Who Are “The Rich” Whose Taxes Will Be Raised?
According to the current version of Barack Obama’s tax plan (the one displayed at his site today),
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
I’ve heard that “95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut” and that “only 5% of taxpayers will see their taxes increase.” But the top 5% of taxpayers don’t make $250,000 or more. They make $153,543 or more. You don’t have to be an evil corporate CEO to make $153,543. If your two-earner family consists of, say, a manager and a professional, you can make $150k. Or a nurse and a railroad dispatcher. Or a car salesman and a court reporter. Or…well, you get the idea.
This discrepancy between $250,000 and top 5% comes into play because of recent statements by both Obama and running mate Joe Biden, lowering the $250,000 figure first to $200,000 then to $150,000. So, which is it? $250,000? $200,000? $150,000?
This, of course, is important since we’ve been told over and over that Teh One was going to give all us middle class folks (because there are no poor folks; just rich and middle class ones) tax cuts and money, money, money. But as Dana has pointed out, Obama is lying about lowering taxes. The attempted sleight of hand here is just more evidence of it.
UPDATE: If you need more proof why Obama is lying when his lips move, here it is. Of course, Pho will argue that these people are “morons,” too, because they let facts get in the way of Teh One’s ascendency.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
“Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
I’ve heard that “95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut” and that “only 5% of taxpayers will see their taxes increase.” But the top 5% of taxpayers don’t make $250,000 or more. They make $153,543 or more. You don’t have to be an evil corporate CEO to make $153,543. If your two-earner family consists of, say, a manager and a professional, you can make $150k. Or a nurse and a railroad dispatcher. Or a car salesman and a court reporter. Or…well, you get the idea.
Yes, we do get the idea.
You’re so incredibly stupid that you don’t know that 1 is not the same as 2 and think that “taxpayer” is the same as “two income household”.
Thank you for playing. We have a nice board game as a take-home gift.
30 October 2008, 2:27 amRovin:
Check in the mirror if you really care to see who the idiot is. Sharon’s attempting to explain what income groups are going to get hosed by your Messiah, but you just don’t seem to grasp the concept here.
By the way, our liberal friends may want to check out Rasmussen’s poll that will come out today showing more people trust McCain on the economic issues than Obama. This will be a huge shift from just a month ago. I guess folks are too excited about Obama’s “spread the wealth” socialist agenda?
Special thanks again to Joe the Plumber!
30 October 2008, 5:24 amRovin:
correction:
I guess folks
areare not too excited about Obama’s “spread the wealth” socialist agenda?Barack Obama—–”The Once”
30 October 2008, 5:33 amDana Pico:
Phoenician: In the United States, taxpayers can be either singles or married couples; a “taxpayer” is, in effect, the person or family which files the Form 1040. Sharon is perfectly correct in using different terms here, because as far as the federal government is concerned, the taxpayer is the family unit, regardless of number of people in that unit.
30 October 2008, 6:20 amYorkshire:
Listen to the The One, BO, I’ve heard 95% of the people, the taxpayers, working families, working people and about 3 other variations of who will get a tax cut. Each individual group is a different percentage of the population. If it’s 95% of the people, it’s then 95% of 300,000,000. If it’s 95% of the taxpayers, then it’s about 120,000,000. Either way it’s phrased, it’s a moving target.
30 October 2008, 7:32 amSharon:
You’re so incredibly stupid that you don’t know that 1 is not the same as 2 and think that “taxpayer” is the same as “two income household”.
How many tax returns have you filed in the U.S., Pho? I’ve filed a tax return every year since 1980. Sometimes, I’ve filed as a single taxpayer, sometimes as a joint taxpayer. I feel fairly confident that I know wtf I’m talking about and you don’t.
Barack Obama is talking about households making $150k, $200k, $250k. Of course, an individual can be a household, but in that case, the income level is lower.
30 October 2008, 8:29 amow, Pho, you can admit that you are the idiot.
Bitter Scribe:
So…Obama is going to raise the taxes of people whose taxes he has said repeatedly he won’t raise, because he’s a Democrat and Democrats are all liars and nanny nanny boo boo, you have cooties? Have I grasped your argument?
