Ready for higher taxes?

Higher taxes or more tax cuts and who should bear the burden of this necessary evil?


Higher taxes or more tax cuts and who should bear the burden of this necessary evil? The one thing Barack Obama and John McCain differ widely on is tax policy. Obama wants more tax cuts for working families while McCain favours "pro-growth and competitive" taxes. We asked our Observers if they're willing to pay higher taxes?

"Obama's plan acknowledges the immediate needs and worries"

Julissa Reynoso, attorney, New York (Democrat)


Taxes are the means by which a society can sustain its social and communal fabric.

Taxation is a source and an investment that sustains basic public goods - including education, Social Security, healthcare - which are distributed for the net benefit of society as a whole.

Of course, in a free society like the US citizens should also have the right to "invest" their income and resources as they see fit to maintain their freedom and thrive.

The Obama plan acknowledges this balance. The plan includes tax cuts for those that need the extra income inhand. The plan, for example, eliminates income tax for seniors making less than 50,000 US Dollars per year.

However, the Obama plan favors allowing tax cuts to expire for those earning more than 250,000 US Dollars per year. The Obama plan acknowledges the immediate needs and worries of those that are being hit hardest during this economic downturn.

The plan also recognizes the necessity of sustaining and investing in basic benefits. Both are essential to maintain America's competitiveness and to ensure growth.



Remy complains about high taxes in a video posted for the CNN/Youtube debate in 2007



Al the Shoe salesman calculates his tax cut under Obama's plan

"Tax pledges in campaigns equivalent to companies bidding govt. contracts"

Alexander Stone Dale, former cab driver, Manhattan, New York (Republican)

"The whole concept of who to tax in particular and how much more should THEY be taxed is foreign to the Classical Liberal Republican.We are off that grid.

Its kind of hilarious not to have the concept of 'nobody should benefit in particular from tax cuts and nobody should end up paying more taxes.' Try it sometime.

Tax pledges by a Democrat Presidential candidate are the equivalent of companies bidding for government contracts.

In both - candidates low bid to get the contract and then hope to get the inevitable cost overruns approved later.

While Senator Barack Obama's promise to raise taxes on only 5% of the American people is his low bid to get the ultimate government contract, the socialist/Marxist economic vision he shares with his 'kitchen cabinet' leads in the inevitable direction of cost overruns to be inflicted on everybody once he's safely ensconced in office.

Senator John McCain's promise to cut or freeze taxes is a promise that leads in the opposite direction.

1984 Democrat Presidential nominee Walter Mondale said in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention, "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Only problem was PRESIDENT (not Mr.) Reagan not only hadn't promised to raise taxes - but after beating Senator Mondale in the worst Electoral College defeat in American history (49 States to 1) - he didn't raise taxes!

Google 'Walter Mondale' in Wikipedia if you want to check this out."

"The money we earn belongs to us, not the govt."

Jim Wilkinson, business-owner, Mercedes, Texas (Republican)

"Every single taxpayer deserves a tax cut. Obama says he'll raise taxes only on the rich yet he's pledged to let the Bush tax cuts,which we all benefitted from, expire. Isn't that a tax increase on every single person?

Obama merely uses the class-envy "sock it to the rich" card.

McCain understands that no nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity.

Lowering taxes on private enterprise increases the flow of tax dollars into the treasury as it stimulates the economy.

Businesses then hire more people, sell more goods and provide more services.

Tax-and-spend Obama and Biden have claimed it's "more patriotic" to pay more taxes. Nothing is keeping either of them from sending in more of their own money than required.

The money we earn belongs to us, not to the government."

"$250,000 a year is reasonable"

Ernesto Haibi, U.S. Army medic, Copperas Cove, Texas (Independent)

"Simply, those of means should pay. Noblese oblige is a patrician term used in the 19th century where the rich were taught to believe their responsibility was to the poor. Who can we tax, the poor. This nonsense of "fair tax" across the board is a theory of the rich.

Socialist redistribution of wealth is not my idea, but if America doesn't get it through its head that those who benefit from the poor owe them something we will still have Americans voting against their economic interest. $250,000 a year is a reasonable number for a cap.

Americans complain about schools but don't want to pay. They want war in Iraq but are going broke doing it. They complain about crime and rising property taxes.

Unlike Europe we get very little for our taxes. We get taxed for future ideas not present problems.

Maybe getting money from the rich and cutting taxes on the poor, you know the other 90%, will get Internet in all schools, food for those forced babies when they ban abortion, and a funded military to get Bin Laden and fight the real war."

"Frenemy at the gate"

Linda Sharp,parenting writer, Austin TX (Independent)

Frenemy is one of those cutesy,let's-squish-a-couple-words-together-ala-Brangelina-to-make-a-new-word descriptors. It is a combination of friend + enemy - two words diametrically opposed in meaning, yet when combined they take on a singular.

In this case, the definition is basically "a necessary evil."

You don't like them, in fact, you probably have great disdain for them, but you are also smart enough to see their purpose.

That's what taxes are.The great American frenemy.

In this election, like so many others before, taxes have come front and center. Both candidates laying out grand plans for how they will do it. Tax a little more here, a little less there, freeze this, decrease that. Their visions are mapped out on their websites, and every nuance is picked apart by the opposing side.

But here's the thing. On November 5th, we will still be paying taxes the same as we were on November 4th.

That's the part I can't understand about all the hoohaa. People get their knickers in a twist over one plan, while embracing the other as if it will completely wipe away the whole system and not take one thin dime of their earnings.

I support Barack Obama. I do this with the full knowledge that under his tax proposals, I would pay more than I do now. And that's OK with me. I can afford it. But to hear John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and their friends talk about it, you would think paying taxes is some strange new concept Barack Obama has invented. That under John McCain there won't be any.

Look, taxes are as old as time. Taxes are what led to The Boston Harbor having the potential to be renamed the Earl Grey Harbor. We don't like them. But they are a necessary evil.

Taxes pays for our military, our schools, our roads, our public services. Things we all, regardless of income, have access to.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we ALL just get taxed 5% across the board. I still pay more than other people because I make more money that they do. And people who make more money than me pay a larger sum. That money all goes into a big government pot where the "wealth gets redistributed" according to our legislators views and votes.

Now, just because you make $25,000 to my $250,000, and obviously you paid less into the pot, does that mean you have less access to the roads? The schools? Military protection? Of course not.

John McCain and Barack Obama know this. Neither man can abolish the tax code. And come November 5th, regardless of who our new president is, taxes will still be that necessary evil, our frenemy at the gate.