How much wealth did GWB tax rates add to your bottom line?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did.

Last year someone making $75,000 would have paid $9300 in SS.

This year it is $7800.

A savings of $1500.

Someone making $75,000 would have paid $4650 in SS last year.

 

[8537]

That was the claim. I didn't see any proof.

Maybe you could use this calculator and prove Obama's cut was larger?

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

The math is pretty simple. The payroll tax was dropped from .062 to .042. so...

75,000* .02 = 1500

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

 

[JRK]

Establishment dems or repubs are only out for who gives them the most cash. I have never questioned that. They hide it in the details. I especially love how the government can now legally rob your 401 k

As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

You were just shown where Obama gave you a bigger tax cut than Bush did.

Are you this stupid in real life?

do what?
what are talking about?
and as far as the Stupid comment goes

GWB cut our tax rates in the year 2001
I do not think I have been able to keep 30k from anything BHO did

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The math is pretty simple. The payroll tax was dropped from .062 to .042. so...

75,000* .02 = 1500

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

That was the savings in 2011. The numbers were higher at the start.
And why are we only discussing singles with no children?

 

[rightwinger]

Looking back, it saved me about $1400 a year for six years. A total of about $8400. However the real estate crash and stock market crash under Bush cost me around $70,000

Thankfully, under Obama, I have recouped around $50,000 of that

 

[JRK]

The math is pretty simple. The payroll tax was dropped from .062 to .042. so...

75,000* .02 = 1500

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

Dude do you have any idea what a tax table is?
I have put 3 of them up for you and you keep ignoring them
I give up an you dude
I really have
75,000 75,050 15,100 11,444 15,379 13,819
2008

75,000 75,050 17,939 15,307 18,818 16,438
this from 2000

IRS tax table, year
its that simple dude
my god why are are you so desperate yo resort to denial

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looking back, it saved me about $1400 a year for six years. A total of about $8400. However the real estate crash and stock market crash under Bush cost me around $70,000

Thankfully, under Obama, I have recouped around $50,000 of that

How did it cost you $1400 a year for six years?

 

[rightwinger]

Looking back, it saved me about $1400 a year for six years. A total of about $8400. However the real estate crash and stock market crash under Bush cost me around $70,000

Thankfully, under Obama, I have recouped around $50,000 of that

How did it cost you $1400 a year for six years?

Learn to read

"saved me about $1400 a year..."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looking back, it saved me about $1400 a year for six years. A total of about $8400. However the real estate crash and stock market crash under Bush cost me around $70,000

Thankfully, under Obama, I have recouped around $50,000 of that

How did it cost you $1400 a year for six years?

Learn to read

"saved me about $1400 a year..."

Sorry, I had my liberal glasses on.

 

[American Horse]

If one takes only the standard deduction, is single and has no other income:

A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts.

For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355 (About 1.8%). In almost every case, the actual amount would be considerably less. In addition, the Obama payroll tax cut would generate savings of about $1,500, so if the Bush tax cuts expired and they extended the payroll tax cut you'd be ahead.

I think you are wrong on that, and I've done calculations on an average taxpayer, both Head of household and filing jointly, so I'll respond a little later when I can get back to my 'puter - but we saved considerably during the past ten years ( since '02) on capital gains from the sale of lots and stocks. Sadly I sold stock to pay taxes, but Paid little to nothing from the realization of those cap gains. Off the top of my head, I'd say at least, like JRK, $30K

 

[rightwinger]

If we want to talk about bottom line...

Nobody made more money than they did under Bill Clinton. The stock market was obscene

Under Bush...the market was at 10,750 when he came in and 8,150 when he left. A lost decade for investing

Under Obama, the market bottomed out at 6600 and is now at 12500 . Not too shabby

 

[American Horse]

If one takes only the standard deduction, is single and has no other income:

A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts.

For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355 (About 1.8%). In almost every case, the actual amount would be considerably less. In addition, the Obama payroll tax cut would generate savings of about $1,500, so if the Bush tax cuts expired and they extended the payroll tax cut you'd be ahead.

