YOUR COMMENTS

To Mke Marsh, "99.9% of Americans are have less real income than they did Bush became President." Huh, I'm not really sure what that means, but I'll assume you meant "99% of Americans have less income than they did when Bush became President." OK, you said it, now please provide me some sources. However, I have a fact for you. The top 1% of earners in the United States pay more individual income taxes than the bottom 94.9% of earners. When is enough enough? We need to cut spending and taxes period. We don't need to raise taxes on the "doers" in this nation anymore! Why should the achievers be forced to pay for the non-achievers?
- Pete, Park City, UT

Komrade Robert, Do you read anything besides Moveon.org do get your ideas for these postings. The myth that corporations don't pay taxes has been circulating around the internet by left wing sheeple because your basic understanding of economics and accounting is so shallow.
You are citing a 2005 GAO study reflecting 2/3 of corps don't pay taxes. That study doesn't account for most small biz that file taxes under a S-corp which is subject to personal taxes and not the corp levy. So they are paying taxes at the highest personal level not corp level. They are still paying taxes.
In a free market their are winners and their are losers. In 2005, the BLS' Dynamic Business survey also shows that for every 7.6 biz that were expanding, there were 7.3 that were contracting. Every 1.5 startup biz for every 1.3 of biz closing their doors. For corps with 500 employees and more there were 5.8 jobs created for every 4.9 jobs eliminated. Just because the economy is having a good year, doesn't mean every biz is having one.
Maybe you are not aware as you were educated in public schools, but you don't pay taxes on revenues but on profits! Wow image that. So a company like GM with $193 billion in revenue won't pay taxes when they have $10.4 billion in losses on that revenue.
I have included a link to this myth you perpetuate constantly on this website for anyone to see for themselves.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/do_corporations_really_pay_no.html
- Kyle, Bedford

Cynthia Warren, the mere fact that you pull your information from Barack Obama's website clearly shows your lack of research and understanding of what is truly at stake. I saw a website that promised if I wired $10,000 to India, I would see 1000% returns in less than 6 months. Case and point: Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's real.

Obama's tax plan focuses on giving the majority of America (under $250k earners) a tax break and all the businesses (over 250K) a tax increase. The trickle down effect of lost jobs and higher goods and services will decrease the value of everyone's money both above and below $250k. How can anyone claim that Obama's websites are 100% accurate when there are outside factors that are not disclosed in his "brilliant" financial plan. Wake up America, he's a politician catering to the low hanging fruit.

Mike Marsh, so let me get this straight. You make 10 million, and you're taxed on it. You invest the remaining money and it grows to 20 million. You get taxed again. You die and upon death, anything over 10 million is taxed yet again. How many times do you have to be taxed before it is enough?
- John Franzen, Manchester, NH

My comment is to Theodore Parker and editors of the Union Leader. I would hope that the largest newspaper in our state would make every attempt to present a more complete story and base their opinion on that.
If you are going to speak of "Obama's tax pledge" and create opinions on his fiscal plan then why dont you give us some key points of that financial plan.
No room?, Okay how about at least putting the web address to the plan. Our
country is in dire straits, if everyone we owe money too decided to collect tomorrow we would be begging for money just like AIG and Lehman. The present administration have acted irresponsibly with our dollars. I'm not sure they even have a plan. The "trickle down plan" does not work and will not work as long as greed exists. The Bush administration has given major tax breaks to companies that in turn moved their companies out of our country.
The essense of my comment is be responsible and truthful in your reporting and your stories. If giving us your personal opinions than back them up with facts and where to find those "facts".
Many people do not have the time to look up all the information they need to make an informed opinion. They look to you to give them what they need, so be honest. If you are going to speak of either Obama or McCains fiscal plans dont just give us a partial slanted opinion.
Why would you believe McCain if you cant believe Obama.. You dont know either one of them. Personally I have read both plans and the one that makes the most sense for the problems we are having now is Obama's.
One more thing to the small business owner, what makes you think that you will be a part of the "individuals making more than $250,000 that Obama speaks of. His plan will only include you if you are pulling $250,000 in salary out of your company.. Please read factual information that can be backed up with trusted sources and then make your own decisions. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/ . read the factual past political activity of these people. Can we believe him, we have to. He is new and different and we must change before we crash.


