I found this cool chart online.
So, for anyone out there who is afraid their taxes are going to go up if Obama is elected you may find this interesting. I might be wrong, but I'm almost positive that nobody I know who reads this post makes over $600,000 a year. I do realize that people argue that Obama also proposes raising the capital gains tax, which will hit some people in the $50K+ range, but I believe very strongly that Obama's income tax plan is much more equitable.
Despite consider myself a strong liberal, I do believe very strongly that our Government spends and wastes way too much money, the biggest waste pool being the war in Iraq. However, I also believe we need to restructure our tax system, especially in light of the fact that the Bush Administration is predicting a $490 billion dollar deficit in 2009. That's more money we borrow from China because the Bush Administration has given back to billionaires Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Paris Hilton and Howard Stern an additional $700,000 of their $100 billion dollar fortunes. Obama's plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while McCain's would cost the Treasury $600 billion.
Some people like to ask What Would Jesus Do (WWJD). Well I'm pretty convinced that he would tell all the conservatives complaining about their tax rates to stop striving to make more money and to give it all away and serve the poor and oppressed. So you are going to get no help from him on this issue.
"According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million."
4 comments:
This is the first I've heard of Obama only increasing income taxes on people making over $600k a year. I have heard a lot of talk about him imposing the Social Security payroll tax on those making over $250k a year, which this chart leaves out. Maybe that's because of the semantics game that people like to play, trying to convince us that payroll taxes and income taxes aren't the same thing. And though none of my friends may bring home a paycheck of that amount, a lot of small business owners, who employ the majority of Americans, do.
The people who make that kind of money do so because they are more productive. They create the jobs and wealth that keep our economy running. Increasing the top tax rate on them hurts the economy. There are plenty of examples in Europe that we can learn that from. The effects of a bad economy aren't felt by the Donald Trumps and Warren Buffets of the world, they're felt most by the poor, and by you and me and the 99% percent of Americans who aren't the top wage earners.
To say that our government runs a deficit and borrows from China to put more money into Paris Hilton's pocketbook is not only a gross misrepresentation of reality, it smacks of wealth envy and class warfare. Just because we can all agree that Ms. Hilton may be a waste of space and did nothing to earn her fortune except be born into the right family, does not mean that it's "more equitable" to raid her bank account anymore than it is mine. Besides, you know she doesn't handle her finanaces, her accountants do, and you know what they probably do with her money? Invest it.
So increase the tax capital gains tax, people say? Even worse. Increasing the capital gains tax rate will decrease capital gains tax revenue. Any chart that compares the two shows that they are inversely proportional. If Washington really wanted to increase revenue from capital gains, they'd cut the rate down as far as they could. Then they'd have all the money in the world to waste, abuse, and buy votes with.
And what's really sad is that neither Obama's or McCain's tax proposals do anything to address the Socail Security debacle that's gonig to bankrupt this country before you or I are even thinking about retirement.
(Sorry for the long comment. Guess this one hit a neve!)
Thanks for the comment Keith. You are always free to leave long comments. I'm glad someone finally posted something in disagreement with me.
Like I said, I know there are other taxes out there, such as the social security and capital gains tac, which I mentioned in my post. But, Obama's plan on the social security tax proposes raising the current cap so that people who make over $250,000 pay the same percent or somewhere near the same percent as those making 50K. Middle Class will still not see much if any of an income tax increase. I'm all for that. Besides as Warren Buffet showed in his independent study he paid like 8% less in taxes than his secretary who made 85K, because of all these loop holes and caps (not positive about those figures).
Also, I don't believe it is a matter of being a productive, hardworking or creative worker. All across the economic spectrum from the blue collar worker to the trust fund socialite, from the minimum wage worker to the CEO you will find lazy people and you will find productive, hard-working people. To me, that's a non-factor in the debate.