Here are the tax rates (1999) pre Bush tax cuts and after Bush tax cuts (2002).
Tax Joint means couples filing jointly and Tax SHH is filers filing as Single Heads of Households. The largest tax cuts by percentage went to those earning 50,000 and under. The 10,00 and below got less because in many cases they pay no taxes at all because of EITC - a dollar for dollar credit reducing their taxes, with the exception of FICA, in many cases to zero.
................................................................................................Reduced
………………..............1999…………………....………….....2002......……….........Percent
Income…….Tax Joint……..Tax SHH………..Tax Joint………Tax SHH….….TxJt....TxSHH
$10,000……..$ 1,500………..$1,500………….$1,000………….$1,000……....33.0 & 33.0
50,000…..….$14,000……….$14,000…………$6,665…………$7,353… …....52.0 & 47.5
100,000..…...$28,000……..$31,000………...$17,375……….$19.853……...38.0 & 36.0
200,000…….$72,000……….$72,000………...$44,004……….$47,329……..38.9 & 34.3
300,000……$118,800………$118,800…….…$76,822………..$80,81 9……..35.3 & 32.0
1-million….$396,000……...$396,000……..$320,273………$324, 361…….19.1 & 18.1
5-million…..$1.98-mil……..$1.98-mil…….$1.72-mil………$1.72-mil……..13.0 & 13.0
10-million…$3.96-mil……..$3.96-mil…….$3.474-mil…...$3.474-mil…...12.3 & 12.3
100-mill…...$39.6-mil….…$39.6-mil…….$34.97-mil…..$34.97-mil……..11.7 & 11.7

 

[rightwinger]

If one takes only the standard deduction, is single and has no other income:

A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts.

For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355 (About 1.8%). In almost every case, the actual amount would be considerably less. In addition, the Obama payroll tax cut would generate savings of about $1,500, so if the Bush tax cuts expired and they extended the payroll tax cut you'd be ahead.

Here are the tax rates (1999) pre Bush tax cuts and after Bush tax cuts (2002).
Tax Joint means couples filing jointly and Tax SHH is filers filing as Single Heads of Households. The largest tax cuts by percentage went to those earning 50,000 and under. The 10,00 and below got less because in many cases they pay no taxes at all because of EITC - a dollar for dollar credit reducing their taxes, with the exception of FICA, in many cases to zero.
................................................................................................Reduced
………………..............1999…………………....………….....2002......……….........Percent
Income…….Tax Joint……..Tax SHH………..Tax Joint………Tax SHH….….TxJt....TxSHH
$10,000……..$ 1,500………..$1,500………….$1,000………….$1,000……....33.0 & 33.0
50,000…..….$14,000……….$14,000…………$6,665…………$7,353… …....52.0 & 47.5
100,000..…...$28,000……..$31,000………...$17,375……….$19.853……...38.0 & 36.0
200,000…….$72,000……….$72,000………...$44,004……….$47,329……..38.9 & 34.3
300,000……$118,800………$118,800…….…$76,822………..$80,81 9……..35.3 & 32.0
1-million….$396,000……...$396,000……..$320,273………$324, 361…….19.1 & 18.1
5-million…..$1.98-mil……..$1.98-mil…….$1.72-mil………$1.72-mil……..13.0 & 13.0
10-million…$3.96-mil……..$3.96-mil…….$3.474-mil…...$3.474-mil…...12.3 & 12.3
100-mill…...$39.6-mil….…$39.6-mil…….$34.97-mil…..$34.97-mil……..11.7 & 11.7

And that's why almost 50% pay no federal taxes

In order for Bush to give cuts to the wealthy, he had to offer some cuts to the working poor

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If one takes only the standard deduction, is single and has no other income:

A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts.

For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355 (About 1.8%). In almost every case, the actual amount would be considerably less. In addition, the Obama payroll tax cut would generate savings of about $1,500, so if the Bush tax cuts expired and they extended the payroll tax cut you'd be ahead.