*** Editor's note: On Saturday, Page One of the New Hampshire Union Leader and the home page of UnionLeader.com featured staff reporter John DiStaso's coverage of Barack Obama's speech in Dover. That article was part of a three-story package covering Obama's New Hampshire campaign stops. It included detailed coverage of the candidate's tax plan. To read it, click Election '08 on our home page or visit this URL: http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=In+Dover%2c+Obama+makes+%27pledge%27+against+tax+hikes+on+most+Americans&articleId=2e304f26-85b7-412e-8303-b7b70d1618dd
- Cynthia Warren, Goffstown

And on top of all these "good things" as yet unspecified, the majority of the largest corporations pay NO TAXES WHATSOEVER. They pay, instead, fleets of accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes and fleets of lobbyists to make sure that there are gaping loop holes so that they can have unfettered access to no bid contracts and Hoover money directly out of taxpayer's pockets. Moving corporate headquarters off shore is a good move too don't you think? Do you think that Exxon's profits have gone to stock holders? Absolutely not. They are in the middle of the biggest stock buy back ever seen in the world. You don't hear much about that do you?And on top of all these "good things" as yet unspecified, the majority of the largest corporations pay NO TAXES WHATSOEVER. They pay, instead, fleets of accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes and fleets of lobbyists to make sure that there are gaping loop holes so that they can have unfettered access to no bid contracts and Hoover money directly out of taxpayer's pockets. Moving corporate headquarters off shore is a good move too don't you think? Do you think that Exxon's profits have gone to stock holders? Absolutely not. They are in the middle of the biggest stock buy back ever seen in the world. You don't hear much about that do you?
- Robert Mann, Deerfield

First of all, it's nice to be part of a civil conversation. The great thing about America is that we all pretty much agree on where we want to get to in the long however much we may differ on how best to get there.

Do I agree with everything Senator Obama says he wants to do? No. But when all is said and done I agree with more of what he says that what McCain says so I'm supporting him. That's the way democracy works.

As far as our tax system is concerned most people agree that it needs to be fixed. The IRS code is patchwork goodies to various groups. The result is that the middle class pays the most. And the mortgage interest deduction, nice as it is for people like me who own houses, is part of what lead to the sub-prime debacle. In an ideal world people with more money would pay a larger share fo the tax burden. But the system is so corrupt as it stands that I would settle for a flat tax. And like I said earlier, a dollar should be taxed only when it reaches the hands of a voter or potential voter. Corporations don't vote, they shouldn't pay taxes. But every person must contribute their share.

A more difficult issue is the role of government. Personally, I think the Federal government has become far too powerful. In part because I am a liberal, I think government should be as close to the people as possible. That means state and local governments need to do more and the feds do less. The first step in making that happen is to reverse Nixon's revenue sharing scheme where Washington collects the bulk of the taxes and doles them back to the states. Remember the Golden Rule: he who controls the gold makes the rules. Without revenue sharing earmarks would be a thing of the past. Of course, it would mean that at the state level we would have to consider an income tax but at least we would control our own money.

Finally, I think that in this age when company pensions barely exist Social Security is more necessary than ever. But I would make a couple significant changes: 1) stop the charade of a trust fund and simply adopt a pay-as-you-go funding scheme where there is only one Federal income tax, 2) base payments on local cost of living not what a person has earned in the working life, and 3) combine Social Security with a mandatory 401k-type plan. (BTW, I get my first SS check in December.)
- Leo Cotnoir, Manchester

Bob wisely looks beyond his nose and Leo’s post to Bob extends the thinking in a good way. Unfortunately, I think both overlook an important point. Taxing corporations is hiding a tax from people, but taxing people likewise hides a tax from corporations. Where you put the tax really makes little difference when compared to how much the government is sucking out of the economy. If people have less money to spend they can afford fewer goods, services, investments, etc. This is bad for corporations.

