Obama Tax Plan: Now down to $150,000

[The Paperboy]

Why dont we compare the 2

McCain
you'd save...
..
less than $19,000 $21
$19,000-$37,600 $118
$37,600-$66,400 $325
$66,400-$111,600 $994
$111,600-$161,000 $2584
$161,000-$227,000 $4437


If you're in the top 5% of earners
you'd pay you'd save...
an extra...

$227,000-$603,400 $121 $8159
$603,400-$2.87 million $93,709 $48,862
more than $2.87 million $542,882 $290,708


Mccains plan

Obama McCain
you'd save... you'd save...
If you make...
less than $19,000 $567 $21
$19,000-$37,600 $892 $118
$37,600-$66,400 $1118 $325
$66,400-$111,600 $1264 $994
$111,600-$161,000 $2135 $2584
$161,000-$227,000 $2796 $4437


If you're in the top 5% of earners
you'd pay you'd save...
an extra...

$227,000-$603,400 $121 $8159
$603,400-$2.87 million $93,709 $48,862
more than $2.87 million $542,882 $290,708

Now tell me how any average working american could possibly think Mccains plan is better.

Most wouldn't until you told them that 40% of tax filers don't pay any Federal Tax but will receive a check from the government. They understand this is welfare.

Most Americans don't want money going into their pockets that comes out of someone else's pocket.

Most Americans are smart enough to know that what the government considers "rich" today can very quickly change by tomorrow.

Most Americans understand if you promise to increase spending by one trillion dollars someone will have to pay for it.

Obama is simply trying to buy votes with his tax proposal. Hopefully enough Americans will understand and reject this.

 

[jschuck12001]

Most wouldn't until you told them that 40% of tax filers don't pay any Federal Tax but will receive a check from the government. They understand this is welfare.

Most Americans don't want money going into their pockets that comes out of someone else's pocket.

Most Americans are smart enough to know that what the government considers "rich" today can very quickly change by tomorrow.

Most Americans understand if you promise to increase spending by one trillion dollars someone will have to pay for it.

Obama is simply trying to buy votes with his tax proposal. Hopefully enough Americans will understand and reject this.

Well I guess we will see on the 4th what MOST AMERICANS THINK, I fully understand the tax policy, corp america, and small businesses, I cant believe so many are buying into the BS about corp america. I dont think most people understand that corp america doesnt give a shit about people and will do what they have to to make a buck no matter what, and thats my opinion based on 10 years of work under 3 large corporations.

 

[The Paperboy]

Well I guess we will see on the 4th what MOST AMERICANS THINK, I fully understand the tax policy, corp america, and small businesses, I cant believe so many are buying into the BS about corp america. I dont think most people understand that corp america doesnt give a shit about people and will do what they have to to make a buck no matter what, and thats my opinion based on 10 years of work under 3 large corporations.

I'm sure that is true in certain corporations. However I think there are also many, many fine corporations with employees who love their company. But it is not the governments role to use tax policy to change how a corporation "behaves". If the company is doing something illegal then throw the bums in jail.

 

[jschuck12001]

I'm sure that is true in certain corporations. However I think there are also many, many fine corporations with employees who love their company. But it is not the governments role to use tax policy to change how a corporation "behaves". If the company is doing something illegal then throw the bums in jail.

The problem with throwing the Bums is jail is most of them didnt break the law, its the deregulation that created the greed. People want less Government but less Government got us into this 700 billion dollar bailout.

 

[The Paperboy]

The problem with throwing the Bums is jail is most of them didnt break the law, its the deregulation that created the greed. People want less Government but less Government got us into this 700 billion dollar bailout.

I think you know that that is far from the entire story. But you are right that unethical people will do unethical things. Not sure how increasing taxes fixes that.

 

[jschuck12001]

I think you know that that is far from the entire story. But you are right that unethical people will do unethical things. Not sure how increasing taxes fixes that.

It doesnt, I kind of forked in the road to another debate, one which will have to wait as the wife just said the chili is ready.

 

[The Paperboy]

It doesnt, I kind of forked in the road to another debate, one which will have to wait as the wife just said the chili is ready.

Had chili myself last night. Wife's are definitely senior to message boards. Enjoy!

 

[Turboswede]

You people are idiots, its always been the same, if you make 201,000 - $250k you will see no increase or decrease. Everything below $200 will get a decrease but under $150k is where you will see the most. Spin it how you want but its never changed and none of you make that kind of money anyway.