I do believe our deficit is directly related to both the Bush tax structure, which does put money back in the pocket of wealthy people, and the cost of the Iraq war. So, I don't beleve it is a misrepresentation to connect the two.
However, I agree financial equiality does not mean that everyone needs to make the same money or money needs to be taken out of the pockets of the wealthy and given to the poor, but what it does mean is that everyone has the same opportunities. That's an issue for another post.
My main point of this post was to respond to an email I got that falsely showed the income tax rates under Obama and to throw out the idea that I don't believe our lives will be hurt by Obama's tax struture versus McCain's. We saw enormous economic gain under similar tax rates under the Clinton years, both in the corporate world and small business. At the end of the day the quality of our lives is not definied by our wealth and I'm a proponent of altering that worldview. Does that mean we all live like Quakers or like a third world country...no, but I do believe small steps can be made.
Okay, so my take-home pay won’t be affected any differently under either McCain’s or Obama’s proposed tax plan. That’s not my beef with it. The problem is that higher taxes are bad for the economy, and a bad economy is in no one’s interest.
Social Security is supposed to be a “pay in – pay out” system. I thought that’s why there’s a cap on income that’s subject to the tax; so that people don’t have to pay in more than they’re expected to take out. Otherwise it’d be more like a big welfare scheme. Maybe because of the situation we’re in (I don’t people our age to see a dime out of Social Security when it comes time for us to retire) a tax plan like this is more plausible now. But this, on top of the higher income taxes for the top wage earners? The already shoulder the majority of the tax burden in this country, how much worse do we want to make it?
The story about Warren Buffet and his secretary makes total sense to me. People with more money find ways around paying higher taxes. Hike the rate high enough and we’ll start seeing rises in tax evasion schemes, which will just provide more fuel for the “evil rich” stereotype.
I agree with you that hardworking and lazy people are found all across the spectrum. What I’m saying is that people who make more money are generally the ones who create more wealth in this nation. And that’s a big factor in the debate for me. I don’t think that we should be punishing the more productive members of society with higher taxes and selling it to the public as taking money from rich socialites to solve our deficit problem.
The deficit we have now is definitely related to the policies of the Bush administration. We had a balanced budget when Clinton was president, but during his first several years in office Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. It’s one of my biggest complaints about him. And the price tag of the war just magnifies the problem. But his tax structure has nothing to do with it. Revenues went UP after the Bush tax cuts, and have every year since then. Supply side tax cuts work, and it’s a mystery to me why they don’t enjoy bipartisan support.
Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
I may be in agreement with you that quality of life should not be defined by our wealth. But I’m not willing to sacrifice our country’s standard of living to alter that worldview.
Here's what I'm getting at: I accept the premises of your argument regarding tax policies either adversely affecting or benefiting the economy (mostly because I am totally clueless when it comes to money and the economy--still don't know what speculators are). My point is this: In my opinion and view of the world, none of that should really matter and especially not when McCain and Obama's plans are not going to have much of an impact, just like under Clinton tax the economy prospered and under Bush tax the economy was hurt. (I realize we could debate that statement) So, I agree a European tax system would probably hurt our economy and I don't propose that, and nor does Obama. Again, my point is that the quality of our lives is not and should not be defined by the wealth of our nation or strength of our economy - both as a nation or as an individual. Anyone who goes and visits some of the second world and even third world countries will realize that when these "poor communities" who have no where near the economic structure or benefits that we have are just as if not more happy (and healthier) than we are here in America. Many of these communities enjoy great health, strong and responsible community, close family structures, great role models, awesome relationships--the things that do define our happiness. Other impoverished communities do not enjoy these things (especially the health part) and it is our job to help bring these to the communities. So I don't necessary disagree with your assessment of the economic results. My point is that we need to stop defining our success as a nation by our wealth. Yeah, I know that concept is pretty far out there, but you can't visit these areas of the globe and help but realize that America's wealth is not making our lives better and maybe we ought to evaluate our values. Just throwing the concept out there.
Post a Comment