If the government decides not to tax but borrow, then the money borrowed is sucked out of the economy. That money would be used for investments and available to other borrowers: corporations or people.

The Republican message has people looking past their noses, but only to the end of their arms. Taxing people instead of corporations, ultimately does not make a difference if the same amount of money is collected (read drained from the economy) in either case. Corporations are good to the US economy to the extend they pay US taxes and/or provide US jobs. (To prevent some ill founded criticism: Obviously corporations do some other good, but in relatively very small amounts. And nothing that employees couldn’t do.) I would always opt for the latter. Reducing taxes on a corporation that does not add jobs to the US jobs pool (directly or indirectly) does little to help the US economy.

Strong corporations are a means to an end, not the end. The end is shiny happy citizens. Many well intentioned people have lost sight of this.
- Peter Sorrentino, Manchester, NH

We are in a disastrous state here in the US and by all accounts the hole we are digging will get deeper if we just "stay the course". The "trickle down" idea has not worked, not for the all of us who have watched our wages stagnate and lost jobs while Exxon/Mobil produces record profits. I supported Gov. Bush in 2000, and gave him a chance to get it right in 2004. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Sen. McCain's comments about the economy yesterday really tore if for me. We need something different, and the only real option we have right now is Sen. Obama. Maybe not the best of the best, but I will not allow myself to fall for the empty promises of the GOP again.
- Lee Nicholson, Amherst

Leo, have you ever thought that people would like more responsiblity over their own money? I don't need big brother to put away cash for me which earns a meager 2% return and is the biggest "ponzi" scheme ever. The more government we have running our lives, the more dependable we become. I assume you are an older gentleman and know what I am talking about as the days of personal responsibility are being tossed out the window.

I do agree with you on a single flat tax as it would simplify the tax code, and get rid of the IRS. However, we also need to cut the corporate tax rate as we are pushing 39% which is greater than the top 30 countries.

As a small business owner, Obamas plan lumps us small business owners into his $250k and above. The more tax taken from me means less i have to pay the workers, possibly terminate them, cut their benefits, and restrict my business from expanding. With the exception of his paltry health care credit for small businesses I never hear him talk to or about business owners.
- Don Rubby, Exeter, NH

Joe – Help me out here, I can’t seem to remember the order. Was he going to bring the war to an immediate end first, then cut gas prices, provide universal health care, rescue Social Security and cure cancer? I’m thinking it might be the other way around. And just when does the tax relief fit into the timeline? He certainly does have a lot on the agenda.

Some believe that Barack Obama will simply sprinkle some dust, thus ending the war and instantly curing all of our woes. Keep living that dream, Joe. I’ll stick with the candidate of substance.
- Kevin Drew, Milford

Kevin - How many billions of dollars will be cut from the federal budget when Barack Obama ends the war? The amount of money we spend on defense is out of control.

Will John McCain have those same cuts? No, he will be spending billions every month for 50 or more years. So what will John McCain cut? Education? Health Care? Medicare? Social security?
- Jeffrey Comeau, Manchester NH

This War in Iraq has to be paid for. The only people that can afford to pay for it are the wealthy. We can not borrow from China anymore. We have to increase taxes and cut spending, theres no way around it, it has to be done
- Nick Lewis, Irvine, ca

Here we go again. Remember the middle class tax cut in the early 90's? Well that was a charade, we ended up getting higher taxes on middle class, on investments, on social security and inheritance. Once elected all bets are off the table. If I remember correctly the term "we have no choice" but to put it to you was what happened.

