Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.

MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.h tm?postversion=2008061111

Now tell me: How many of you will see a tax increase under Obama??? Yet more proof that the GOP only cares about the upper income brackets.

C'mon folks, anyone here willing to admit they will see a tax hike if Obama gets elected? McCain is claiming all Americans will see increases if Obama gets elected. This is simply not true, making McCain a liar.

According to those numbers, I'd take a tax hike.

However, no one really knows what the taxes will do since McCain and Obama can only propose changes.

It's up to the Senate and Congress to pass any changes and I'm sure they will be putting in tax hikes of their own no matter who is president.

Edit: In re-reading the article, I guess technically it's not a tax "hike". They just won't go down as much under Obama's published numbers.

So you must be in the $227K-$603K income range? That's the first category in Obama's column that would pay more taxes than today, by an average of $12.

And do people making more than $2.9 million need a cut of $269,364? McCain has yet to tell us where he's going to fund these kind of tax cuts weighted towards the wealthy.

(Hint) It will be in the form of higher taxes passed on to the average Joe (you and me) combined with cuts to services and funding we currently receive (think timber payments in rural OR).

Whether we like it or not, the bills are coming due and George W. Bush has been out spending the rent money on booze, women and video poker. During the first six years of the Bush Administration, tax cuts for the wealthy, coupled with out of control domestic spending and the war in Iraq puts us in a pretty deep hole. Contrary to their claim of fiscal conservatism, the GOP Congress under Speaker Denny Hastert and our very own moron and chief George W. Bush have spent money like ID thieves with stolen credit cards. We’ve got to do something – and quite frankly paying our bills in a timely manner shouldn’t be that extraordinary a leap. Not reauthorizing Bush’s billionaire tax stimulus package is a good start. Remember, the Republicans play this game of promising us we can have it all without having to pay for any of it. They’ve played fast and loose with spending for the war in Iraq. $700 billion dollars and we haven’t paid for nearly any of it. We need honesty in the appropriation process. And this means reviewing the issue of fair taxation.

So you must be in the $227K-$603K income range?

I can only wish!

The way I read the chart is that under McCain your taxes would drop the amount in the first column and under Obama the second column.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's the way it's stated at the top of the chart in the article.

You're reading it right.

So based on Obama's tax plan, only people in the $227K+ range will see any tax increases, contrary to what McCain is telling people. And I'd be willing to bet that every single poster here is under $227K per year.

Did you read the "edit" at the end of my post?????

I said; "In re-reading the article, I guess technically it's not a tax "hike". They just won't go down as much under Obama's published numbers."

Under McCain my taxes will go down more than under Obama. If any of the propaganda can be believed.

Election promises are mostly BS.

Under McCain our deficit will increase more than under Obama's plan, which helps to fund your tax decrease and means cuts to existing services or higher taxes in the future.

This is a really great thread Vitalogy. This is also why John McCain faces a real challenge in this election. He never going to deliver a tax plan that puts a bite on the very wealthy (read: many folks who invested in big oil and war) or relieves the burden on the regular folks (read: us).

This being America, there are other taxes in play this election season:

McCain Voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security's annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

In 2000 McCain Wanted to Divert Social Security Money to Private Accounts.

The Wall Street Journal reported that "[a] centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully." The plan would put workers' retirement money into the risky market and reduce the amount of Social Security payments they would receive from the government. The plan would undermine the Social Security system. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]

McCain Still Proposes Privatizing Social Security—Despite What His Website Says.

McCain told the Wall Street Journal he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that he supported in 2000 and President Bush pushed unsuccessfully. The Journal reported he "disowned" details of a proposal on his 2008 campaign website that says he would "supplement" the existing Social Security system with personally managed accounts. But when asked about the position change he denied it and promised to change the website to reflect his true position. "I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts. As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it—along the lines that President Bush proposed," McCain told the Journal. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08; Campaign Website, accessed 3/3/08]

McCain Might Raise the Retirement Age and Reduce Cost-of-Living Adjustments.

"[T]he McCain campaign says the candidate intends to keep Social Security solvent by reducing the growth in benefits over the coming decades to match projected growth in payroll tax revenues. Among the options are extending the retirement age to 68 and reducing cost-of-living adjustments, but the campaign hasn’t made any final decisions. 'You can't keep promises made to retirees,' said Mr. Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic aide." [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]

McCain Supported Deep Cuts That Put Social Security Benefits at Risk.

In 2005, McCain supported a Social Security plan that would require deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. That same year, McCain voted against prioritizing Social Security solvency over tax cuts for the wealthy. [SCR 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05; S. Amdt. 144 to SCR 18, Vote #47, 3/15/05]

McCain Voted to Use Social Security Money to Pay Off National Debt.

In 2003, McCain voted to use Social Security funds to pay off federal debt. [HJR 51, Vote #201, 5/23/03]

McCain Voted Against Protecting Social Security Solvency with a Strategic Reserve.

In 2001, McCain opposed reducing tax cuts for the wealthy to create a strategic reserve for Social Security. In the same year, McCain voted against a proposal to create "lockboxes" to protect Social Security and Medicare. [H.R. 1836, Senate RPC, Vote #145, 5/22/01; S. Amdt. 29, Vote #22, 3/13/01]

McCain Voted to Replace Social Security with Risk-Based Investments.

In 1998, McCain voted twice to replace Social Security's guaranteed benefits with income from risk-based private investments. [SCR 86, Vote #56, 4/1/98; SCR 86, Vote #77, 4/1/98]

AFL-CIO.

One would not expect an elderly American to act so selfishly, but then again, he really does not need Social Security. Ironically, no matter what the plan is, he will get his benefits.

"Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125

Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.

In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

Does McBush's plan sound familiar?

The study said, “The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution,” whereas “Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.”

My dad is going to S bricks with his business he's going to get hammered as will I but I don't mind paying a little more if it's for the good of AMERICA.