Which one would tax you more?

[Pangloss]

Last week bascule posted an interesting chart showing the two tax plans from McCain and Obama. Well someone put together a little Web app that allows you to input your marital status, number of dependents and income level and see which one would tax you more.

 

http://obamataxcut.com/

 

This is the chart they used, which Bascule posted earlier:

 

 

(Edit: Found bascule's original thread on this, and linked it above.)

Edited August 28, 2008 by Pangloss

[CPL.Luke]

anybody know what the top marginal rate was under reagan? under ford? under eisenhower?

[CaptainPanic]

McCain plans to cut tax for everyone???

That's gonna make him popular with the stupid people...

 

Good thing that American expenses have gone through the roof, and the economy down the drain. The deficit is at a record. And those idiot republicans are planning to cut taxes even more. Mouhaha... Is that graph serious, or is that democrat propaganda?

 

I think Americans already pay ridiculously little tax (and you get ridiculously little in return as well). My top tax level (for the last euro I earn) is 50%! And I don't mind paying it.

[ydoaPs]

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

[insane_alien]

obamas definitely seems to make more sense.

 

how does mccain plan to support the US if he's taking $1,195 per person out of the budget? aren't you guys in enough debt already?

[Sayonara]

McCain's looks like the approach of a simpleton who has never played with an economy before. Surely his people must be more savvy than that?

 

I don't think cutting tax for everyone is going to fool a lot of people when you have the working man getting a 0.2% cut and the rich minority getting more than 20 times that off their tax bill.

[insane_alien]

especially seeing as the majority of the voters are those in the lower tax brackets.

 

perhaps mccain believes in the money fairy? either that or he's going to continue running the US economy into the ground.

 

and if he is cutting that much tax, whats he cutting spending on? if its the war in iraq then i can see how such cuts could be viable but it think it will be stuff like eductaion and so on that will bear the brunt of it.

[iNow]

I'm tired of all you limey saxon redcoats repeating all of the partisan tripe you surely just read from MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post here on these boards. Can't we keep this civil and focus on the facts instead of slamming him just because he's a rich white conservative republican, you bunch of poms?

 

 

[ecoli]

Isn't assuming that increasing taxes increases revenue simplifying the issue?

 

If McCain can increase revenue into the economy by decreasing taxes across the board, that will be good for the government. It means more sales tax, etc.

[iNow]

You assume that the people benefiting the most from the cuts will spend that money purely as consumers. I highly doubt that is realistic.

[Skye]

The key is whether doing that increases revenue to the extent that it makes up for the reduced share of all revenue. So if an income tax cut returns $50 per week to a household, and that household returns it to the general economy and pays a sales tax of 10%, then $5 goes to the government, rather than $50. That's not a bad thing necessarily, the government shouldn't be trying to constantly increase its share of the economy, and tax cuts can aid the economy generally. But while tax cuts may help the economy, it takes some fairly interesting economic reasoning that it helps the governments tax revenue. There has to be a huge growth in economic activity, which occurs over a period of time, to make up for it. In the meantime the government has to live off reduced revenue.

[bascule]

how does mccain plan to support the US if he's taking $1,195 per person out of the budget? aren't you guys in enough debt already?

 

We're up to our eyeballs in debt (currently $9.64 TRILLION), but our last three Republican presidents didn't seem to care and pursued rampant deficit spending. I don't suspect McCain will be different.

[Sisyphus]

You assume that the people benefiting the most from the cuts will spend that money purely as consumers. I highly doubt that is realistic.

 

It also assumes money spent by the government has no effect on the economy.

[john5746]

Damn, Obama is going to tax me more than McCain!

 

I wish I could say that.

[Pangloss]

We're up to our eyeballs in debt (currently $9.64 TRILLION), but our last three Republican presidents didn't seem to care and pursued rampant deficit spending. I don't suspect McCain will be different.

 

Actually it's well over ten trillion now (see earlier thread here), but hey, what's half a trillion dollars between friends. (grin)

 

But of course the last couple trillion came didn't seem to meet with a whole lot of objection from the other side of the aisle. The real question is whether Obama will be able to stop profligate spending within his own party, since that's who will be in control. But perhaps Dems will find a way to continue to blame the whole problem on Repoobies. After all, they were in charge for 8 years, and it takes a while to turn things around, ya know! Never mind the fact that a new budget comes out each and every year. Pay no attention to the partisan-attack-dogs-posing-as-objective-economists behind the curtain!

