Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
IMO, they are still irresponsible, particularly if the top bracket is not sunsetted and returned to pre-2000 rates as envisioned in both the 01 and 03 bills.. and far more costly, by any measure, than Obama's plan.
|
Is the top rate going to make a difference? Taxes collected are going to be 17%-18% of GDP under Bush, McCain or Obama according to the report you cited. This has been the historical range, so how do you conclude Bush's tax cuts are irresponsible? Also according to the report you cited the deficit is going to go up under McCain's plan or under Obama's plan. They (in the report) made some assumptions regarding how Obama is planning on handling health care so under his plan the deficit may be lower or higher depending. Either way, the budget won't be in balance unless there are large cuts, McCain is at least talking about making cuts.
Quote:
|
At least Obama's approach to the Bush tax cuts....continuing the cuts for 94% of taxpayers (mostly middle class) AND paying for it by letting the cuts on the top 1% expire in 2010...seems a bit more responsible.
|
Again, when I see proof...otherwise Obama's populist rhetoric is a tactic to get elected.
Lowering one tax and raising another may not lead to a net tax reduction.
Instituting targeted tax deductions and credits, may only affect a select few.
Giving homeowners the option of of using the standard deduction and deducting home interest compared to them using the itemized deduction doesn't mean that there will be a tax reduction.
Raising corporate taxes in many cases will translate to higher costs to consumers (inflationary), and a further eroding of American competitiveness (loss of jobs).
Personally, I think these issues are worthy of discussion and debate and should not be considered off limits.