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

I hadn’t seen these numbers. Assuming that these are AGI numbers the brackets will breakdown like this:

$18,891.0 $567 3% cut
$37,595.0 $892 2% cut
$66,354.0 $1,118 2% cut
$111,645.0 $1,264 1% cut
$160,972.0 $2,135 1% cut
$226,918.0 $2,796 1% cut
$603,402.0 $121 0% increase
$2,870,000.0 $93,709 3% increase

Man, if I wasn’t voting for him before I sure as hell am going to now!

 

[Turboswede]

Most wouldn't until you told them that 40% of tax filers don't pay any Federal Tax but will receive a check from the government. They understand this is welfare.

Sorry to be pedantic but I think you are saying that 40% of tax filers don’t pay any Federal Income Tax, I would bet they pay payroll & gas taxes at least.

Most Americans don't want money going into their pockets that comes out of someone else's pocket.

That’s why Americans would never participate in a State Lottery.

Most Americans are smart enough to know that what the government considers "rich" today can very quickly change by tomorrow.

They also know that, whatever the definition of “rich” is it probably won’t include a factory worker in Michigan or a farm worker in New Mexico.

Most Americans understand if you promise to increase spending by one trillion dollars someone will have to pay for it.

Not if they grew up in the Regan years.

Obama is simply trying to buy votes with his tax proposal. Hopefully enough Americans will understand and reject this.

Most American’s were going to vote for Obama anyway, this is just an added bonus.

 

[dilloduck]

Hold everything----you mean everyone isn't going to have the same amount of money after taxes ? That is so not fair !

 

[glockmail]

.....

Man, if I wasn’t voting for him before I sure as hell am going to now!

Since jschuck12001 skirted my question I'll ask it of you: how can a progressive tax be fair to all Americans? It's socialism, plain and simple.

 

[glockmail]

Hold everything----you mean everyone isn't going to have the same amount of money after taxes ? That is so not fair !

No progressive income tax is fair.

 

[Wade]

If you actually believe that the $250K cliff is a hard and fast rule, you obviously need to review civics.

By the time he calls the house leaders to the white house, and asks them for a bill to create the $250K mason-dixon line, they will take it back to their respective subcommittees on taxation. The subcommittees will draft something, some aide will add a bunch of personal items. Then, they will take it to the floor for a voice vote, it will probably require some pork fat to grease the skids for it's second round through the subcommittee. Then it will eventually get voted on.

Do you guys actually believe Pelosi and Reed will consider a guy making $150K a year, NOT RICH? Yha right. So when the bill arrives for the great one's signature, he will comment that it's not what he promised, but who is he to stand in the way of the will of the people. Or, some other dribble. Basically, it won't be Obama's fault.

 

[Turboswede]

Since jschuck12001 skirted my question I'll ask it of you: how can a progressive tax be fair to all Americans? It's socialism, plain and simple.

First off, progressive income tax has nothing to do with state ownership of industry (that’s what socialism actually is) progressive income taxation is progressive not socialist.

The second issue is why have a progressive income tax system?

Drum Roll Please….​

Ok everyone, he asked for it...so here it is, back by popular demand, Turboswede’s tongue-in-cheek explanation for why economists have said a progressive income tax is the only equitable form of income taxation for the past 100 years.

Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that). The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.

You may be thinking “What… that doesn’t make any sense, rich folks don’t collect welfare, they don’t use food stamps, so what gives!?!!

Say you have HNW guy, let’s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that’s about the median for the top 1%). Sam does not have a job (per se) but in a typical month receives the following:
$25,000 Stock dividend income
$40,000 income thrown off by family trusts
$26,000 in interest income
$6,000 in partnership income
$2,000 in income as a contractor (Board Member)

According to 2006 figures (I know out of date, but they are on my desk) his income would be subject to a marginal rate of tax of about 23%.

Sam has monthly living expenses of, say $24,000 per month so he is being taxed at a 23% rate on his gross income of $99,000 so after tax his net monthly saving would be about $52,230 or about 52% of his gross taxable income.

Now look at what Sam’s taxes pay for.

$608 billion Social Security-
If the private sector covered these costs rather than the US government, Sam would have a smaller income from investment earnings.

$386 billion Medicare-
If the Federal Government didn’t cover these costs, Sam’s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam’s investment income.

$209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
If the Federal government didn’t provide this, the workers generating dividend and interest income for Sam may want to be insured by their employer and could for a union (Sam doesn’t like unions), that would cut down Sam’s investment income.

