Look at the numbers
By Christine Thennis - 10/28/08
Mr. Koutnik and Mr. Smith seem to have a lot of speculation about McCain and Obama’s tax plans. Maybe they should review the many available Web sites that my lazy middle-class butt has reviewed. Each shows that under Obama taxes would increase $121 for those making between $250,000 and $603,400. Will an additional $121 dollars of taxes really devastate small business? Under McCain, the Americans that need help the most get only $21 per year of tax reductions? How silly is that! Even more ridiculous is that under the McCain plan those making over $2,870,000 per year would get a tax cut $290,708. Taxes are necessary for a common good of our democracy and always involve a redistribution of money. Most taxes that are redistributed go back to national security, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Mr. Speed, I know many hard working teachers, construction workers (even plumbers), and service providers that do not have the luxury of earning over $250,000 per year. None of them are sitting on their butts waiting for a government hand-out. Mr. Smith are you suggesting that teachers, plumbers, retail workers and all of us that make much less than $250,000 should shoulder the majority of the tax burden while the rich get richer?
Christine Thennis
1007 Redpoll Loop
Christine Thennis
1007 Redpoll Loop
Current rating: 2.2 with 61 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
thinkplease wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:25 PM:
" ematt- that doesn't answer my question.
skooter- why would using AGI be more fair? Obviously that would skew the number lower. With a good CPA, AGI is hardly representative of actual income, especially at the top. Because of your agenda it makes sense as to why you would want to use that number. "
skooter- why would using AGI be more fair? Obviously that would skew the number lower. With a good CPA, AGI is hardly representative of actual income, especially at the top. Because of your agenda it makes sense as to why you would want to use that number. "
ematt wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:16 PM:
" 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 "
$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 "
skooter wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:06 PM:
" TP: I got my numbers from the same chart - line 153 for AGI (the number is 67.52% FYI) which many see as a fairer starting point for this discussion. "
thinkplease wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:00 PM:
" ematt-
Can you post the source of that info? I wasn't aware that the proposal was for a graduated income tax like that. Does that mean that if the tax rate is 15% for incomes up to $30,000, and I make $80,000, and the rate there is 30%, will I only have to pay 15% on the first 30k, etc?
That's not how income tax has ever worked, and I've never heard that proposed, but that sounds like what you are saying. Heck, if that were the case, I might even be pro-obama.
Perhaps I misunderstood though. "
Can you post the source of that info? I wasn't aware that the proposal was for a graduated income tax like that. Does that mean that if the tax rate is 15% for incomes up to $30,000, and I make $80,000, and the rate there is 30%, will I only have to pay 15% on the first 30k, etc?
That's not how income tax has ever worked, and I've never heard that proposed, but that sounds like what you are saying. Heck, if that were the case, I might even be pro-obama.
Perhaps I misunderstood though. "
ematt wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:57 AM:
" crush 720-
The "increase" is not on the entire 250K; only the margin above it. The $121 is an average number, but specifically $121 equals the difference in tax on $254K with the Bush tax cuts. $7,500 addtional tax as you mentioned would be on $250K above the $250K "base" (profit margin of $500,000 on a small business? That's a pretty expensive piece of equipment or heating increase). "
The "increase" is not on the entire 250K; only the margin above it. The $121 is an average number, but specifically $121 equals the difference in tax on $254K with the Bush tax cuts. $7,500 addtional tax as you mentioned would be on $250K above the $250K "base" (profit margin of $500,000 on a small business? That's a pretty expensive piece of equipment or heating increase). "
thinkplease wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:49 AM:
" skooter- not sure where you are looking on the IRS site, because the top 25% haven't paid that since before 1986. Actually, the numbers I quoted are lower than the most recent data indicates. In 2005, the top 10% paid over 70% of income tax.
source-
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls "
source-
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls "
skooter wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:41 AM:
" thinkplease - the top 25 percent pay 67% of the taxes burden - got that off of the IRS web site - would assume that its a correct figure (there have been a lot of percentages and stuff thrown about on this figure).
Crush720 - as a small business owner I understand those objections, but the unfortunate reality is that we are in the midst of an economic crisis and unworldly deficits...someone has got to pay taxes to ease our debt of course. You evidently would like to keep the status quo and continue with big breaks for the wealthy and tiny ones for everybody else - that's McCain's plan, feel free to vote for him. I, and a lot of others want a more balanced approach with the wealthy paying a higher share this time around. Some businesses - mid-size or otherwise will pay some more taxes (more for the larger ones), but putting more money in middle class pockets will help more people live the American dream and possibly even start businesses of their own. "
Crush720 - as a small business owner I understand those objections, but the unfortunate reality is that we are in the midst of an economic crisis and unworldly deficits...someone has got to pay taxes to ease our debt of course. You evidently would like to keep the status quo and continue with big breaks for the wealthy and tiny ones for everybody else - that's McCain's plan, feel free to vote for him. I, and a lot of others want a more balanced approach with the wealthy paying a higher share this time around. Some businesses - mid-size or otherwise will pay some more taxes (more for the larger ones), but putting more money in middle class pockets will help more people live the American dream and possibly even start businesses of their own. "
thinkplease wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:11 AM:
" I laughed at your last line Majority of tax burden huh?.
Repost:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percentthose below the median income levelnow earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. "
Repost:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percentthose below the median income levelnow earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. "
crush720 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:01 AM:
" I'm not sure about your numbers but Obama's plan is a 3% increase on 250k which is $7,500 not $121.
Additionally, the 250k that a small business owner makes is not take home pay. This is money that is a profit margin. That includes paying for a possible new employee, adding/improving benefits for employees (such as health care), purchasing new equipment/products. That money is also for any of the many unexpected charges that may arise due to the break down of a piece of equipment or a jump in heating prices over the winter.
That money is not pocket cash and small business owners end up taking home much less than you realize. "
Additionally, the 250k that a small business owner makes is not take home pay. This is money that is a profit margin. That includes paying for a possible new employee, adding/improving benefits for employees (such as health care), purchasing new equipment/products. That money is also for any of the many unexpected charges that may arise due to the break down of a piece of equipment or a jump in heating prices over the winter.
That money is not pocket cash and small business owners end up taking home much less than you realize. "
skooter wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:52 AM:
" You are exactly right - taxes are ALWAYS a redistribution of wealth. I did not hear cries of socialism in 2000 when the wealth was pushed farther upward and given to the already wealthy through tax cuts, cap gain & estate tax cuts. That obviously hasn't worked over 8 years. Its time to reverse that trend and the great run the wealthy had at our expense, and put a little more money in the pockets of the middle class, the economic engine of this country. When the middle class succeeds, the country succeeds.
Shame on the McCain campaign for their negative attacks and constant use of labels - socialism!!! - rather than discussing the real issues and our problems. Even as defeat nears - they are still trying to divide this country and play 'us' against 'them'. "
Shame on the McCain campaign for their negative attacks and constant use of labels - socialism!!! - rather than discussing the real issues and our problems. Even as defeat nears - they are still trying to divide this country and play 'us' against 'them'. "
Share Article
ematt wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:32 PM:
I'm not sure Obama is going to reinvent the wheel on this one. That's how income tax has *always* worked:
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/
(have you been filling your taxes out incorrectly?) All we're talking about here is pre-Bush tax cuts... "