It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A lot of people are kicking and screaming, but has anybody done the math? Has anybody who will be affected by Obama's tax plan actually sat down figured out what their hit will be?
I'd like to see figures.
According to my numbers, over a 30-year career, a couple could expect to pay over $107,000 more using 1998’s numbers than they would using 2008’s tax rates.
Originally posted by Raist
I want to add that both the Dems and the Reps are the reason we are in the place we are now. Both have ripped off the public and should be removed entirely from their places of office. But no one wants to believe that there is anything better than the two unholy parties.
Bob the Banker speaks out
The numbers don't lie. So here they are.*
So, as I said, I make $280,000 annually after business expenses. I'm married and filing jointly. Under Obama, my itemized deductions would actually increase slightly — I'd get $49,420 in itemized deductions, while under McCain I'd get $48,975. But my personal exemptions would increase slightly under McCain — he'd give me $6,911, whereas I'd only get $6,132 from Obama.
That leaves my taxable income at $213, 766 under Obama, $213,433 under McCain. Now we have to factor in the bracket cutoff, which for 2009 is $208,850. Anything below that figure for married couples filing jointly is taxed at the fourth tier, 28 percent. Any income above it, until you get up to near $400,000, is taxed at the fifth tier. And this is where the raving income-redistribution scheme of Barack Robespierre Obama kicks in.
As you can see, my taxable income is about $5,000 higher than the cutoff. McCain is going to tax that $5,000 at the current rate, which is 33 percent. But Obama's crazed plan calls for raising that rate to — get ready for it — 35 percent.
And here's what this means. Under McCain, my total tax bill would be $48,254. Under Obama, it would be $48,511.
That's a difference of $257. I'll say it again: Two hundred and fifty-seven dollars.
That's not two hundred and fifty-seven dollars I, or America, can afford.
Economic illiteracy from the WSJ
The editorial, which is on Barack Obama's tax plans, begins this way:
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?
John McCain has also made this claim. It is, frankly, ridiculous, a little like a child's attempt at a zinger -- they think they've got you, that this point is devastating and proves that Obama is a liar. Except it's, in this context, a meaningless statistic. It's totally irrelevant.
Why? Two words: Payroll taxes.
Notice the qualifier the WSJ used in that last sentence? Not "more than a third of all Americans already pay no taxes at all," but more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all."
But Obama's plan just doesn't deal with income taxes, as the author or authors of that editorial know perfectly well. And with good reason -- as William G. Gale and Jeffrey Rohaly of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center pointed out in 2003, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes:
In 2003, workers and employers each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker’s earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden.
About 74 percent of filers owe more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes, including 85 percent of those with income below $40,000. Among returns with wage earnings, 83 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including 97 percent of those with AGI below $40,000 and 90 percent of those with income below $100,000. If only half of employer payroll taxes are attributed to workers, 48 percent of filers and 53 percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, including 76 percent of wage earners with income below $40,000.
Sometimes I'm willing to give people credit and assume that they don't know about the falsity of claims like this. But really -- this editorial was written by people who work for the Wall Street Journal. Presumably they know about the details of tax policy. (If not, well, that's even more embarrassing.) So in this case I just wonder: Does the paper think its readers, who presumably also know a little something about tax policy, won't pick up on this?
Originally posted by midwestmama
Think back to what Biden said last week, that this man was going to be tested, and it could well be a "generated test" and we are not going to like was has to be done. Does that mean them invoking Marshal Law?
* IRS data indicate that the richest 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent of the taxpayers are shouldering a larger percentage of the income tax burden than they would had the Bush tax cuts never materialized.
* Preliminary 2005 data just released from the Treasury Department show the amount of tax paid by those earning more than $1 million a year increased to $236 billion in 2005, up from $132 billion in 2003, the year of the tax cut.
* This was a 78 percent increase in taxes paid by millionaire households.
Originally posted by Areal51
Get the figures and facts right folks. If this sounds like Marxism -- maybe you could do with reading Marx again.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Avenginggecko
Get off your high horse partner.
If you read my post you will see that those I have a problem with being on food stamps are those who I see standing in front of me buying a carton of smokes, a 12 pack of beer, and some lunchmeat for their very poorly dress child that is underweight while they themselves are wearing $100 dollar brand name shoes.
I am sick of see these people have satellite TV and cell phones all the while not working because they chose not to do so. I am well aware there are those who need welfare to get back on their feet (read that again if you must) but it most certainly should not be used to live on for years upon years.
And for the record I have never used either welfare or even unemployment. I found my ways to get food and shelter on my own when it came to it. Nor am I a Neo Con since you want to throw terms around when you have no clue where I stand. Both parties everyone seems to be so happy to bow to are corrupt and have stomped on the Constitution while people more than happily hand over their rights for the might chosen two.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by goldbomb444
The poor will still be poor if Obama gets elected. If Obama gets elected the rich will still be rich. I think people are over exaggerating this from both sides on this particular issue.
What you said is correct, but it's also over exaggerated.
[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]