Obama/McCain Tax Graphic

25w100k+_IHB

25w100k+_IHB

New member
<img src="http://outtheotherear.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/gr2008061200193.gif" alt="" />





I think its interesting. Personally, I'm all for taxing the super rich more, but 2.6 million seems a little low to begin the real raping. I think tax 'percentages' should be ammoritzed over a period of time. Its not hard to imagine a family who owns a business that make almost nothing for 10 years, sells for 2.6 million, pays 50%, then goes back to making a much smaller amount.





Oh well, I'm not going to vote for either of them, as Obama betrayed his supporters on the FISA vote and McCaine should stand trial for treason because of his P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act vote.





I just thought it might help those on the fence on who to vote for decide.
 
[quote author="25w100k+" date=1217477628]



I think its interesting. Personally, I'm all for taxing the super rich more, but 2.6 million seems a little low to begin the real raping. I think tax 'percentages' should be ammoritzed over a period of time. Its not hard to imagine a family who owns a business that make almost nothing for 10 years, sells for 2.6 million, pays 50%, then goes back to making a much smaller amount.





Oh well, I'm not going to vote for either of them, as Obama betrayed his supporters on the FISA vote and McCaine should stand trial for treason because of his P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act vote.





I just thought it might help those on the fence on who to vote for decide.</blockquote>


You shouldn't give up on voting because there are flaws in both candidates. In a two party system you are bound to having to compromise for one or the other. That's just the reality - or at least you can try to support a 3rd party candidate. Your views surely must align more with one candidate over the other one - take 10min out of your day in November and check the corresponding box. Isn't that your "civic duty" anyways? :p
 
The plan is inherently flawed. Taxes on the bottom 60% need to be increased.



They need to be increased so that they pay a porportionate share of the expense of the government. If they do not, we further replicate the problem of people getting something for nothing and have a spiraling out of control expense situation similar to healthcare or California's state budget.



Obama's plan, IMHO is particularly dangerous as it creates a majority that is not paying taxes or paying negligible taxes.





Reference:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/ResearchReport_109-20.pdf
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1217479895]The plan is inherently flawed. Taxes on the bottom 60% need to be increased.



They need to be increased so that they pay a porportionate share of the expense of the government. If they do not, we further replicate the problem of people getting something for nothing and have a spiraling out of control expense situation similar to healthcare or California's state budget.



Obama's plan, IMHO is particularly dangerous as it creates a majority that is not paying taxes or paying negligible taxes.





Reference:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/ResearchReport_109-20.pdf</blockquote>


How do you propose we equalize the tax burden by increasing taxes on the poor? For easy math let's look at top and bottom halves only. The top 50% (income split point at $32K) make an AGI of about $7.1tri whereas the bottom make about $1.0tri. Keeping the average tax rate of 14% on the top half, what average tax rate should apply to the bottom half for an equal share of the tax burden? 99.4%.



Your head would end up underneath a guillotine in no time if you propose this kind of solution. :p
 
The word was porportionate.



The bottom 50% make 12.8% of the income, they'll need to pay 12.8% of the tax (as opposed to 3%)



That would be an outrageous 4X increase in their taxes.



My position is simple, present the choice of paying taxes and their demand for services will likewise fall.



The wealthy have wealth, if you want to tax wealth you need to tax assets. That's property taxes. Vehicle license taxes. We alrady know how the general public feels about those.



I'm game for dumping the income tax and replacing it with an asset and sales tax of 3%. Are you?



Will you pay 3% national property tax on your house? Your car? Boat? Stocks? Bonds?



That 3% would more than balance the budget and start paying the debt. Ironic how close it is to the ancient 10% every three years of the biblical kings isn't it. Maybe they in their rudimentary wisdom knew something.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1217480823][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1217479895]The plan is inherently flawed. Taxes on the bottom 60% need to be increased.



They need to be increased so that they pay a porportionate share of the expense of the government. If they do not, we further replicate the problem of people getting something for nothing and have a spiraling out of control expense situation similar to healthcare or California's state budget.



Obama's plan, IMHO is particularly dangerous as it creates a majority that is not paying taxes or paying negligible taxes.





Reference:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/ResearchReport_109-20.pdf</blockquote>


How do you propose we equalize the tax burden by increasing taxes on the poor? For easy math let's look at top and bottom halves only. The top 50% (income split point at $32K) make an AGI of about $7.1tri whereas the bottom make about $1.0tri. Keeping the average tax rate of 14% on the top half, what average tax rate should apply to the bottom half for an equal share of the tax burden? 99.4%.



