What they'll do to your tax bill (McCain Vs. Obama)Estimated deductions on income lvl

now, which income bracket do you fall into?

this plan is cool by me, because i'm part of the 95% of americans that don't make over $250k.

besides, the rich have higher propensity to save as income goes up. they wouldn't be circulating extra cash into the most highly-tracked goods of the economy.

 

They just don't get it. McCain is a self proclaimed economic dullard and Obama thinks we can pay for national healthcare by pulling out of Iraq even though Iraq "only" costs $100 billion a year (that's close to the numbers I have seen please correct me if anyone has seen better numbers because that dollar amount seems cheap to me). I'm resigned to the fact that our nation is screwed because we have utterly incompetent leadership. National debt? Medicare? Social Security? The Dollar? Deficit Spending? (edit...i forgot about this gold nugget) Corn ethanol subsidies? Meh....It's not completely killing us now so who the **** cares?

 

I'm right there with you.

 

On one hand, either tax plan is about the same for me, personally, so I wouldn't care since I don't fit into those brackets (yet).

On the other hand, do I want a tax plan that de-incentivizes success and high performance? That would really hurt some successful small businesses that make a lot of income, but the owners aren't rich yet. Make sense? If I make $650,000 a year, but don't have any money yet, paying $100,000 in taxes really hurts. If I make $650,000 in a year but have $20 million in the bank, it doesn't hurt as much.

 

Dude, if you make 650k and you only pay 100k in taxes that is a dramatic improvement over where we are today. Much less where we will be in 2 years after Obama implements it.

 

yeah, i refused that $650K a year job for tax purposes. no it doesn't make sense. is it fair, that's another topic, but to suggest that people won't strive because of taxes is just not logical on so many levels

 

But its $100,000 MORE than you pay today. Not a flat $100,000. So it'll be your current income after taxes today, minus $100,000.

If you make $650,000 today, you'll pay about $200,000 in taxes. Under Obama, you'd pay $300,000.

 

Tell people live in NYC, Boston, SF that 250k a year is now considered wealthy and should have their income tax raised.

Of course that's on top of the capital gain and dividend tax Obama is going to jack up, oh don't forget the uncapping of social security tax.

Yup, I am going to get screwed by Obama, along with many other hard working Americans.

 

agree. i read your post as $100k total, not incremental.

there's no doubt it sucks. and is likely unfair. but since the percentage of those people who earn that kind of money without tremendous wealth is small, they are ignored in the democratic tax policies.

the only question that makes a difference is how will those incremental taxes impact spending? for me, it will mostly reduce spending, not savings.

 

Tax cuts for the rich? More like tax cuts for everyone. Since when did 66K = rich?

Of course the rich are getting more of a dollar benefit. It only makes logical sense that if you're giving them a break it's going to be more of a dollar benefit than the cuts to those who (a) make less; and (b) already pay little in taxes.



As you can see, the only real difference is for those making less than 66K a year (not 250K). Even then, most of these people are paying far less in taxes (percentage wise) than those who make more.

 

No the richest of the rich would see a pretty big difference in the McCain and Obama bill. Also under Obama's bill 66k a year would receive a bigger break than under McCain's.

 

True the upper levels do see a big difference. However that's due more to Obama's increase (of more than half a million dollars in some instances) than a McCain decrease. The only reason those numbers are so high is because those taxpayers already pay a disgusting amount of money in taxes.

Furthermore, the difference at the 66K level is minimal (approx 200). So I don't see how anyone can say McCain is any less favorable to the middle class than Obama. They might say that about the lower class but those earners already pay very little in taxes anyway.

 

maybe for the middle class, $200 in savings plus knowing lower class saving since they need more help and richer class appropriately getting taxed more can be assuring..

 

A TAX PARABLE From reader "Z":

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men --- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

Considering you don't make that much, I doubt it, deepblue buffet.

 

What are you saying here? I'm not sure.

Also, why is it appropriate that the rich get taxed more? Just because they have more? That makes no logical sense.

I never understood the notion that because someone has something better they owe something to someone who doesn't have it. Should a student with an "A" in a class be forced to share part of his grade with a failing student so they both have a "C" in the class? After all it's obvious the failing student needs help right?

 

And for those who wish to see how this old e-mail chestnut got started, the explanation is here:
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp