capita on healthcare. America has 300 million more people, and the government doesn't foot the bill. This is your weakest argument by far. Have you ever talked with a Canadian who has been on a waiting list, for even the simplest of procedures, or better yet, needed urgent care? You get what you pay for. The amount of rich Canadians in Western New York hospitals is testament enough. You are ill-informed on the differences between Canadian healthcare and American healthcare.
Read up first, THEN post here.
Anon,"Show me how much the GOP is
Anon,
"Show me how much the GOP is spending on "Star Wars". I need real data before I buy into your throwaway comment."
So you bluster without having any data? Nice.
During the Reagan years, defence spending grew about $125b/yr, most of which went to SDI, to a peak of $425b/yr.
The first George Bush actually oversaw a bigger spending increase than Reagan. Where Reagan grew spending 7%, Bush Sr grew it 14% overall, with defence growing 21%.
""Religious wars"? I have no idea what you mean by that."
Oh? Well then, don't worry your pretty little head.
Please define "fiscal responsiblity" under Clinton.
Fiscal Responsibility: despite inheriting a massive deficit and debt, he ran the biggest surplus in US history.
Just how much US political history do you know? Open a newspaper.
As for how McCain will "pay for the war", trust me it's paid for.
Uh huh. Mr Show Me The Figures, Mr Anonymous asks us to trust him. Do you have the first clue how big the deficit is right now?
OF COURSE Canadians spend less per capita on healthcare. America has 300 million more people, and the government doesn't foot the bill.
You don't even know what "per capita" means, do you?
Do you know that the Canadian government spends less per capita to provide health care for all Canadians than the US government spends per capita to provide health care to civil servants and veterans while providing next-to-nothing to the rest of the population (not even counting the huge amount paid by individuals)? I'd guess not. You must watch some pretty crap sources of news.
This is your weakest argument by far. Have you ever talked with a Canadian who has been on a waiting list, for even the simplest of procedures, or better yet, needed urgent care?
Canadians do have waiting lines, but so do Americans. In academic surveys, Canadian Health Care comes out as strong as the American one, despite much less spending. This waiting line panic is propaganda - Canadians are not significantly worse than Americans and in many areas, Canadians can get faster access.
You are ill-informed on the differences between Canadian healthcare and American healthcare.
Heh, right. Says the guy who doesn't seem to know how much the US even spends.
Taxes should never be paid purely on
Taxes should never be paid purely on the basis of who can best afford it.
Come on Tyro. Think about how much the
Come on Tyro. Think about how much the U.S. spends in defense a year. Without cutting that budget where do you think the money will come from. Most of the money spent by our government still goes into Social Security, Medicare and Medicade. Where do you think all of the money will come from for a social health care system... I don't know about you but i don't want to be paying 40 or 50 percent in income taxes.
The rich are those who make $5,000 more
The rich are those who make $5,000 more a year than you do, obviously.
Just put me into my Matrix pod already, all I'm good for is being a "revenue source" for things that "help people."
Last time I checked, the Constitution specifically allowed the federal government to retain the capability to blow other countries up. The same can't be said for *name newest wealth transfer fad here.*
Do you know that the Canadian
Do you know that the Canadian government spends less per capita to provide health care for all Canadians than the US government spends per capita to provide health care to civil servants and veterans while providing next-to-nothing to the rest of the population (not even counting the huge amount paid by individuals)? I'd guess not. You must watch some pretty crap sources of news.
You've forgotten to factor in what the Provincial govenrments pay, and it's much more than the Feds pay. nice try, though.
As a Canadian, I'll tell you that our health care isn't all it's cracked up to be. First, it isn't "free". We pay either through a special sales tax or directly to a provincial health fund. Second, the service is terrible to the point of dangerous. The wait lists are more than a year for some surgeries. MY mother was actually in her bed in the hospital waiting for her mitral valve replacement when she was sent home because they needed the bed for someone who was sicker. And my 79 year old father was told that they wouldn't give aggressive care to a circulation problem in his leg because "he had lived beyond his 3 score and ten". In other words, we aren't wasting good health care dollars on old people.