Keep dreaming of taking earned income from others and giving it to those who don't earn and soon there will be enough on the gov. payroll so over 50% of the people NEED gov. checks. After that you forget about liberty. No one will vote themselves a decrease.
- Mike Perrault, melbourne, FL

Bob, I agree with you. Corporate income taxes are simply a way to hide taxes from the voters. Simple answer: eliminate all taxes except income tax and reasonable user fees. Then tax everyone at the same rate on every dollar they earn over some generous exemption--say $50,000.

Pamela, we've had eight years of praying in place of competent government. The religious crazies have had their chance. Now give the country back to those of us who actually believe in the Constitution.
- Leo Cotnoir, Manchester

Don, there is no free lunch. Taxes are what we pay for the services we ask of our governement. Its very easy to say that the answer is to cut taxes and reduce spending but everyone wants to excempt their favorite programs. In 2008 Social Security, Medicaid, and other entitlements accounted for half the federal budget. Interest on the national debt accounted for another 10%. National defense was other 20%, not including $200B for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cutting ALL non-defense discreationary spending would not balance Bush's budget. The choice is stark: pay taxes commensarate with what we ask the government to do or continue borrowing from the Chinese and future generations.
- Leo Cotnoir, Manchester

How can anyone say the inheritence tax is fair or makes sense? If something was inherited, it was earned by someone previously, correct? If it was earned it was taxed as earnings correct? If it has been saved so that it could be passed on to another generation it has been taxed on its gains, also correct? So now when something has been taxed as earnings, then on gains from saving it is now suppossed to be taxed at 50% (+/-) as inheritence? The only people who think this is fair are those who have never worked hard to save and pass on to their heirs.

Taxes are a means for a government to protect its citizens, not support them. As soon as people realize the Governemnt owes them NOTHING, this Country will turn around. Get off your backsides, get a second job and start supporting yourselves.
- Jim, Concord, NH

“Senator Obama's (tax) pledge is ray of hope for the American middle class.”
Unfortunately, that’s all it is. Even assuming this is not just an empty campaign promise (which it assuredly is), a tax pledge is meaningless without a corresponding “cut spending” pledge. The grand plan, which is to make up the difference by taxing big business, is just a pig-in-a-poke (sans lipstick). In the short-term, those costs will simply be passed back down to the consumer. Ultimately, the U.S. corporations will lose their competitive edge and be forced to either close their doors or outsource.

Unless you believe that Obama will actually take action to reduce spending, you cannot assume that we will be better off with him in the Oval Office.
- Kevin Drew, Milford

Leo, since when have higher taxes become hope?
- Don Rubby, Exeter, NH

Actually in the real world we're aware that you can't tax business. You can only tax people. Business just passes it's expenses along by charging higher prices or spending less with other busineses or paying less to fewer employes.

Out in the real world we learn to see past the end of our nose and shallow analysis that stops when we get the result we prefer.
- Bob, Wilton

A pledge is a promise not reality. Show me a record of cutting taxes and I will be more willing to believe that it's not more of the same I'll do anything to be elected POTUS.
- Liz Ellingwood, Manchester

This is just more tired rhetoric from the Union Leader. You can put lipstick on Republican voodoo economics but it is still a fraud. Senator Obama's pledge is ray of hope for the American middle class.
- Leo Cotnoir, Manchester

Thousands of people in Dover heard Obama unequivocally pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K. Only in the fantasy world of the Union Leader opinionist is his pledge not a pledge. And only in that fantasy world is John McCain’s “Whee! Less taxes for everyone!” promise taken seriously.

Out in the real world, we know the theory that if you cut taxes on the rich the poor will benefit doesn’t work. We tried that in 2001 with the Bush tax cuts. Today, 99.9% of Americans are have less real income than they did Bush became president. John McCain was to extend and increase the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, and eliminate the inheritance tax on estates worth more than $10 million. We need to a new direction for our country.
- Mke Marsh, Greenland