Taxes - McCain vs Obama

[vespergirl]

I''m just going to jump in as the voice of dissent here, since I am a libertarian and have big problems with the current tax system in general. I am an advocate of the flat tax, which would really mostly help out the middle class in this country, since the middle class are the ones who shoulder most of the country''s tax burden. I think that is the fairest method, but both the rich and the poor hate the idea of it. The very rich would be paying a far higher amount in taxes than they do currently, and the poor would be compelled to pay a small tax, but honestly, I think that everyone should have to pay the same tax for the benefit of living in this country. I am also totally against the welfare system, which I believe enables people to decide to not work at all rather than work hard to succeed, and also decreases the value of the free educational system provided by this country, because I think the nation''s poor would take education and work far more seriously than they currently do if they didn''t have the option of welfare as a "career choice." I saw an special on CNN last night that had a segment on children being paid (cash!) for good test scores in some of our public charter schools, as an experiment. Paid to study! I was appalled. The reward of studying should be the bright future that you could have with a degree. In most developing countries, children still have to pay school fees, which most poor kids there would give an arm to be able to afford, because they understand in those places that an education is the only road out of poverty. In this country, we waste so many tax dollars on social welfare problems that really do nothing except exacerbate the cycle of generational poverty.

That said, it makes voting this year a very difficult choice for me, because while I am fiscally conservative, I am socially liberal, and I honestly think that Obama would make a better president than McCain. I think that in this demoralized time in the US on the tail end of the corrupt Bush administration, the country needs a real leader, and I think that Obama has a better leadership quality and instills greater hope in Americans than the status quo that would come with electing McCain.

 

[Erin]

Date: 7/24/2008 2:57:01 PM
Author: vespergirl
I''m just going to jump in as the voice of dissent here, since I am a libertarian and have big problems with the current tax system in general. I am an advocate of the flat tax, which would really mostly help out the middle class in this country, since the middle class are the ones who shoulder most of the country''s tax burden. I think that is the fairest method, but both the rich and the poor hate the idea of it. The very rich would be paying a far higher amount in taxes than they do currently, and the poor would be compelled to pay a small tax, but honestly, I think that everyone should have to pay the same tax for the benefit of living in this country. I am also totally against the welfare system, which I believe enables people to decide to not work at all rather than work hard to succeed, and also decreases the value of the free educational system provided by this country, because I think the nation''s poor would take education and work far more seriously than they currently do if they didn''t have the option of welfare as a ''career choice.'' I saw an special on CNN last night that had a segment on children being paid (cash!) for good test scores in some of our public charter schools, as an experiment. Paid to study! I was appalled. The reward of studying should be the bright future that you could have with a degree. In most developing countries, children still have to pay school fees, which most poor kids there would give an arm to be able to afford, because they understand in those places that an education is the only road out of poverty. In this country, we waste so many tax dollars on social welfare problems that really do nothing except exacerbate the cycle of generational poverty.

That said, it makes voting this year a very difficult choice for me, because while I am fiscally conservative, I am socially liberal, and I honestly think that Obama would make a better president than McCain. I think that in this demoralized time in the US on the tail end of the corrupt Bush administration, the country needs a real leader, and I think that Obama has a better leadership quality and instills greater hope in Americans than the status quo that would come with electing McCain.

I will have to agree with every. last. word.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 7/24/2008 10:09:00 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/23/2008 11:13:47 AM
Author: KimberlyH
The issue with school vouchers is that parents who are vested in their childrens'' education will take the time to enroll their child in the best school for him/her/them while those who face language barriers, are illiterate, can''t/won''t provide the transportation necessary to attend the school that is further away, or simply don''t care, won''t do so, which means the cycle is perpetuated as their children, who are typically the ones who need the most help, will end up in the same poor schools the voucher system would be trying to eradicate. Also, the seperation of church and state becomes a huge issue with a voucher system, if it includes religious based schools, as the money follows the student and that means gov''t funds are going to support religious enterprises.

Correct me if I''m wrong, but do you think that if school vouchers existed that marginal schools would be forced to increase their standards to ''keep up'' with the better schools? That would make the education system somewhat of a capitalist model, with competition driving up quality while trying to keep costs low? Bad schools nowadays have little incentive to improve, and often face no consequences for turning out poorly unqualified graduates year after year. Also, in D.C.''s school voucher program, only low-income students are given vouchers to attend private schools with higher academic standings. I know the D.C. program needs to be reformed (i.e. written non-discrimination prohibitions against students who are not religious but are attending parochial schools, standards to prove that private schools actually have higher performance scores, etc.), but I think that it''s a start. When I was in school my parents were not high income by any means but I don''t know if they would''ve qualified as ''low-income.'' It just seems wholly unfair that my parents had to pay my tuition and taxes for other people''s children...almost a penalty for being a certain religion and wanting your children to go to schools that implement that religion in education...but I guess ''Life''s not fair.''

As for the separation of church and state, I understand that some overlapping would occur...would there be a way to eliminate the portion of taxes that go to the public schools completely for parents of children in parochial schools? That wouldn''t involve any government money going to religious institutions (many of whom do not operate on a budget), and parents would simply be able to choose where their money went.

