That makes sense. One thing I'm optimistic about is that it seems that in order to pay for a lot of the new programs (like the health care reform) this administration is actually looking to cut other wasteful spending. I don't think that's something that many democratic leaders would follow through with. I make a decent living but will still get a tax break under this plan. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'm actually looking forward to getting more money in my paycheck.
Obama's tax plan gives me a tax break. I like it. I also like that some of the loopholes that enabled the wealthy to avoid taxes have been closed. The plan makes sense to me.
My impression is that, for example, right now if you're in the 35% tax bracket and you have a $1 deduction, you end up saving $0.35 in taxes because it comes off the top of your AGI. It seems like the income that would be deducted instead would be the income in the 28% tax bracket, so that $1 deduction would save $0.28, though I'm not exactly sure.
We shall see if that holds true as this Omnibus (am I even spelling that right) plan goes through or if Obama steps up and rejects the some 8000 earmarks. Which by the way is pretty much bipartisan. Both sides need to step up and cut this wastefull spending. Unfortunately, I don't think I will even notice a change in my paycheck.
I got back a few hundred bucks when I was an undergrad just because I filed a return. I had no income one year. The other year I made like 4K or something and got back 300 more than what I paid in.
dude rules may have changed recently, i don't recall, but from my understanding you can't even get EITC unless you're 25.
By Omnibus I assume you mean the stimulus plan? The interesting thing about that is that Obama and others said that you don't raise taxes when you need to stimulate the economy, which is why it included tax cuts but no tax increases to pay for it. So since this budget is for the next fiscal year, I guess they are thinking that the economy will recover enough by then to handle the tax increase. Maybe the increases are being phased in, I haven't seen one way or the other, but I'm curious whether he'll postpone the tax increases if the economy is not recovered enough yet by the time they are set to go into effect.
yeah it might not have been EITC, but handing out cash in the disguise as a tax refund is dumb. I didn't need that cash. If welfare and food stamps and increases for people with dependants need to be increased do it. Just make it easier for people to understand what you are doing by calling it what it is. I am all for bringing back the Clinton on the upper class though.
That's really a hidden 7% tax increase, when the top % gets bumped to 39.5%, it would amount to a 12% increase in taxes. This WILL hurt the charities that's for damn sure. But I guess who needs them when Obama will take care all your problems.
are you familiar with math? how is it a 12% increase if you will only be able to deduct certain things 28% instead of 39.5%. think about it for a second. unless you're deducting EVERYTHING you're not able to get a 12% total tax increase are you? and obviously if you deducted everything you weren't paying anything and going from 0 to anything is way more than 12%.
Did I say 12% TOTAL tax? its 12% on the money you give to charities, that's 12% extra cost for people who donate, which means charities will get less if everything else stay the same.
Geez you would figure as the revenue taken from charity donations would be small compared to the whole deal that this could et worked out easily.
ok so you meant 12% increase in certain taxes, e.g. for speculation charitable contributions. that's really what you meant right? so when a upper middle class person (making 160k) donates 10k to charity, she gets a 2800 savings in the amount of taxes she pays. she effectively is giving 7200 and the government is giving 2800. yet when someone making a million gives that 10k, they would only be paying 6150, and the government would be paying 3950. effectively we are charities rich people like at the expense of the not so rich people like. of course when a person making 40k donates 5k, (which is a lot more as a percentage of their income by the way than either the really rich person, or the kind of rich person) that person will probably not itemize and thus he will effectively pay 5k, while making 40k, while the person making a million bucks is paying 6050. not only am i not a big fan of charitable deductions, but the fact is that charitable deductions are incredibly regressive, and this tax change will go a bit in addressing that.
People who cheer for a tax increase just means it's not their money that's affected. Chances are they're drinking the water that someone else fetched.
The reason the person making a million buck is paying 6050 is because he is paying 39.5% between 350k to 1,000,000. That's 650k of income taxed at 39.5%, that's the cost of get a "break" on the charity donations. Deductions are not really regressive, you get a little more deduction because you paid a lot more into it.
Ahh, that one. Considering it's just a normal spending plan for the rest of the year and not much more than normal I doubt there would be any additional taxes for it. Either way I'm assuming that the 2010 budget plan takes that into account. And while I'm not really a fan of earmarks in general, I'm not that concerned with something that is less than 2% of the overall spending bill.
This normal spending bill I think has more than 2% in earmarks doesn't it? In reality I don't care what %, to me it is still wastefull spending and as Obama said, we ALL need to tighten our belts. Or does that not apply to the government?
Does this apply in reverse? People who cheer for a tax decrease just means their money is what's affected?
