“As little as $147,000″?!?

Fuzzy math! Fuzzy math!

“As little as $147,000”?!?

Doesn’t go as far as it used to. Heck, even at $175k, Tom Ridge is finding it hard to pay for college…

Thank you, another lie to put onto our Liar In Thief papers we’re putting together in my group.

It’s unbelievable, what they will do to win.

You’re on a roll, Seb. That’s your second Atrios link in less than 24 hours!

I’m not crying poor, far from it, but the working people at the lower end of this range are doing it day-to-day like most of the rest of the country. Anecdotally speaking (from experience, we’re in that tax bracket) we live like everyone else: somewhat newer subdivsion, not a McMansion, drive two cars, have two kids in day care/soon to be private school before going to kindergarten, have some investments and SPEND A TON OF MONEY every month on basics. It is just that our basics are more than others: digital cable, broadband internet, wireless phones, life/home/auto insurance, mortgage, clothes, food, entertainment.

In short, yes, we in this tax bracket could probably most afford a tax increase. But there are working folks in there too. I’ve come to the conclusion over the past 4 years that there are really two classes in America: the working class and the independent wealthy. Working class folk get up and go to work everyday and without their jobs they would be in deep sh!t. That’s my family. And then there’s the independently wealthy, living off of investments and paying very little tax on dividends and capital gains. That ain’t us. That is Bush’s constituency, however.

Peace,
Pig

Now, hold on a sec…I’m not an accountant (nor very good at basic math) but, if JFK’s proposal is to restore the top two rates to pre-Bush levels, and if the IRS data confirms that “the top two rates apply for incomes above $146,750,” then in fact, the Bush campaign is correct that JFK’s proposal would raise taxes for persons with incomes exceeding $146,000. I’m all for raising taxes on such levels, actually, but I don’t see a lie here.
Am I missing something?

Evidence that this EconoPundit guy is a hack:

http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_08_01_econopundit_archive.html#109171275757693329

Now you know the reason behind the one-handed economists joke.

Who was it that said people that make ~$200k are middle class?

Fuck all those people. Who’s detached from reality? “as little as $147,000.” I’m not even allowed to drive throught the neighborhoods of the poor suckers who ONLY make $147,000.

“As little as…?”

AS LITTLE?

Three words to the Republicans: Pay your fuckin’ taxes.

Actually, you could restore those rates and still come out tax neutral assuming you are lowering rates somehow on lower income earners.

Let’s assume that there are two tax brackets:
$0 – $100,000 is taxed at 10%
$100+ is taxed at 20%

So someone that makes $200,000 would pay $30,000 in taxes. ($10K on the first $100K, $20k on the next). Now lets say a politician says he’s going to raise taxes on those that make over $200K by raising the second tax bracket to 23%. But, at the same time he lowers the first tax bracket to 7%. Now someone that makes $200K is still paying $30K, but someone who only makes less than that ends up paying less, because one rate went up 3% and one went down 3%, but the one that went up is on less income than the one that went down.

Taxes are confusing, and progressive taxation is not only confusing but a very easy target for someone who wants to fudge the numbers by lying. Beware!

Am I missing something?

Yes. It’s called “reading the whole proposal“.

Step 1) Restore the top two (as yet undefined) tax brackets to their Clinton-era rates.

Step 2) Define the top two tax brackets as starting at $200k.

Step 3) Give healthcare to all Americans.

The calculations in the original post are flawed: “Kerry proposes restoring the top 2 rates (33% and 35%) to pre-Bush levels, 36% and 39.6%. The increase in the tax rate would be slightly more than 10%. Doing only back of the envelope calculations, we see that 10% more in taxes paid of $323.6bn is $32bn/year. And how much did Kerry say his proposal would raise? $33.7bn/year.”