Here are the tax rates (1999) pre Bush tax cuts and after Bush tax cuts (2002).
Tax Joint means couples filing jointly and Tax SHH is filers filing as Single Heads of Households. The largest tax cuts by percentage went to those earning 50,000 and under. The 10,00 and below got less because in many cases they pay no taxes at all because of EITC - a dollar for dollar credit reducing their taxes, with the exception of FICA, in many cases to zero.
................................................................................................Reduced
………………..............1999…………………....………….....2002......……….........Percent
Income…….Tax Joint……..Tax SHH………..Tax Joint………Tax SHH….….TxJt....TxSHH
$10,000……..$ 1,500………..$1,500………….$1,000………….$1,000……....33.0 & 33.0
50,000…..….$14,000……….$14,000…………$6,665…………$7,353… …....52.0 & 47.5
100,000..…...$28,000……..$31,000………...$17,375……….$19.853……...38.0 & 36.0
200,000…….$72,000……….$72,000………...$44,004……….$47,329……..38.9 & 34.3
300,000……$118,800………$118,800…….…$76,822………..$80,81 9……..35.3 & 32.0
1-million….$396,000……...$396,000……..$320,273………$324, 361…….19.1 & 18.1
5-million…..$1.98-mil……..$1.98-mil…….$1.72-mil………$1.72-mil……..13.0 & 13.0
10-million…$3.96-mil……..$3.96-mil…….$3.474-mil…...$3.474-mil…...12.3 & 12.3
100-mill…...$39.6-mil….…$39.6-mil…….$34.97-mil…..$34.97-mil……..11.7 & 11.7

Those tables don't show tax paid, it looks like they show marginal rate only.

 

[American Horse]

If one takes only the standard deduction, is single and has no other income:

A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts.

For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355 (About 1.8%). In almost every case, the actual amount would be considerably less. In addition, the Obama payroll tax cut would generate savings of about $1,500, so if the Bush tax cuts expired and they extended the payroll tax cut you'd be ahead.

Here are the tax rates (1999) pre Bush tax cuts and after Bush tax cuts (2002).
Tax Joint means couples filing jointly and Tax SHH is filers filing as Single Heads of Households. The largest tax cuts by percentage went to those earning 50,000 and under. The 10,00 and below got less because in many cases they pay no taxes at all because of EITC - a dollar for dollar credit reducing their taxes, with the exception of FICA, in many cases to zero.
................................................................................................Reduced
………………..............1999…………………....………….....2002......……….........Percent
Income…….Tax Joint……..Tax SHH………..Tax Joint………Tax SHH….….TxJt....TxSHH
$10,000……..$ 1,500………..$1,500………….$1,000………….$1,000……....33.0 & 33.0
50,000…..….$14,000……….$14,000…………$6,665…………$7,353… …....52.0 & 47.5
100,000..…...$28,000……..$31,000………...$17,375……….$19.853……...38.0 & 36.0
200,000…….$72,000……….$72,000………...$44,004……….$47,329……..38.9 & 34.3
300,000……$118,800………$118,800…….…$76,822………..$80,81 9……..35.3 & 32.0
1-million….$396,000……...$396,000……..$320,273………$324, 361…….19.1 & 18.1
5-million…..$1.98-mil……..$1.98-mil…….$1.72-mil………$1.72-mil……..13.0 & 13.0
10-million…$3.96-mil……..$3.96-mil…….$3.474-mil…...$3.474-mil…...12.3 & 12.3
100-mill…...$39.6-mil….…$39.6-mil…….$34.97-mil…..$34.97-mil……..11.7 & 11.7

Those tables don't show tax paid, it looks like they show marginal rate only.

You are wrong; I created the table myself. In each column are the taxes calculated with standard deductions but no dependants as I stated above the calculations. I did the calculations to get actual taxes owed in each case not to show marginal rates, so as to show how much in percentages each class of earner saved. That percentage comparison is in the far right column. Go to the tables at the IRS web-page and do the calculations yourself. In the case of the 10k earner the similarity may be deceptive, and that may be what caused your interpretation of the data.

Edit: to anyone interested in the content of the table, click back to my original post since this one and the one I am answering are both distorted by compression from the quote frame.