Is that the quality health care you envision for Americans?
Taxation implies ownership, and the
Taxation implies ownership, and the government doesn't own my labor nor my "capital gains." I'll be voting for neither of these dickheads because they are both cut from the same cloth. King George III would be so jealous.
Taxes should never be paid based purely
Taxes should never be paid based purely on who can best afford them.
@Cancuck,You've forgotten to factor in
@Cancuck,
You've forgotten to factor in what the Provincial govenrments pay, and it's much more than the Feds pay. nice try, though.
Actually no, I didn't. Check your sources.
In other words, we aren't wasting good health care dollars on old people.
Is that the quality health care you envision for Americans?
Nice stories, but there are horror stories far worse in the states, despite spending 75% more money than Canadians. There are waiting lines for most large procedures in Canada and the US, and in some cases the lines are shorter in the States, but in some cases the lines are shorter in Canada. Every time the question has been studied, there has been no evidence to show that Canada's system is significantly worse.
I'm not holding up Canada as the model, especially not with the PM and several Premiers trying to undermine health care in order to privatize it, but it's not as bad as Fox News says.
@anon
Think about how much the U.S. spends in defense a year.
Surely that was my point. Whenever a politician says they want to spend some measly sum on health care, suddenly everyone screams "more taxes, more taxes!" But whenever they say they'd sure like a couple trillion to blow stuff up, no one asks where it comes from. All of a sudden, people will find a way.
Most of the money spent by our government still goes into Social Security, Medicare and Medicade.
Social Security: 7% ($586b)
Medicare: 12.4% ($394b)
Medicade: 2.9% ($276b)
Total: 22.3%.
So again, you don't seem to know what you're blathering about. Why don't you look something up for a change, clearly most of what you think you know is wrong.
But let's stick with these figures. It's roughly $670b on medicare/medicade, so the US federal government alone spends just over $2k per capita to fund the crappiest public health care system in the western world. When you then add in the money spent by the State governments, for teachers, civil servants, museum workers and veterans, you'll understand just what a messed up system you've got. The US government is already spending more per capita on health care than nations who provide Universal Health Care, but most Americans are too stupid or too ignorant to see it.
Terrible.
tyro is my new hero. I can't believe
tyro is my new hero. I can't believe someone is actually using numbers instead of reciting verbatim what they've heard from other biased sources.
@tyroYour figures aren't quite
@tyro
Your figures aren't quite right:
Social Security: 7% ($586b)
Medicare: 12.4% ($394b)
Medicade: 2.9% ($276b)
Total: 22.3%.
How can Social Security at 7% ($586b) have spending greater than Medicare 12.4% with spending at $394b?
I think I found your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
On that page, those percentages are relative increases in spending. The percentage of the total budget is different. Here are the numbers that I gathered from that page.
Social Security: 20.2% ($586b)
Medicare: 13.6% ($395b)
Medicade: 9.5% ($276b)
Total: 43.3%.
Defense: 19% ($549b)
The total budget is for $2.8 trillion.
However, I do agree that the USA spends an enormous amount of money on the military and medicare. I'm pretty surprised by those numbers.
Skip - thank you for the
Skip - thank you for the correction.
Yes, using Wikipedia, the total for those three sources is $1,256b which is just under 1/2 of $2,800b total.
The conclusions of how much money the federal government spends on health care were based on the absolute figures, so that remains unaffected.
I was able to find one site that showed state and federal government spending in different areas. According to that source, it looks like state and local governments contribute an additional 20-50%. Health care is shown as $925b/yr which, based on 300m people is ~$3k per capita. This puts the combined state and federal government spending in the US equal to or greater than all western nations except Iceland ($3.1k), Luxembourg (4.6k), Norway ($3.7k) and Iceland ($3.8k).
That's current spending.
I just don't understand how anyone can make the argument that universal, single-payer health care will cost more since virtually every Western nation spends less while providing much, much more. It's not like you can't borrow the best ideas and do it cheaper.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion. My mistake.