If only the top two rates are changed, then only the portion of the taxpayers’ income subject to those higher rates will increase by 10%. Their first $147,000 will still be subject to the lower Bush rates. So the Kerry proposal won’t raise 10% of $323 billion; it’ll raise 10% of the portion of $323 billion that is taxed at the highest two tax rates.

grubi: “Three words to the Republicans: Pay your fuckin’ taxes.”

What, it doesn’t matter if Democrats, notably Kerry and Edwards, weasel out of taxes?

Teresa has her money tied up in trusts and such and almost certainly pays less than 10% of her income in any kind of taxes; and Edwards, who backed the elimination of the ceiling on wages subject to Medicare taxes, turned himself into an S Corporation so his earnings wouldn’t be “wages” and he could weasel out of $500,000 in Medicare taxes.

“Taxes for thee, but not for me,” is the mantra of Kerry and Edwards.

And George W. Bush weaseled out of about $3.3 million in taxes in 1998 by declarine the profit on stock he’d owned for no more than a few minutes as longterm capital gains. Compared to that clear violation (never pursued, of course, by the IRS), incorporating a law firm as an S corporation seems rather, ummm, non-felonious.

Rich people have loopholes. Democrats want to make the tax structure fairer and more equitable and less onerous to those of us who actually work for a living. In contrast, the Bush clan wants to remove taxation from the classes of income that they and their buddies make. So what’s your point?

Am I missing something? – Yes: Kerry says it all the time – “those making over $200K.” Simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

Wow. I think your entire post is wrong.

Taxes are based on a graduated system. Those who income tax in the top two brackets only pay that tax on income earned over the level ofthe bracket, not their entire income.

(ie someone making 150,000 would only pay the higher bracket tax on about $3000)

I am sure you have filled out a tax return before. But your calculations here completely igonre that fact. Are you trying to preach to the ignorant? (like atrios) or did you just honestly not know that fact.

almost certainly pays less than 10% of her income in any kind of taxes

“Almost certainly”. That’s the same as facts, right?

Feh.

turned himself into an S Corporation

I suppose that has nothing to do with having a law office, with a staff and everything. No, lawyers do everything all by their lonesome.

Again, feh. Pay your taxes.

Kerry Tax Plan

Sadly, No attempts to tear into a Bush campaign attack on the Kerry campaign. Now the attack itself is so weak as to be laughable, but SN’s parsing is also problematic. As pointed out in the comments, SN should be…

Grubi: “I suppose that has nothing to do with having a law office, with a staff and everything. No, lawyers do everything all by their lonesome.

Again, feh. Pay your taxes”

It’s one thing to talk about a staff and law office. Those are called expenditures and many are tax deductable. Edwards actually skirted a large part of the taxes he would have had to pay had he not taken advantage of those loopholes. You guys can moan and groan about Bush taking advantage of those loopholes, but it’s not hypocritical for him because he’s not the one running on the promise of closing those loopholes. Kerry/Edwards are, even though they don’t mind using them. Since when did Kerry represent the working man when most of his and his wife’s money was made by someone else. The only true lower and middle class friendly tax system is the one proposed by some Republicans. Switch to a consumption tax and not an income tax. You can b*tch about the “independently wealthy” but they don’t have to pay taxes if they are independently wealthy. You pay taxes on income, not wealth. If you change to consumption tax, everyone must pay, because everyone consumes. But the working class that consumes much less, pays much less in taxes. It is truly a “progressive” tax.

Some of you guys are also ignorant of the fact that there are certain standards of living across the country. $50000 here in AZ is not the same as $50,000 in NY. I have an uncle who works two full time jobs in NY and because of the cost of living and inflated wages paid to New Yorkers, he’s bringing in close to if not over 200K per year. Considering housing is ridiculously expensive and basics food items and other many other “working-class” products cost close to double what they do here in AZ (trust me I check with my cousin all the time) 200K there is much closer to 100K here. That’s still more money than I make, but it doesn’t make you wealthy by many standards.