Your head would end up underneath a guillotine in no time if you propose this kind of solution. :p</blockquote>


Shrinking the size of government is an ideal way to equalize the tax burden. If the bottom half of income earners (who pay 3% of taxes) are consuming more government services than they are paying for, it's well past time to have less government services. Limiting the role of Federal government to things they are authorized to do in the Constitution is a wonderful way to make that change.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1217496880]The word was porportionate.



The bottom 50% make 12.8% of the income, they'll need to pay 12.8% of the tax (as opposed to 3%)



That would be an outrageous 4X increase in their taxes.



My position is simple, present the choice of paying taxes and their demand for services will likewise fall.



The wealthy have wealth, if you want to tax wealth you need to tax assets. That's property taxes. Vehicle license taxes. We alrady know how the general public feels about those.



I'm game for dumping the income tax and replacing it with an asset and sales tax of 3%. Are you?



Will you pay 3% national property tax on your house? Your car? Boat? Stocks? Bonds?



That 3% would more than balance the budget and start paying the debt. Ironic how close it is to the ancient 10% every three years of the biblical kings isn't it. Maybe they in their rudimentary wisdom knew something.</blockquote>


My bad. Proportionate was not the problem. It's what it was proportionate to that I misunderstood.
 
[quote author="25w100k+" date=1217477628]<img src="http://outtheotherear.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/gr2008061200193.gif" alt="" />





I think its interesting. Personally, I'm all for taxing the super rich more, but 2.6 million seems a little low to begin the real raping. I think tax 'percentages' should be ammoritzed over a period of time. Its not hard to imagine a family who owns a business that make almost nothing for 10 years, sells for 2.6 million, pays 50%, then goes back to making a much smaller amount.





Oh well, I'm not going to vote for either of them, as Obama betrayed his supporters on the FISA vote and McCaine should stand trial for treason because of his P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act vote.





I just thought it might help those on the fence on who to vote for decide.</blockquote>


The numbers you listed are highly suspect. For example, the Social Security tax is only applied to the first $97,500 of income (for the 2007 tax year). You pay 7.65% of your income (if you are a W2 employee) or 15.3% of your income if you are self employed.



At current time, Obama is saying that he wants to tax all income above about $250k (expect that number to be lowered if he is elected) In addition to that, Obama wants to raise income taxes to what they were before the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts applied to every income level. For people making about $250k, the rate will go from 35% to 39.6%.



When you take the facts into consideration, there is simply no way that people earning between $226k and $603k will not experience a tax increase under Obama.
 
My favorite college econ professor had an interesting take on income taxes. His perspective was that looking at income taxes as a percentage of income shows only part of the 'fairness' picture. He asked us to also consider how much families were paying as a percentage of net worth as well. The very rich, he would say, pay a small or even trivial percentage of their net worth in income taxes every year, while poorest paid 100% of their net worth or more in taxes. He'd then ask the question, "Does this seem fair?"
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217502733]

The numbers you listed are highly suspect. For example, the Social Security tax is only applied to the first $97,500 of income (for the 2007 tax year). You pay 7.65% of your income (if you are a W2 employee) or 15.3% of your income if you are self employed.



At current time, Obama is saying that he wants to tax all income above about $250k (expect that number to be lowered if he is elected) In addition to that, Obama wants to raise income taxes to what they were before the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts applied to every income level. For people making about $250k, the rate will go from 35% to 39.6%.



When you take the facts into consideration, there is simply no way that people earning between $226k and $603k will not experience a tax increase under Obama.</blockquote>


I believe this chart summarizes the findings by the Tax Policy Center. This is by all measures a fairly objective look at the tax plans presented by both Obama and McCain. More info at <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/</a>.
 
Great, so we have Dems wanting to tax more and spend less and Republicans who want to tax less and spend more. F*ck them both.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1217506735][quote author="WINEX" date=1217502733]

The numbers you listed are highly suspect. For example, the Social Security tax is only applied to the first $97,500 of income (for the 2007 tax year). You pay 7.65% of your income (if you are a W2 employee) or 15.3% of your income if you are self employed.



At current time, Obama is saying that he wants to tax all income above about $250k (expect that number to be lowered if he is elected) In addition to that, Obama wants to raise income taxes to what they were before the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts applied to every income level. For people making about $250k, the rate will go from 35% to 39.6%.



When you take the facts into consideration, there is simply no way that people earning between $226k and $603k will not experience a tax increase under Obama.</blockquote>


I believe this chart summarizes the findings by the Tax Policy Center. This is by all measures a fairly objective look at the tax plans presented by both Obama and McCain. More info at <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/</a>.</blockquote>


What makes you believe that? The following statement alone tells you that people earning between 111k and 603k aren't in for either tax cuts or no increases under Obambi.



Fromhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf



The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate?s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain?s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama?s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively).
 
[quote author="HB Bear, Too" date=1217504280]My favorite college econ professor had an interesting take on income taxes. His perspective was that looking at income taxes as a percentage of income shows only part of the 'fairness' picture. He asked us to also consider how much families were paying as a percentage of net worth as well. The very rich, he would say, pay a small or even trivial percentage of their net worth in income taxes every year, while poorest paid 100% of their net worth or more in taxes. He'd then ask the question, "Does this seem fair?"</blockquote>


First of all, as pointed out earlier, net worth is not a factor in determining taxable income. It is, after all, an "income" tax. Second, the assertion that the poor pay 100% of their net worth in taxes is patently wrong. While, the poor may pay a higher percentage of their net worth in sales tax, FICA and social security tax, most "poor" wage earners receive a substantial payment from the income tax system in the form of the earned income credit. The effect is that many poor wage earners pay little to no income tax and receive a substantial cash payment well beyond what they contributed to the system.
 
All this stupid arguing over What is or isn't fair is such a waste of time. Bythe time inflation catches up, 2million will be nothing.



When we try to measure FAIRNESS, we just set ourselves up for failure.



Lets just make a <strong>FLAT TAX</strong> and abolish all write off's (or as I call them artificial rebates) and be done with all this B.S.!



Doesn't get much more "fair" or balanced than that.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217527786][quote author="green_cactus" date=1217506735][quote author="WINEX" date=1217502733]

The numbers you listed are highly suspect. For example, the Social Security tax is only applied to the first $97,500 of income (for the 2007 tax year). You pay 7.65% of your income (if you are a W2 employee) or 15.3% of your income if you are self employed.



At current time, Obama is saying that he wants to tax all income above about $250k (expect that number to be lowered if he is elected) In addition to that, Obama wants to raise income taxes to what they were before the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts applied to every income level. For people making about $250k, the rate will go from 35% to 39.6%.



When you take the facts into consideration, there is simply no way that people earning between $226k and $603k will not experience a tax increase under Obama.</blockquote>


I believe this chart summarizes the findings by the Tax Policy Center. This is by all measures a fairly objective look at the tax plans presented by both Obama and McCain. More info at <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/</a>.</blockquote>


What makes you believe that? The following statement alone tells you that people earning between 111k and 603k aren't in for either tax cuts or no increases under Obambi.



Fromhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf



The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate?s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain?s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama?s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively).</blockquote>


Bush's tax cut don't expire until the end of 2010 (remember, they were based on the projected 10 year surplus that we were going to have). So the "pre-Bush" rates are not effective yet for the chart above since it is for <strong>2009</strong>. The analysis done by the Tax Policy Center is pretty exhaustive and more accurate then whatever you or I can speculate. It's definitely a good read. Of course, the chart presented above is only part of the picture. The report does go into detail on what 2012 looks like - definitely a good read.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217527458]What makes you think Democrats want to spend less? Universal health care doesn't grow on trees.</blockquote>


So you think we have republicans who want to spend more and tax less and dems who want to spend more and tax more? I'm just trying to clarify your perception of the parties.
 
[quote author="idrnkurmlkshk" date=1217540364]All this stupid arguing over What is or isn't fair is such a waste of time. Bythe time inflation catches up, 2million will be nothing.



When we try to measure FAIRNESS, we just set ourselves up for failure.



Lets just make a <strong>FLAT TAX</strong> and abolish all write off's (or as I call them artificial rebates) and be done with all this B.S.!



Doesn't get much more "fair" or balanced than that.</blockquote>




Does that include all investment income/dividends/capgains too?





and how is it fair to have a family who brings home $25k pay say 10% ($2500) while another bringing home $2.5M pay the same 10% (250k)? The reason the poor pay a lower rate is that they need it all to eat/live, while i'm sure that the $2.5M family can struggle by on $2M just as well as $2.25M
 
And both of those graphics are clearly republican propaganda.



look at <strong>total tax rate</strong>, including payroll taxes and sales taxes.

<strong>

poor ($25k): 16%! </strong> 3% income tax + ~9% payroll + 4% sales (since they spend every dollar, less housing and other non-taxables, say 50%), so 16%

<strong>

rich ($25M: 6% </strong> 4% (40% on 2.5M, rest is options/etc) + 1% payroll (only first $90k) + 1% sales (only spend 1M/yr, rest is invested), so 6%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top