 

[8537]

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

That was the savings in 2011. The numbers were higher at the start.
And why are we only discussing singles with no children?

Which numbers were "higher at the start"?

And we're discussing singles with no children because (A) they pay the most and (B) the person making the claims about 75K of income has stated that he is single with no children - If I'm wrong about that, JRK, I apologize.

 

[8537]

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

Dude do you have any idea what a tax table is?

Yes, I'm familiar. I also know you aren't capable of understanding them. I even gave you a link that does the math for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are the tax rates (1999) pre Bush tax cuts and after Bush tax cuts (2002).
Tax Joint means couples filing jointly and Tax SHH is filers filing as Single Heads of Households. The largest tax cuts by percentage went to those earning 50,000 and under. The 10,00 and below got less because in many cases they pay no taxes at all because of EITC - a dollar for dollar credit reducing their taxes, with the exception of FICA, in many cases to zero.
................................................................................................Reduced
………………..............1999…………………....………….....2002......……….........Percent
Income…….Tax Joint……..Tax SHH………..Tax Joint………Tax SHH….….TxJt....TxSHH
$10,000……..$ 1,500………..$1,500………….$1,000………….$1,000……....33.0 & 33.0
50,000…..….$14,000……….$14,000…………$6,665…………$7,353… …....52.0 & 47.5
100,000..…...$28,000……..$31,000………...$17,375……….$19.853……...38.0 & 36.0
200,000…….$72,000……….$72,000………...$44,004……….$47,329……..38.9 & 34.3
300,000……$118,800………$118,800…….…$76,822………..$80,81 9……..35.3 & 32.0
1-million….$396,000……...$396,000……..$320,273………$324, 361…….19.1 & 18.1
5-million…..$1.98-mil……..$1.98-mil…….$1.72-mil………$1.72-mil……..13.0 & 13.0
10-million…$3.96-mil……..$3.96-mil…….$3.474-mil…...$3.474-mil…...12.3 & 12.3
100-mill…...$39.6-mil….…$39.6-mil…….$34.97-mil…..$34.97-mil……..11.7 & 11.7

Those tables don't show tax paid, it looks like they show marginal rate only.

You are wrong; I created the table myself. In each column are the taxes calculated with standard deductions but no dependants as I stated above the calculations. I did the calculations to get actual taxes owed in each case not to show marginal rates, so as to show how much in percentages each class of earner saved. That percentage comparison is in the far right column. Go to the tables at the IRS web-page and do the calculations yourself. In the case of the 10k earner the similarity may be deceptive, and that may be what caused your interpretation of the data.

Edit: to anyone interested in the content of the table, click back to my original post since this one and the one I am answering are both distorted by compression from the quote frame.

In 1999, you show income of $100,000 paid $28,000
also, income of $200,000 paid $72,000.

That looks suspiciously like the 28% and 36% bracket, not taking into account that those are marginal rates, not the rate on every dollar of income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I was claiming that. I also provided a link to the calculation hosted by the Tax Foundation.

That was the savings in 2011. The numbers were higher at the start.
And why are we only discussing singles with no children?

Which numbers were "higher at the start"?

And we're discussing singles with no children because (A) they pay the most and (B) the person making the claims about 75K of income has stated that he is single with no children - If I'm wrong about that, JRK, I apologize.

The tax saved on $75k of income is higher in 2003 than the tax saved on $75K of income in 2011.

Your site was easy to use, but without the math behind the calculator, I'm not sure their work is correct.

 

[rdean]

Someone help me with the math. We know the number of Americans working is about 150,000,000.
Say 2/3rds of those work "under the table" and only 50,000,000 actually pay taxes.
Say the tax breaks totaled 2,800,000,000,000. Did I get enough zero's?
So if that were spread out to every person, wouldn't it be about 56,000 a person? Yet how many only got 8 grand over 10 years?
And didn't someone else say that the rich only got about 600 billion?
Somehow the numbers aren't adding up. And how come these millionaires say they are getting "millions"? Somethings fishy.