Since when did Kerry represent the working man when most of his and his wife’s money was made by someone else.

And Budda was born a prince to a wealthy family. What’s your point?

This article doesn’t mention a few additional pieces of Kerry’s tax proposal, like closing loopholes for the ultra-wealthy and for tax dodging corporations like Halliburton. Under Cheney’s tenure, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries in offshore tax havens rose from nine to 44. The tax paid by Halliburton went from US$302 million company taxes paid in 1998 to a US$85 million refund in 1999 (The Guardian, May 14, 2003). This occurred under Clinton’s watch, and Bush’s policies have exacerbated the problem. Fully 60% of US companies pay zero taxes. The single greatest thing Kerry could do to raise tax revenue is reverse this trend.

Edwards actually skirted a large part of the taxes he would have had to pay had he not taken advantage of those loopholes.

And you know this… how? You keep asserting this, but, you’ve offered no proof.

Some of you guys are also ignorant of the fact that there are certain standards of living across the country.

You’d be surprised. Some of us have lived all over the country.

The only true lower and middle class friendly tax system is the one proposed by some Republicans. Switch to a consumption tax and not an income tax.

Uh, not really, no.

how is a consumption tax more friendly to lower and middle classes? Suddenly we have a hugely regressive tax system, with giant percentages of poor people’s wages going to sales taxes or VATs. then suddenly the only way to make the system more equitable is to go back to tax forms, with people sending in hundreds of receipts to try and get a VAT refund or some bullshit. is it economic justice to have someone digging for a freakin’ receipt?
I agree our tax system needs to change, but not to a consumption system. people will not accept a 40% VAT. and if you think rich people are dodging taxes now…holy crap, wait until they can get all the dough out of sight, and spend it where ever they want.

The “consumption tax” is actually one of the most regressive forms of taxation. That is why Republicans love the concept. If anything, an expanded EITC would be far more fair to the working class.

Well, I hear from some Republicans in Congress that $170,000 is “middle class,” so there you go.

Ed

Some of you guys are also ignorant of the fact that there are certain standards of living across the country. $50000 here in AZ is not the same as $50,000 in NY. I have an uncle who works two full time jobs in NY and because of the cost of living and inflated wages paid to New Yorkers, he’s bringing in close to if not over 200K per year. Considering housing is ridiculously expensive and basics food items and other many other “working-class” products cost close to double what they do here in AZ (trust me I check with my cousin all the time) 200K there is much closer to 100K here. That’s still more money than I make, but it doesn’t make you wealthy by many standards.

I’ve got friends living in NYC, raising 2 teenage kids, and I know they make a damned sight less than any $200K a year. And I live and work in the DC area; my wife and I are pulling in about $140K these days. No kids yet, so we’re socking away the dough hand over fist, while living the upper middle class lifestyle. Kids, when they come, will make a difference, but since public schools will more than suffice, it’s not gonna be a problem.

So I’m not gonna cry a river for people scraping by on $200K. I’ve known all sorts of people who are raising kids on $30K a year or less. The cost of living may be cheaper where they’re at, but not by that much.

“…200K there is much closer to 100K here. That’s still more money than I make, but it doesn’t make you wealthy by many standards.”
-Robert

Are you really saying that $100k/yr isn’t very much money? Yeah, cost of living is lower here than a lot of places, but gimme a damn break. I sometimes fucking wish I could afford to eat, pay bills, and buy new clothes – all in the same year. Unfortunately I can only choose 2 of those options. I have nothing against anyone making a ton of money (in which i would include $100k/yr), but they won’t ever get my pity.

And no, I’m not exaggerating.

So I’m not gonna cry a river for people scraping by on $200K. I’ve known all sorts of people who are raising kids on $30K a year or less. The cost of living may be cheaper where they’re at, but not by that much.

Just in case anyone’s wondering, the 2002 average household income for families of four was $76,905, according to the Census Bureau. Median was $62,467. For all households regardless of size, the respective figures are $57,852 and $42,409.

