speaking of taxes

[lovepat906]

Where are you on this chart?
                    
                         MCCAIN Plan              OBAMA Plan
Income               Avg tax bill                   Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M       -$269,364 (-4.4%).        +$701,885 (+11.5%)
$603K and up      -$45,361(-3.4%).        +$115,974 (+8.7%)
$227K-$603K        -$7,871 (-3.1%)                +$12 (+0.0%)
$161K-$227K.       -$4,380 (-3.0%)             -$2,789 (-1.9%)
$112K-$161K        -$2,614 (-2.5%)             -$2,204 (-2.1%)
$66K-$112K          -$1,009 (-1.4%)             -$1,290 (-1.8%)
$38K-$66K              -$319 (-0.7%)              -$1,042 (-2.4%)
$19K-$38K ....         -$113 (-0.5%)                 -$892 (-3.6%)
Under $19K ...           -$19 (-0.2%)                 -$567 (-5.5%)

[Clamity2]

Go Obama go Obama go Obama YEA  !!  

[VicUser]

Lets see, all of Obama's adds say if you make less than $250k you wount pay more in taxes, but this says if you make less than $603k you won't, which is it? I am sure if your numbers are correct the Obama side would be saying this, wouldn't they?

Looks like McCain gives everyone a tax break, yeah right, ha.

Oh and lovepat, maybe you should put up a chart showing  the current tax brackets with the percetage paid in taxes by each bracket.

[flmagi]

Obama's is better for me.

[VicUser]

Well said, that is the typical short sided response, "I only what is good for me"

[flmagi]

VicUser,  LOL   My train of thought goes well beyond myself, always has. I was responding to the initial question without saying what my income is.   And my responses are being monitored, lol, so I must restrain myself.

[VicUser]

Here are the current tax rates, the best I can tell.

2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate             Single                  Married Filing Jointly
10%             Not over $8,025           Not over $16,050
15%            $8,025 - $32,550           $16,050 - $65,100
25%            $32,550 - $78,850         $65,100 - $131,450
28%            $78,850 - $164,550       $131,450 - $200,300
33%            $164,550 - $357,700     $200,300 - $357,700
35%           Over $357,700              Over $357,700

[flmagi]

Wow,  Thanks VicUser.  Ok now I can really see that myself, and anyone with income close to mine (give or take 50-60 thousand) will be much better off with the Obama plan.
Cool beans!

[VicUser]

You may, but will the nation and the economy in the long run? I doubt it.

[lovepat906]

Obama's plan : people under 250Gs would not see an increase. I guess my source

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/eco nomy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postve rsion=2008061113

was a bit more detailed- Looks like people from $227Gs up to $603Gs might have to pay an extra 12 bucks.

2005 stats from the congressional budget office:

millions of households   pretax inc.   post tax income   % all federal taxes
Top 10% 11.7                339,100          246,300            27.4
Top 5% 5.8                  520,200         369,800            28.9
Top 1% 1.1               1,558,500      1,071,500            31.2

The stats for 2006-2007 are not out yet. But as I recall there was another tax cut for the
wealthy in 2006 and their income went up significantly. I'll keep looking for the complete figures.
All federal taxes includes personal income, corporate, soc.security, and excise taxes.

[lovepat906]

Today in America the wealthiest 1% owns more than everyone in the bottom 95% combined. Income inequality is at its greatest level since the 1920s - right before the great depression. Though the US has continued to make big gains in productivity over the last decade, nearly all of the benefit of those gains has gone to the wealthy, not the workers. American CEOs earned 411 times as much as average workers in 2005, up from 107 times in 1990. In the economic expansion of 2002-2006, the top 1% captured nearly three quarters of income growth.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-USto pincomes-2006prel.pdf

[NautyOne]

I just report my income......Most of it.....lol......and let the Tax man take care of it....I am clueless and I just don't care because I am just another number.......I don't play hardball with the Feds.

Nauty........

[VicUser]

top 1% and the bottom 95%, what happened to the other 4%?

What about the sports guys that make millions off the ticket sales of the hard working Americans? Don't get me wrong I don't think the CEO's that make 100's million a year are worth it either, but it is amazing who we target.

[VicUser]

WOW, using you stats the top 10% of income earners pays 87.5% of the tax burden.

and if you believe that the people from that make from $227k up to $603k might have to pay an extra $12 in taxes, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

[paul300]

I've given up the argument.  Unfortunately the tax rate is currently too high. If Obama gets his way, my company will pay a higher tax rate and I will have less capital to invest in R&D and hiring employees. Simple as that. High tech companies like mine can be developed offshore if need be; many will ultimately do so. And investors will definitely place capital offshore.