That''s a possibility, but even if said marginal schools increase standards (which are supposedly on par with the rest of the nation at this point, at least that''s what NCLB was supposed to do, ha ha) there will always be a best and a worst school if the education system is framed within the confines of capitalism. I am not opposed to the idea of a voucher system, I just think there would be a lot of wrinkles to iron out. I feel very strongly about my tax dollars not being spent at religious institutions whose values I do not agree with. An argument against your suggestion would be that children are provided with a free education by the gov''t and opting out shouldn''t mean not being obligated to pay taxes. Not so sure how valid it is, but I''m sure that''s what a lot of people would say, because most public education institutions, at least where I live, face budget crises as is, and losing that money would only make things worse (the reasons why are a whole different ball of wax that will take us on a totally different tangent even less appropriate for this thread than the discussion we''re currently having). Also, if we follow that train of thought than people who don''t have children shouldn''t have to pay taxes that support education either because they aren''t using the system either, at least not technically speaking (I know the myriad of arguments against this, and actually agree with them to some extent, just playing devils advocate).

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 10:48:04 AM
Author: KimberlyH
That''s a possibility, but even if said marginal schools increase standards (which are supposedly on par with the rest of the nation at this point, at least that''s what NCLB was supposed to do, ha ha) there will always be a best and a worst school if the education system is framed within the confines of capitalism. I am not opposed to the idea of a voucher system, I just think there would be a lot of wrinkles to iron out. I feel very strongly about my tax dollars not being spent at religious institutions whose values I do not agree with. An argument against your suggestion would be that children are provided with a free education by the gov''t and opting out shouldn''t mean not being obligated to pay taxes. Not so sure how valid it is, but I''m sure that''s what a lot of people would say, because most public education institutions, at least where I live, face budget crises as is, and losing that money would only make things worse (the reasons why are a whole different ball of wax that will take us on a totally different tangent even less appropriate for this thread than the discussion we''re currently having). Also, if we follow that train of thought than people who don''t have children shouldn''t have to pay taxes that support education either because they aren''t using the system either, at least not technically speaking (I know the myriad of arguments against this, and actually agree with them to some extent, just playing devils advocate).

Yeah, it is definitely a sitcky subject and I agree that we shouldn''t get too OT from taxes, I just wanted some opinions on the voucher system...thanks for your thoughts!

I agree that there should be a separation between church and state, but I do think that the separation will be widen anytime soon with the two candidates we have running. Barack has already stated that he will keep Bush''s faith-based initiatives in tact and actually expand the ones we already have. McCain supports them as well. I don''t know how I feel about the Government having any type of involvement in these types of programs...

Anyway, back to taxes...I''ve read that Barack''s tax plan includes a cut for those making less than $75,000 and a raise for those making over $250,000...is $75,000/year considered low-income nowadays? I''m not debating it, I just wondered if that much money is "middle class" because, for as much as the phrase is thrown around, there is no clear-cut definition that I''ve found - but I wouldn''t consider $75,000-$250,000/year middle class...

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 7/25/2008 11:12:42 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 10:48:04 AM
Author: KimberlyH
That''s a possibility, but even if said marginal schools increase standards (which are supposedly on par with the rest of the nation at this point, at least that''s what NCLB was supposed to do, ha ha) there will always be a best and a worst school if the education system is framed within the confines of capitalism. I am not opposed to the idea of a voucher system, I just think there would be a lot of wrinkles to iron out. I feel very strongly about my tax dollars not being spent at religious institutions whose values I do not agree with. An argument against your suggestion would be that children are provided with a free education by the gov''t and opting out shouldn''t mean not being obligated to pay taxes. Not so sure how valid it is, but I''m sure that''s what a lot of people would say, because most public education institutions, at least where I live, face budget crises as is, and losing that money would only make things worse (the reasons why are a whole different ball of wax that will take us on a totally different tangent even less appropriate for this thread than the discussion we''re currently having). Also, if we follow that train of thought than people who don''t have children shouldn''t have to pay taxes that support education either because they aren''t using the system either, at least not technically speaking (I know the myriad of arguments against this, and actually agree with them to some extent, just playing devils advocate).

Yeah, it is definitely a sitcky subject and I agree that we shouldn''t get too OT from taxes, I just wanted some opinions on the voucher system...thanks for your thoughts!

I agree that there should be a separation between church and state, but I do think that the separation will be widen anytime soon with the two candidates we have running. Barack has already stated that he will keep Bush''s faith-based initiatives in tact and actually expand the ones we already have. McCain supports them as well. I don''t know how I feel about the Government having any type of involvement in these types of programs...

Anyway, back to taxes...I''ve read that Barack''s tax plan includes a cut for those making less than $75,000 and a raise for those making over $250,000...is $75,000/year considered low-income nowadays? I''m not debating it, I just wondered if that much money is ''middle class'' because, for as much as the phrase is thrown around, there is no clear-cut definition that I''ve found - but I wouldn''t consider $75,000-$250,000/year middle class...

$250,000 is definitely middle class where I live (and not even upper middle class).

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:14 PM
Author: LAJennifer

$250,000 is definitely middle class where I live (and not even upper middle class).

I know in some parts of the country it would be (along both coasts), but here in the Midwest I would consider that upper class...I wonder what the general census would be since there is no real definition. When you factor in the cost of living though, $250,000 in the Midwest goes probably just as far as double or triple that amount would buy in the areas where it is considered middle class.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:35:55 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:14 PM
Author: LAJennifer

$250,000 is definitely middle class where I live (and not even upper middle class).

I know in some parts of the country it would be (along both coasts), but here in the Midwest I would consider that upper class...I wonder what the general census would be since there is no real definition. When you factor in the cost of living though, $250,000 in the Midwest goes probably just as far as double or triple that amount would buy in the areas where it is considered middle class.

Oh absolutely - the biggest difference is the cost of home ownership. The cute little 2 bedroom house across the street from our place is currently for sale at $1.3 Million. My hubby and I rent (its rent control and I''ve been there 8 years so in today''s market my place is considered "a steal"), so our dollars go pretty far and we are able to save a lot. However, more taxes for us would greatly slow down our plan of "getting ahead".