SW

Since when did Kerry represent the working man when most of his and his wife’s money was made by someone else.

Oh I see, so it’s the people who earn money, not just inherit it that the Republicans consider deserving of tax relief? I fully agree, the inheritance tax should be given more weight in our progressive tax structure.

But as Barack Obama said to Alan Keyes, perhaps you “should look to members of [your] own party to see if that?s appropriate if [you’re] going to use that kind of language.?

;~)

“‘Taxes for thee, but not for me,’ is the mantra of Kerry and Edwards.”

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

“Taxes on labor, but not on wealth” is the mantra of Bush & Cheney.

Remember, Bush was BORN wealthy and stays wealthy despite running several businesses into the ground, thanks to “friends.” He thinks the tax burden of this country should be put on the backs of people who earn wages so it can be taken off those who clip coupons.

Since when did Dubya represent the working man when most of his and his wife’s money was made by someone else.

http://coprolalia.org/archives/000225.php

Sadly, No! catches Bush’s website in a bald-faced lie about the Kerry/Edwards tax plan. Lying is wrong….

Outlook Fuzzy

jeez, I’m only about 100k a year away from that bracket, and i’m doin’ fine.

tax the rich, but especially, tax their stuff. Make their HUMMER and their MB Kompressor and their granite countertops be real status symbols, and tax them up the whazoo for the sheer gluttonous overconsumption of it. Use that tax money to pay for education and health care.

AKDave sez: and Edwards, who backed the elimination of the ceiling on wages subject to Medicare taxes

You’re a bit mixed up. There is no ceiling on Medicare taxes, which are 2.9% of all income, with no deductions. (Employees of companies see 1.45% taken out of their paychecks, while their employers pay an addditional matching 1.45% which never appears in the employee’s gross income at all. The self-employed pay the full 2.9% up front.) There is a ceiling on Social Security taxes which changes from year to year with inflation, and last year was about $89,000. Again, on his paycheck the employee sees 6.2%, with no deductions, extracted from his “gross” for FICA, but the employer matches that 6.2%. And it was Kucinich who wanted to eliminate the FICA cap altogether; Dean first and then later Edwards only proposed raising it somewhat.

Kerry/Edwards are (running “on the promise of closing those loopholes”), even though they don’t mind using them.

Well of course not. No one deliberately pays more taxes than they are assessed. (OK there were those one or two weirdos you read about in the “News of the Weird” column in your local paper a few years back.)

Since when did Kerry represent the working man…

What do you mean “represent”? When you talk about a Congressman “representing” some his constituents, you obviously don’t mean that if he’s elected from a car manufacturing district he dresses up like a factory worker and takes a place on an assembly line. You mean that he proposes or votes on legislation in such a way as to benefit his constituents – both in the “goodies for my district” sense and in the “continuing strength of the whole nation is best for my hometown voters” sense.

Make the comparison. Imagine you have two politicians who are rather wealthy – nothing new there, not for either party, right? Now though our first wealthy Congressmman he pays taxes at the going rates, using the existing legal “loopholes,” he – but wait.

“Loopholes” – now that’s a term which begs the question, isn’t it? When I do my taxes, there are slots on the form where I can claim my children as dependents, deduct this and that from my taxable income and so on. I take advantage of all of them for which I’m entitled, just like you do, and when I do I don’t call them “loopholes,” as though I’m getting away with something sneaky and underhanded, I call them “deductions,” and so do you. And if you consider the deductions legally offered to weathier taxpayers unjust, the solution is to change the tax laws toward more fairness toward the lower-income groups, which is precisely what Kerry and Edwards propose.