 

Don't think I won't be looking at those debt numbers a year from now.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Pangloss

[CDarwin]

There's some weird stuff on that program. Apparently you'll get a $2,776 tax cut if you're single with no dependants and make $200,000 a year but "will probably not get an Obama taxcut" if you make $100,000 - $125,000. Not horribly progressive. I don't think many people are single and make that much money, though.

[Phi for All]

There's some weird stuff on that program. Apparently you'll get a $2,776 tax cut if you're single with no dependants and make $200,000 a year but "will probably not get an Obama taxcut" if you make $100,000 - $125,000. Not horribly progressive. I don't think many people are single and make that much money, though.

It can be argued that people who are single (and many intend to stay that way) don't have as much need for funding a child's education through public schools, or for dependent social services, so their tax burden should be less.

 

It can also be argued that education and social services benefit everyone (we all appreciate it when the people we deal with in the marketplace are educated enough to give correct change, or can read the writing on the warehouse carton) and should be taxed across the board. I'd rather pay taxes for programs that work as opposed to taxes for subsidies on products I use very little of (coal and sugar come to mind).

 

Besides, the whole US tax system is weird. Where else besides Internal Revenue can you get 30 different correct answers to the same math problem?

[CPL.Luke]

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121945355282265621.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_left&page=2

 

great article on how you are always going to be taxed by the government, and there will never be a real tax cut without a spending reduction. Its just that it infects various locations of the economy more than others.

 

Fr instance if th governemtn cuts taxes but borrows money to pay for everything in an honest borrow (ie from some random bank) than people with money benefit as they get to lend at higher interest rates as the demand for money increases (and is an effective tax on borrowing). If the government borrows money in a way which creates the money, then they are taxing your wealth as inflation robs you of it.

 

or because the tax code iso monstrous any tax decrease will likely absorbed by a tax increase elsewhere

[CaptainPanic]

I find it very funny that in the Netherlands, there exists a political party which is closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats. It favors tax cuts, and is generally considered an employers' party rather than an employees' party.

 

The huge difference is that their primary target seems to be healthy government finances. In the Netherlands, the socialists are being blamed for spending too much. In the US, I read (and I agree) that the republicans are spending too much.

[waitforufo]

I'm curious if anyone besides me feels that every able bodied adult should have to pay at least some minimum federal tax regardless of income. Let's say we set the minimum federal income tax at $10. Too high, how about $1.

[CDarwin]

I'm curious if anyone besides me feels that every able bodied adult should have to pay at least some minimum federal tax regardless of income. Let's say we set the minimum federal income tax at $10. Too high, how about $1.

 

I think you would probably spend more money trying to collect that tax than it would be worth.

[waitforufo]

I think you would probably spend more money trying to collect that tax than it would be worth.

 

Only if you tried to aggressively inforce it criminally. I'm thinking of it more as a civics lesson. People often talk about how everyone should vote and how poor voter registration and voter turn out are. Going throug the process of paying taxes would make everone more engaged with the government.

[iNow]

So would compulsory voting and fines for people who failed to vote.

[ParanoiA]

Only if you tried to aggressively inforce it criminally. I'm thinking of it more as a civics lesson. People often talk about how everyone should vote and how poor voter registration and voter turn out are. Going throug the process of paying taxes would make everone more engaged with the government.

 

I like your line of thinking here because you used the phrase "engaged with the government". That's more like it. Engage in the process. The most dangerous person is the one who votes out of ignorance. Stop these people wherever you find them. Persuade them to read and participate in the process, and if that fails, persuade them not to vote. No middle ground there.

 

NASA doesn't hear my opinion on time dilation issues because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I shouldn't suffer some fool's opinion because he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

 

Rush made a point years ago that sticks with me to this day. If you actually received your full paycheck and had to turn around and write the check, or pull out the cash, and pay your taxes for that pay period you would see a huge outcry by the public calling bullshit on their government and would get more involved, pay more attention.

 

The psychological conditioning associated with your taxes already being stripped away by the time you receive your check is key to keeping the people from realizing just how much they're being screwed.

[iNow]

Rush made a point years ago that sticks with me to this day. If you actually received your full paycheck and had to turn around and write the check, or pull out the cash, and pay your taxes for that pay period you would see a huge outcry by the public calling bullshit on their government and would get more involved, pay more attention.

 

This is an excellent observation. I truly dislike that man and much of what he does, but that doesn't negate the validity of this comment.