Tax Plans - the actual break downs

"Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AnyHt3RZB1emvoUlYwxb8sbCw5R4

Assuming the numbers are reasonably accurate, the differences offer a pretty clear philosophical choice between:

a) Letting wealthy people enjoy/invest the fruits of their efforts and/or good fortune; and
b) Demanding that wealthy people carry a heavier burden either because they should or simply because they can.

There are valid arguments for both (a) and (b). Personally, I think Nixon, Ford and Carter swung too far toward (b); Papa Bush and Clinton struck a healthy balance; Reagan tipped a bit too far toward (a); and W went completely off the (a) end of the chart, far beyond anything justified by supply-side economic benefits. That's just my opinion, though, and I hope a rational debate is possible.

West 81

or you could say that:

"99% of Americans get more tax relief under the Obama plan"

Also this doesnt speak to McCain wanting to tax healthcare benefits currently paid for by employers. McCaiins plan basically soaks the middle class and gives the maximum benefit to the uber wealthy 1% and corporations which 2/3's already dont pay any taxes.

I think that the economy will be benefitted by helping 99% of Americans not solely benefitting 1% of Americans.

"Obama and McCain have big economic differences"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_economy

petrfitz: Yes, you could say that. John Kerry used a variation on that line. So did Al Gore. John Edwards too.

For whatever reason, that argument doesn't work very well with American swing voters. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. There are lots of theories about why. The bottom line is that if Obama resorts to an us-vs.-them, soak-the-rich line on taxes, he'll be branded a class warrior and he'll probably lose. The Republican argument that rich people already pay most of the taxes in America is somewhat misleading, but it's also highly effective.

"and W went completely off the (a) end of the chart"

Huh, I must need a new accountant.

West81 - if americans are dumb enough to vote against their own interests based on lies and the Republicans win the election, it does not mean the Republican policies are best for the country, it just means that the people are stupid and vote against whats best for themselves.

ccdevi: How rich are you? As W used to quip, his first administration was riven by class warfare between the "haves" and the "have-mores". The have-mores won.

> The Republican argument that rich people already pay most of the taxes in
> America is somewhat misleading

How is it misleading? They not only pay most of the taxes (by a huge margin), they pay a larger share of their incomes than any other group.

petrfitz: That know-it-all, elitist attitude is exactly what most Americans love most about the Democratic Party. Clinton distanced himself from it, substantively and stylistically. Obama faces the same challenge, and he may have a problem there because his personality is more Kerry than Clinton.

nyc10022 you are completely wrong in stating :they pay a larger share of their incomes than any other group

The uber wealthy pay the least percentage of incomes. they may pay more in overall dollars but they pay significantly less percentage than the middle class.

id rather be an elitest know it all than a dumbass who votes against his own best interests. Tell me West81 do you make more than $600K per year?

nyc10022: The rich pay most of the income taxes and estate taxes, and more than their proportional share of direct property taxes. They pay a very small share of payroll taxes and certain direct excise taxes. They also absorb a relatively small portion of taxes that are passed through third parties, like many sales taxes and taxes on corporate profits. Then there's the portion of government spending that we fund by borrowing, which is borne partly by future generations and partly, in ways that are difficult to attribute accurately, by current taxpayers.

Who pays what portion of the overall cost of government is a very complicated question - much more complicated than the flip "rich people pay most of the taxes" line. And while our tax system is progressive, it;s possible to make a strong economic case that it should be even more progressive. That's why the Republican line is misleading: the factual basis is fairly sound (the rich DO pay more taxes than the rest of us), but the facts don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the rich shouldn't pay more than they currently do. That's an ideological leap - one that Democrats have done a miserable job of countering.

W81, I'll pay something like 400k in income taxes this year. Suffice it to say that I don't feel like I'm getting away with something.

"The uber wealthy pay the least percentage of incomes. they may pay more in overall dollars but they pay significantly less percentage than the middle class."

Please explain this statement.

petrfitz: I'm glad you're comfortable with your know-it-all elitism. How comfortable are you with losing another presidential election? Because unless you enjoy the view of the White House from the outside, I suggest that you and your condescending kind keep your attitude in check until after Election Day.

My income is irrelevant. I don't vote based on self-interest - certainly not in presidential elections. If that makes me a dumbass, so be it.

ccdevi: Sorry, by the standards of the current administration, you're only upper middle class. ;o)

ccdevi - what is your total income pre write offs? meaning before it goes into things like trusts, 501K's, charitable vehilces etc?

Also please include any divendends paid.

> nyc10022 you are completely wrong in stating :they pay a larger share of their incomes than any
> other group
> The uber wealthy pay the least percentage of incomes. they may pay more in overall dollars but they
> pay significantly less percentage than the middle class.

My source: Thomas Friedman / NYTimes.

Where are you getting yours from?

Saying "you are completely wrong" doesn't make much of a case.

W81, I get that certain taxes are progressive and certain ones regressive, but the analysis I'm going off includes all taxes. And, the total percentage rises with income...

And, I see your point about misleading... we seem to agree that the rich pay more, it becomes a question of how much more. My personal take, outside of the poorest folks, I don't think progressive taxes are a good thing...

I can't find the friedman graph, but here is a small nugget reporting in the times, from a left wing (they keep saying "right wing") group...

"According to estimates by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group in Washington, a complete accounting shows that the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers earned about 18 percent of all income in 2001 and paid about 25 percent of all federal taxes. "

and perot did a little something a little back..
http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/comparison-of-share-of-income-to-share-of-income-taxes-paid/

West81 already said it...but Petrfitz...this line of yours...

"if americans are dumb enough to vote against their own interests based on lies and the Republicans win the election, it does not mean the Republican policies are best for the country, it just means that the people are stupid and vote against whats best for themselves."

is exactly what I cannot stand about people like you. Guess what...I don't need you to tell me I am too stupid to know what's good for me...and therefore you should determine the outcome of my life. Good grief. And for the millionth time...its not black or white. It's not like the Dems have all the right answers and the Republicans have all the wrong answers. There is believe it or not middle ground to be found in there.

Sizzlack - I am glad that you know how stupid you are. 4 more years! these last 8 have been soo great!

petrfitz, seriously, what is wrong with you?

Is insulting others how you get your jollies? If you were everything you said you were, it would be awful embarrassing to know this is how you spend your day.

See that's your problem. When did I say the last 8 years have been great? Oh yes...once again only in your mind. My not wanting your dumb ass to tell me how to live my life has NOTHING to do with George Bush or anything that has happened in the last 8 years.

I thought you were actually trying to have a legit topic here which is why I posted two relevant articles up top...but once again you show us your depth of knowledge by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% a "dumbass". Very mature of you.

Sizzlack thanks for agreeing with me that you are a dumbass.

Thanks for showing us the best qualities of Democrats.

10022: I don't think it's possible to characterize progressivity as an absolutely good or bad thing. The details matter a lot. I'm a pragmatist; as long as the tax system pays the bills and doesn't gamble too irresponsibly with economic health or social cohesion, I don't get hung up on whether some interest group considers the result "fair."

Unfortunately, most of our tax code gets crafted by lobbyists, often with the goal of obscuring the real intent. So the results tend to be neither fair nor responsible.

I would love to see a tax system that actually charges for "use" of the government. A calculation that analyzed how much of the money government spends goes to benefitting each tax payer.

Whom do you think uses the government more? The Rich or the Poor?

The largest government outlays are social security and medicare. Next up I believe are education and military.

Sounds like you are calling for increased taxes on the poor....

petrfitz, I'm still waiting on your source for this..

"nyc10022 you are completely wrong in stating :they pay a larger share of their incomes than any other group"

I'm assuming that you don't just make facts up to make your case...

only when it is convenient

nyc10022 - i dont need to send you a link. if you are wealthy and are paying a percentage of your income at full burden then you are a moron. Credits, incentives, write offs, etc all favor the wealthy. You can put $15.5K per year away in your 401K tax free if you are wealthy that is more than the entire take home of someone that makes $30K per year.

Dont act like a child you know that the wealthy a person becomes the more shelters, vehicles etc there are the decreases the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes. Actually there are nunerous vehicles that make many forms of "income" non taxable.

If you want to know where the money goes, without a lot of spin, here's the raw data:

http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=894852150479+16+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

There are four huge items:
HHS (mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and some other "entitlements"): $782 bn. gross, $709 bn. net.
SSA (Social Security): $664 bn. gross, $656 bn. net.
DoD (Military): $596 bn. gross, $583 bn. net.
Treasury (mostly debt service): $539 bn. gross, $520 bn. net.

Everything else is basically chump change, though the Department of Agriculture probably deserves a call-out for achieving the least, and doing the most damage to America's global standing, with a hundred billion dollars.

Those figures above are for FY 2008. Education, by the way, is in the chump change category at $68 bn net for FY08, and will drop to $63.5bn in FY09.

"You can put $15.5K per year away in your 401K tax free"

15.5k? really? that is huge, I've got to get on that.

> Dont act like a child you know that the wealthy a person becomes the more shelters, vehicles etc
> there are the decreases the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes. Actually there are
> nunerous vehicles that make many forms of "income" non taxable.

All factored into the Friedman and other analyses.

I guess you aren't one for facts...

Also, you can put a hell of a lot more away in an SEP than an IRA. If you have all the income you claim and you're going 401k, you need to do some more reading...

Also, are you still advocating taxing the poor because they "use" the government more? Don't forget to add in corrections costs...

oh the rich dont accept social security checks? do the poor need the SEC to govern their stock option exercises or the FDIC to guarantee their $100K in each bank account?

I notice that you didnt answer my questions. What is your top line income including dividends and other income that is deemed "non taxable?"

And what did you pay in taxes?

I pay between 17 and 22% when I was poor I paid over 30%

> oh the rich dont accept social security checks?

They can accept them or not, the poor folks would still be paying even more for them under your system.

> do the poor need the SEC to govern their stock option exercises or the FDIC to guarantee
> their $100K in each bank account?

No, they'd need the other services which cost *much* more...

I think you opened your mouth a little too quickly. Taxes are partially wealth transfer. You might not like the amount, but you are absolutely wrong if you think the rich aren't paying more for getting proportionally less. We've already noted the biggest government expenditures to you. Your argument is just wrong.

> I notice that you didnt answer my questions.

And you didn't answer mine, which was what was the source of your "data"? Your point is meaningless without it.

> What is your top line income including dividends and other income that is deemed "non taxable?"

Sorry, I'm not revealing personal info on a message board just because you can't get facts straight.

> And you didn't answer mine, which was what was the source of your "data"? Your point is meaningless
> without it.

(crickets)

Wow, I guess Perfitz had better things to do than support his "facts"... like insulting as many people as he can.

What about a flat tax? Everyone pays the same percentage, no loopholes. Easy, efficient, fair...oh, I forgot, that isn't the American way.

I've seen the surveys before, where everyone likes that idea when you ask the basic question like you just did, but when you actual use the example of our system, they still think the rich should be taxed even more (which is counter to the original assessment).

I like the idea of flat, both for fair and for simplicity (with an allowance for no tax at the very low end), but I think there will always be folks who want the rich to pay more than their proportional share, perfitz included.