[lovepat906]

The 4% is between 95 and 99%- they were comparing the total income of the top !% (1.1million households) to the total income of the bottom 94%.
And your math re the tax burden makes no sense. The % on the chart is the % of their income that they pay for all combined federal taxes. You can't add that up and use the total as that group's % of the country's tax burden. It does not compute.
I am sure that the sports guys who make milions are included in the top 1%. The income figures represent ranges. So anyone who  $1,558,500 or more would be in that top 1%. You can go to the source to see the complete chart- it wouldn't fit on this page.If you do- compare the tax % from 2004 to 2005 and you il see the drop in taxes that occurred. Of course they paid more taxes tho- because they made much more money. But the percentage of tax on that level of income has actually dropped in the last 4 years.

[lovepat906]

So those fine Americans who have profited mightily from their U.S businesses are gonna take their ball and go home? We get to bail their a**es out with our tax dollars and they run away to protect their inflated profit margins? Nice.

[lovepat906]

The % at the end of the second line should be 95%- dumb thumb.

As far as the $12 goes- the salient point is the comparative differences between the two plans. And I am sure- as with all tables these are averages within a range.
Does it really make sense that we cut the taxes of a guy who makes 2.9 mil a year by
4.4% and at the same time only reduce the tax burden on the guy (or probably single mom who didn't abort and is trying to stay off welfare) who makes under $19K by.2%?

You know sometimes I daydream about the possibilities of reincarnation. What a great education it would be for the wealthy to spend a life time struggling at the bottom.

[VicUser]

I guess I am just too stupid to understand your table.

Here is an idea for a new tax plan. Anyone making over $150,000 will be taxed on the amount they make over $150,000 at 100%. The money from the new tax will then be given to the people that make less than $50,000 so to bring them up to the this new minimum level. We would thus eliminate the rich and the poor at the same time.

[paul300]

thank you, you my point to Vic.

[lovepat906]

So I guess you can't really effectively defend your position? Sarcasm  begs the question.

[VicUser]

let's try this table. It is from "The Tax Foundation"  not a biased news group. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Tax year 2006
Income        Share of Income Taxes      Min Income to be in Group
Top 1%                 39.89%                               $388,806        
Top 2-5%                 20.25%                               $153,542
Top 6-10%                 10.65%                               $108,904
Top 11-25% 15.47%                               $  64,702
Top 26-50% 10.75%                               $  31,987
Bottom 50%   2.99%

The top 10% of wage earners pay 70.79% of the tax burden.

If you would do the math you would also see that the 4.4% tax cut for those that pay a high rate like 22% yields close to percentage tax cut as the .2% tax cut for those that pay 3%


I am not a rich guy, but by the same token I have never been employed by a poor guy.

BTW the book is call "The Fair Tax" it is not a flat tax, it is a consumption tax, aka sales tax. At first glance I was like no way, but after reading the book it is fair to the poor, middle class and the rich. It is not complicated but too much to go into here, please read the printed book or listen to the audio book.

[lovepat906]

The table I posted showed the  percentage of income paid in taxes in those high income catagories. It did not show the % of  total US taxes paid by that income group.
The source was the congressional budget office- not a biased media outlet. I will take a look at your source and see if their information is reliable.

But using ball park figures, an income tax break of 4.4%  for some one at the bottom of that highest bracket would put about $20,000 back in their pockets. A .2% break for a person at the bottom would give them an extra $15 bucks to spend. Now, who is in most need of $$ to pay for basic needs? The guy that makes $ 20,000 a year. ot the guy that makes close to $400,000 a year?

[lovepat906]

"The Tax Foundation"  is hardly an unbiased group.

Founders-  Alfred P. Sloan, General Motors Corporation, chairman
Donaldson Brown, General Motors Corporation financial vice president
William S. Farish, Standard Oil Company, President
Lewis H. Brown, President of the Johns-Manville Corporation

Current leadership- Scott A. Hodge is President of the Tax Foundation

Past associations include:

Citizens for a Sound Economy- Founded by Koch Industries( the largest privately-held company in the United States, with annual sales of $90 billion. Koch Industries is also a major polluter). CSE has been funded by  Amoco, Bell Atlantic, Citibank, General Electric and General Motors  and more. CSE has been described as one of many mercenary groups that function as surrogates when industry feels it's not advantageous for it to speak directly.
  
Heartland Institute - Opposied to the the Kyoto protocol , supports the privatization of public services;opposes tobacco control measure such as tobacco tax increases and denies the health effects of second-hand smoke; and it promotes the deregulation of health care insurance, hosts PolicyBot, a data base containing 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.

There's more but I think this is enough proof of bias. The major thrust of this organization and it's affiliates is to promote deregulation . Nuff said?

[sterling_silver]

lol