$324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn’t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam’s investment income. Without Unemployed people buying stuff Sam makes less money

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Sam needs a stable economy with stable interest rates, without economic stability, Sam looses income.

$481.4 billion United States Department of Defense
Without a strong defense people could come and take Sam’s stuff away, besides he has Boeing Bonds and FMC stock so the more the Defense Spends, the more money Sam makes.

$145.2 billion - Global War on Terror
See DOD above.

$69.3 billion - Health and Human Services
As plagues and the rampant spread of communicable disease would negatively affect worker productivity, DHHS decreases absenteeism and that increases dividends.

$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
The businesses that pay Sam’s dividends need managers, accountants, engineers, etc. If subsidized student loan programs and grants were eliminated businesses would need to pay professional workers more, thus profits go down, as does Sam’s monthly dividend.

$39.4 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
See DOD above

$35.2 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Sam has been trying to get rid of this one for years because he doesn’t realize any benefit from its existence.

$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
Sam likes to be able to go to other countries and not be shot at. Sam also receives payments from companies that do business overseas in foreign markets.

$34.3 billion - Department of Homeland Security
Hold up, this is a whole separate line item from the DOD and Global War on Terror? Anyway, see DOD above.

$24.3 billion - Energy
Part of Sam’s dividend income comes from an oil trust

$20.2 billion - Department of Justice
Kind of like DOD but now its US citizens that want to take Sam’s stuff

$20.2 billion - Department of Agriculture
Sam has shares of ADM, supermarket to the world. ADM receives massive government subsidies.

$17.3 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Sam thinks space stuff is cool. Oh, and did I mention he has shares of Boeing stock already?

$12.1 billion - Department of Transportation
Sam’s investment income comes from businesses that turn stuff into different stuff, all this stuff moving needs roads. How much would it cost private business to maintain the road network? That would really lower Sam’s ability to buy more Stuff

$12.1 billion- Department of Treasury
You need the treasury otherwise no one will pay for all these government programs.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
Sam likes parks, and the stuff the DOI buys helps pay Sam’s dividends.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of Labor
Sam doesn’t like the DOL but knows that if it didn’t exist more workers may organize.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
Don’t know, but if they buy stuff, Sam gets a cut.

$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
See above.

So, as you can see the reason Sam’s income is what it is stems from all these different areas and all of them benefit his bottom line through the additional profits they provide business.

Oh, and we are not even talking about Sam’s CAPITAL income.

 

[tymebeta]

Wait, wait. Backup here. Are you saying Obama is not a socialist? I think my world is crumbling. Gimme a few days to go dig out some rebuttals from my never-wrong blogs.

For now, I play my Abortion card and I still don't know anything about Obama.

 

[jreeves]

First off, progressive income tax has nothing to do with state ownership of industry (that’s what socialism actually is) progressive income taxation is progressive not socialist.

The second issue is why have a progressive income tax system?

Drum Roll Please….​

Ok everyone, he asked for it...so here it is, back by popular demand, Turboswede’s tongue-in-cheek explanation for why economists have said a progressive income tax is the only equitable form of income taxation for the past 100 years.

Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that). The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.

You may be thinking “What… that doesn’t make any sense, rich folks don’t collect welfare, they don’t use food stamps, so what gives!?!!

Say you have HNW guy, let’s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that’s about the median for the top 1%). Sam does not have a job (per se) but in a typical month receives the following:
$25,000 Stock dividend income
$40,000 income thrown off by family trusts
$26,000 in interest income
$6,000 in partnership income
$2,000 in income as a contractor (Board Member)

According to 2006 figures (I know out of date, but they are on my desk) his income would be subject to a marginal rate of tax of about 23%.

Sam has monthly living expenses of, say $24,000 per month so he is being taxed at a 23% rate on his gross income of $99,000 so after tax his net monthly saving would be about $52,230 or about 52% of his gross taxable income.

Now look at what Sam’s taxes pay for.

$608 billion Social Security-
If the private sector covered these costs rather than the US government, Sam would have a smaller income from investment earnings.

$386 billion Medicare-
If the Federal Government didn’t cover these costs, Sam’s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam’s investment income.

$209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
If the Federal government didn’t provide this, the workers generating dividend and interest income for Sam may want to be insured by their employer and could for a union (Sam doesn’t like unions), that would cut down Sam’s investment income.