OK, let’s get back to our Politician “A,” who’s got a big income and pays taxes, just like everybody else, at the current rates. His constituents aren’t wealthy like he is. Despite the fact that he will be increasing his own taxes, he votes for a tax increase for the higher brackets, both to please his working-class constituents and in the long-term interest of the nation. Now compare this with Politician “B,” who is also wealthy, elected by voters who are also middle-class. He votes for tax bill after tax bill that will bring both him and his wealthy campaign contributers huge paybacks, meanwhile slashing programs which benefit his less-than-rich constituents, and at the same time plunging the nation as a whole into trillions of dollars of debt.

Now. Which politician do you think does a better job of “representing the working class”?

First of all, I see nothing wrong with Kerry and Edwards taking every fully legal loophole available to them to pay fewer taxes. I’d much rather have their societal contributions as public servants than as a few more bucks thrown into the deficit hole. No need for anyone to be a financial martyr. Remember that both of them face competition (political and, in Edwards’ case, competition from other law firms); it would be plain silly for them to pay more in taxes than they had to while their competition did not.

You do realize, however, that if they put their tax proposals through, they would affect their own tax status as well, right? Yeah, I’m sure Teresa isn’t paying 40% tax on her investment income; but if loopholes are closed and upper-class tax rates go up, do you really think she’ll be paying *less*?

Contrast this with the Bush tax cuts, which saved Mr Cheney six figures per year in taxes. The amount Cheney saved in taxes each of the past years because of Bush’s tax would, if called income instead of tax reduction, in and of itself put him into the top 20% of income earners.

After four years of a couple of rich guys playing “lets see how much I can lower *MY* taxes” I’d gladly go for four of a couple other rich guys playing “let’s see how much I can raise my taxes and keep yours low”.

I sometimes fucking wish I could afford to eat, pay bills, and buy new clothes – all in the same year. Unfortunately I can only choose 2 of those options. I have nothing against anyone making a ton of money (in which i would include $100k/yr), but they won’t ever get my pity.

Posted by Yosef at August 13, 2004 07:33 PM

Poor Yosef made clear over at World O’Crap (see his comment reproduced below) why he’s so impoverished — all those guns and ammo are expensive!

Terry- Personally I want to thank you for all the wonderful points you’ve brought up. I agree with you wholeheartedly, unlike all these dung-faced idiots at World O’Crap.
Look, I’ve been think about grabbing my guns and buying a bunch more ammo (I’ve already got a lot, but you just can’t have too much,) and then trying to promote the rising up of the righteous people over the same type of immorals that we’ve got to put up with on this site. You want in? We can go around, righteously shooting the non-believers, including the national leaders (whether they be politicians, fake christians civic leaders, or even teachers), get rid of the government, and then we can all go home and spend the rest of our days praising the lord for blessing us with the opportunity to do great works. We can beat the bayonets into plowshares, but don’t mess with our guns.

What do you think? Sound like a good plan?

Yosef ? 8/14/04; 4:46:20 PM #

Rich Americans all get their money from the same basic source: dividends on corporate stocks.

Corporations are given, under the law, all of the constitutional rights inherent to a human citizen, yet are not held liable under the laws the way human citizens are.

Any CEO who protects the lives of the innocent, if in doing so he will cost the shareholders more money, is actually *breaking* the law, as it applies to an LLC. The only rule he must follow without fail is “improve shareholders’ profit.”

That’s the real injustice. Unliving, uncaring persons-on-paper-only – without conscious, remorse or compassion – are in almost complete control of our lives.

It isn’t a secret, and hasn’t been a secret for thousands of years, what causes our problems.
“Love of money is the root of all evil.”

-Forest

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -Benito Mussollini

ps: If it matters, I survive in San Francisco – which is a very expensive city – on aproximately $18k a year, and without govt assistance.

Thanks Fred. Don’t be a dick, dude. I was serious here and just fucking with that psycho over at WoC.

>>Three words to the Republicans:
>>Pay your fuckin’ taxes.

3??? It’s no wonder there are so many problems for you guys to calculate the taxes with the different rate changes. It’s seems impossible to count words in a sentence.