As we can see, under McCain's plan, 60% of the public will receive less than 1% of a tax decrease, while the richest 1% get the biggest cut.

Under Obama's plan, it's pretty much the exact opposite.

Proof once again that McCain's attack on Obama as someone who is going to raise the taxes of ordinary Americans is nothing more than bullshit.

Oh, wait, that's right -- McCain thinks that people who are as rich as he is are "ordinary Americans." The rest of us don't really matter.

The left is so obsessed with hating the rich. Why is it always 'obvious' that the lower-to-middle class should get large tax cuts (on top of already paying very little in Federal Income Tax) while the higher brackets "must" pay more than they do now?

This is the ugly side of democracy I guess.

To be honest, I don't get the gripe either. The top 1% still pay far and away more proportionally than the 60% bracket.

I don't think the upper 1% needs a tax break at all, but I don't see the need to raise their taxes either. I think that the brackets from $225,000 down to $37,500 are the ones that should get any tax breaks.

Below $37,500 pays what? 15%? It's already very low, and the jump after that goes to what? I think it's 25% + for every dollar over $37,500, and that's the number that should be dropped.

So in fairness, I think both plans are foolish.

That's a very misleading assertion. Look at the wealth owned by that top 1% and their share of the tax burden is about even.

The difference between the left and the right on this is the difference between supply-side and demand-side economics. The right believes in giving the majority of the economic incentives to the supply side, eg the rich and large corporations, in the belief that those tax cuts and hand outs will "trickle down" to the lower income brackets.

The left believes in giving the majority of the economic incentives to the demand side, eg consumers, in the belief that those tax cuts and hand otus will work their way up.

Fundamentally, the left approach is based on more realistic economics. Money works its way up, now down. As a percentage of the incentive, virtually 100% of the money allocated for the middle class and lower is going to flow back into the economy. This is not the case with supply-side economics. Some of it does, but far less than by focusing on the demand side.

The simple fact is you have to find a balance in between. You can't simply say, cut taxes for the middle and poor and none for the rich or corporations and everything will be fine. But you also can't say cut for big for the rich and corporations and little for the middle and poor.

Neither side seems to understand that. You have to find something in the middle for it to actually work.

With conservatives looking out for the rich and powerful, and liberals looking out for the poor and middle class, I think we do eventually end up with a balance.

Today's Democrats don't "hate the rich" the way Roosevelt did. Regardless of what happens, top-bracket rates will still be a far cry from the 91% of olden days. All the hullabaloo about class warfare is a tiresome cliche.

Personally, I believe family values are important. There should be incentives for people to marry and stay married; tax rates for non-widowed singles should be dramatically higher at the top of the scale, definitely above 60%.

I believe in extending my middle finger and firmly holding it up to your face. Who are you to tell me that I should pay 60% of my earnings to the government because I chose not to get married?

I kind of hope he was joking.

I'm married, but I do wonder why married people should get any kind of tax break just for getting married.

I hope you have a strong middle finger, cause you'll have to flex it all night long, sweetie. Who are you to tell me a two-tier tax system isn't a good incentive for families, far more so than all the irrelevant hot-buttons like abortion? There's no short supply of childless hedonists to plug our budget deficit.

A much bigger problem is the moral hazard inherent in any two-tier tax system. That would take a lot more legal ingenuity to figure out.

i'm fine with married couples getting more tax breaks then singles.

Why?

because i support low taxes

But that doesn't explain why you think single people should pay more. Couldn't you just as easily say you're for high taxes then?

I don't know if I could ever support tax breaks for the married, but I certainly couldn't with the current state of gay rights. Even if that mess got fixed, I'd need to hear a lot more from both sides before throwing support behind it. The issue isn't something I've given much thought.

I said I was fine with it. If it went away, I wouldn't worry about it too much either. I've seen the benefits of additional tax breaks for married couples.

Are you saying that you could only support tax breaks for married couples if gays CAN get married or if they CAN'T? I'm reading it as the former.

I think the irony of conservatives arguing that married couples should be incentivised to get married is their exact opposite criticism that gay people only want to get married to get the tax benefits.

I'm reading it as

"Unless gays are allowed to be married, there should be no married tax breaks."

I could be wrong

I think my statement was fairly clear, but let me elaborate so as to leave no confusion.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly support marriage tax incentives when some people who want to get married are being denied that opportunity. That's about as blatant as discrimination gets, so unless the same tax breaks are extended to gay couples, this idea has no business even being discussed.

Now, assuming some agreement was reached to allow gay couples to receive the same benefits, I would at least be open to listing to both sides of the argument, an argument I honestly have given very little thought previously.

That's what I thought you meant, and I concur.

I think Hito's idea was a cheap ploy to get more dates

Having a girlfriend is still "single" according to the IRS.

Gay civil unions should have the same legal and financial benefits as straight marriages. I said so before, in that clusterfuck gay marriage thread we had a while back.