$324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn’t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam’s investment income. Without Unemployed people buying stuff Sam makes less money

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Sam needs a stable economy with stable interest rates, without economic stability, Sam looses income.

$481.4 billion United States Department of Defense
Without a strong defense people could come and take Sam’s stuff away, besides he has Boeing Bonds and FMC stock so the more the Defense Spends, the more money Sam makes.

$145.2 billion - Global War on Terror
See DOD above.

$69.3 billion - Health and Human Services
As plagues and the rampant spread of communicable disease would negatively affect worker productivity, DHHS decreases absenteeism and that increases dividends.

$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
The businesses that pay Sam’s dividends need managers, accountants, engineers, etc. If subsidized student loan programs and grants were eliminated businesses would need to pay professional workers more, thus profits go down, as does Sam’s monthly dividend.

$39.4 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
See DOD above

$35.2 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Sam has been trying to get rid of this one for years because he doesn’t realize any benefit from its existence.

$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
Sam likes to be able to go to other countries and not be shot at. Sam also receives payments from companies that do business overseas in foreign markets.

$34.3 billion - Department of Homeland Security
Hold up, this is a whole separate line item from the DOD and Global War on Terror? Anyway, see DOD above.

$24.3 billion - Energy
Part of Sam’s dividend income comes from an oil trust

$20.2 billion - Department of Justice
Kind of like DOD but now its US citizens that want to take Sam’s stuff

$20.2 billion - Department of Agriculture
Sam has shares of ADM, supermarket to the world. ADM receives massive government subsidies.

$17.3 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Sam thinks space stuff is cool. Oh, and did I mention he has shares of Boeing stock already?

$12.1 billion - Department of Transportation
Sam’s investment income comes from businesses that turn stuff into different stuff, all this stuff moving needs roads. How much would it cost private business to maintain the road network? That would really lower Sam’s ability to buy more Stuff

$12.1 billion- Department of Treasury
You need the treasury otherwise no one will pay for all these government programs.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
Sam likes parks, and the stuff the DOI buys helps pay Sam’s dividends.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of Labor
Sam doesn’t like the DOL but knows that if it didn’t exist more workers may organize.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
Don’t know, but if they buy stuff, Sam gets a cut.

$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
See above.

So, as you can see the reason Sam’s income is what it is stems from all these different areas and all of them benefit his bottom line through the additional profits they provide business.

Oh, and we are not even talking about Sam’s CAPITAL income.

Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

Now tell me how Sam receives money from all the different welfare programs that are interlaced in the federal budget?

 

[Turboswede]

Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

QUOTE]

Or military spending, depending on your point of view.

 

[jreeves]

Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

QUOTE]

Or military spending, depending on your point of view.

Really..

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hearings/rectorzstmnt.pdf
The federal government currently runs over 70 major interrelated, means-tested welfare programs, through the six departments mentioned above. State governments contribute to many federal programs, and some states operate small independent programs as well.
Most state welfare spending is actually required by the federal government and thus should considered as an adjunct to the federal system. Therefore, to understand the size of the welfare state, federal and state spending must be considered together. (A list of individual welfare programs is provided in Appendix B.)
Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)
Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[glockmail]

First off, progressive income tax has nothing to do with state ownership of industry (that’s what socialism actually is) progressive income taxation is progressive not socialist.

The second issue is why have a progressive income tax system?

Drum Roll Please….​

Ok everyone, he asked for it...so here it is, back by popular demand, Turboswede’s tongue-in-cheek explanation for why economists have said a progressive income tax is the only equitable form of income taxation for the past 100 years.......

Progressive taxation is trending towards socialism. I say keep away from it altogether.

So basically your long winded drum roll argument boils down to a belief that a large centralized government can do things more efficiently than the States or local governments or the private sector. However, that is almost never true. I think that the Founders knew more than you or FDR or any other liberal and thus where specific on what the Feds were authorized to do, and I prefer to stick with that and no more.

 

[Turboswede]

Progressive taxation is trending towards socialism. I say keep away from it altogether.

So basically your long winded drum roll argument boils down to a belief that a large centralized government can do things more efficiently than the States or local governments or the private sector. However, that is almost never true. I think that the Founders knew more than you or FDR or any other liberal and thus where specific on what the Feds were authorized to do, and I prefer to stick with that and no more.

Did you read the argument? It states that the reason the wealthy pay more as a prcentage of income in tax (i.e. the tax rates are progressive) it that they recieven the largest benefit from government spending. The wealthy don't want spending cut, just an elimination of progressive taxation.