There are lots of issues on the table for affiliates as we approach the 2008 United States Presidential election, and I got to thinking… which of the candidates would be best for affiliates.
While we face a variety of issues, including the economy, Iraq, climate change, and immigration, the area I will focus on in this instance is the wallets of affiliates and how the tax plans of John McCain and Barack Obama will impact them.
The Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan, joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, compiled a breakdown that illustrates how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain’s or Barack Obama’s tax proposals are fully in place.
While most affiliates fall into income ranges where the tax proposals are fairly similar, the super affiliates (and those who aspire to that income range) will see markedly different changes in their tax bill under John McCain vs. Barack Obama.
Read more on the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Proposals at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm.
If you’d like to hear a bunch of affiliate marketers discuss politics, listen to the weekly RedHatBlueHat podcast on GeekCast.fm.
{ 23 comments }
Regulation of what? Internet sales taxation?
Which presidential candidates would be better for affiliate marketers in terms of regulation?
Regulation of what? Internet sales taxation?
Which presidential candidates would be better for affiliate marketers in terms of regulation?
I'd pay more tax for less war!
But we forgot one, what about ron paul, I think we'd win this one for affiliates am I correct?
basically if you make more then $250k in taxable income in your household you are screwed both in marginal tax rates and cap gains. . Obama's plan also makes you pay fica on your full income if you make over a certain level, I think $160k. For those self employed out there that means a big chunk of cash if you make more then 160k. and 6.2% for those employed somewhere.
What is that level?
Obama's proposals about the capital gains tax only affects those who are making a transaction above a certain higher level, not everyone.
Yes the point is long term investment. With the rate at 15% for long term cap gains it encourages investors to put money into investments because their money will grow at a lower tax rate. You dont want people just staying in the market, but putting money in, that is what fuels growth. Obama has proposed to eliminated the temporay reduction in the rate and raising it to 28%. This effects many in our space whether they are the owners of private affiliate/lead gen companies or they hold stock options in public companies such as Valueclick, New Motion, etc. Capital gains on homes is different because they are your residence.
@msobejim Don't forget that the capital gains tax was put in place to encourage investors and business people to stay in the market. For instance, we are trying to sell a home and will reinvest in the very needy real estate market to avoid capital gain taxes and to maximize our long term earnings potential.
Most affiliate businesses operate the same way.
I think I wasn't clear in my phrasing, because I agree with you. At the under-$112k mark, in all brackets, Obama's plan is the more favorable plan. That is where I believe the vast majority of affiliates to be. Only at income levels above $112k do McCain's numbers appear to be more favorable (both plans show savings, but McCain's show slightly more savings at that point).
I'm dealing in the reality tho. I'm sure most would hope to make that much but won't. It's really on the $603,000 and up where there is some major difference. The $227,000 – $603,000 income bracket, is $12, that's pizza money.
“The vast majority of affiliates, I would guess, top out at under the $112k mark, which is where (according to this) Obama's plan has less favorable effects than McCain's plan”
Under $112
Obama: – $1290
McCain: – $1009
So actually the reverse of what you just posted. Obama more favorable from that bracket on down = most affiliates.
Another factor is Obama plans to drastically increase capital gains for anyone in the affiliate space hoping to sell their company.
I suppose it depends on the outlook – I would think most affiliates hope to increase their earnings and become super affiliates.
The vast majority of affiliates, I would guess, top out at under the $112k mark, which is where (according to this) Obama's plan has less favorable effects than McCain's plan… so yeah, I'd say that's right. It's definitely looking good.
Absolutely – but when it comes down to authority, it's Congress that has the power to levy taxes. Not that the president has no power in this area (to sign or not to sign, that is the question) – I'd just like to see more congressional candidates take the issue on in the non-presidential election cycles.
So if I'm reading that correctly, for most affiliates Obama would be better. That is a great endorsement for Obama, Shawn. And with the double digit lead in the polls, things are looking good.
> Taxation isn't a presidential issue anyway, it's a congressional issue
It's congressional in terms of legislation, but if they send up something the President supports, he'll sign it.
I agree – too much spending overall, which needs to be reduced, and earmarks, that should be eradicated.
But I think we should look at candidates on their own merits, and not the baggage of their parties – loading them down with the sins of their predecessors would damn them both.
Sam's got a point about government spending – McCain may want to reduce taxes and cut out certain social programs, but he still intends to continue the trend of funneling trillions into the military to support an ongoing presence (read: war) in the Middle East. That's going to require either higher taxes or the elimination of all but the most necessary government programs.
Shawn, you've got a point too – I'm a fan of FairTax as well. It's not something that can be put in place this time around, but I'd like to see future major party candidates – in 2010 perhaps – address that. Taxation isn't a presidential issue anyway, it's a congressional issue.
Completely agree that we need to reduce spending. I'm just skeptical of electing more Republicans to do that given 2000-2006.
That's not partisan… it's just the truth.
The topic here is taxation, Sam.
Increased taxation doesn't fix everything. Reduced spending and the elimination of all earmarks would certainly help.
Take off your partisan hat and look at this one issue.
Personally, I'm for the FairTax, but that's not in the platform for ether candidate.
How will McCain pay for 100 more years in Iraq, building all the new nuclear power plants that Bush and the Republican Congress promised but never delivered during 6 years of control and tax cuts for the rich (not to mention bomb-bomb-bombing Iran)?
Fuzzy math FTW
Comments on this entry are closed.