30 October 2008, 12:54 pmYorkshire:
You have ears and hear not. BO has said over and over he plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire to back to the prosperity of the Clinton year rates. Use this and see all taxes go UP!
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
30 October 2008, 12:59 pmDana Pico:
Mr Scribe wrote:
So, what kind of friendly wager would you like to put on this one? I’m saying that Mr Obama, if he is elected, will not try to cut income taxes for anyone in the middle class; I’ll concede the possibility he might try his giveaways for the poor.
I happen to believe his actions, actions which included voting for increases starting with the 25% bracket: $31,850 of taxable income for singles, and $62,700 for married couples, are far more indicative of his plans than his words.
30 October 2008, 2:42 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Phoenician: In the United States, taxpayers can be either singles or married couples; a “taxpayer” is, in effect, the person or family which files the Form 1040
That may well be, but go back and read Sharon’s stupidity again. Her entire rant is predicated on “a two-earner family“.
30 October 2008, 2:53 pmJoe Shallenberger:
I read Sharon’s ‘rant’ four times. It appears at worst she only provided some two-earner hypotheticals vice both single and two-earner examples. Content-wise, the substance presented was well within the boundaries of comprehension.
It’s quite possible a case for misunderstanding might be made for someone who’s boundaries don’t genetically extend to the necessary level.
30 October 2008, 3:14 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
I read Sharon’s ‘rant’ four times. It appears at worst she only provided some two-earner hypotheticals vice both single and two-earner examples. Content-wise, the substance presented was well within the boundaries of comprehension.
I can see that ignorance is rife. Allow me to demonstrate the problem. I’ll work with averages rather than spreads for simplicity, but the idea is the same.
Consider three households, six people, all working. Assume that they *all* get $125,000. Two of those couples file as individuals, one files together as a “taxpayer” (although God knows why).
Let us imagine a political candidate called, oh, Barack Obama, coming by and mentioning “the average income for these households is $250,000″. he would, of course, be quite correct.
Now, let us imagine a mouth-breathing moron called, oh, Sharon, and ranting “the average for the taxpayers is $150,000. Barack is lying !!EleventyOne!”
Further, imagine said mouth-breathing moron, Sharon, compounding her error by then ranting about how two people can easily earn $150,000 together. Possibly true, but completely irrelevant.
Now imagine another mouth-breathing moron called, oh, Joe coming along and saying “I don’t get it.”
Does that help, or would you like diagrams?
30 October 2008, 4:32 pmDana Pico:
You’d better try diagrams, Phoe, ’cause what you wrote makes no sense.
Let me simplify things for you: from Barack Obama’s own website, we see that he plans to increase the top two brackets. (This is a .pdf file, and you can find the citation under “Ordinary Income,” hafway down page five.) I’m sure that you’ll accept Mr Obama’s own word concerning what his plan says, right?
However, the current 33% bracket (next to the top) doesn’t begin at $250,000; but at $164,551 for singles and $200,301 for married couples filing jointly. Mr Obama’s site says that he would return the 1990s level phase-outs for personal exemptions, but that he would make adjustments to help singles earning less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000, so that the phase-out changes wouldn’t effect them, but the increased rates still would.
From Mr Obama’s own website, we can see that the $250,000 “threshold” is bogus; he isn’t even truthful in his speeches compared to what is on his own site!
Of course, I just don’t believe him in the first place. It isn’t that I think he will stretch downward the $250,000 figure — which is already being done — but that I don’t think he plans any tax cuts at all; he’s just saying so to lull the middle class into thinking that it’s safe for their finances to vote for him. He learned from the experiences of two past Democratic presidential candidates: one (Walter Mondale) told the truth about what he wanted to do, and lost 49 states, while the other (Bill Clinton) lied through his teeth about a middle-class tax cut, and won.
Rather, if he is elected, Mr Obama and the Democrats will simply let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, and get a big tax increase on everybody, without the pain of actually having to vote for it.
Well, you know what? I’m fine with that! I concluded, long ago, that my taxes were going to be raised, and raised a lot. But if the Democrats simply do nothing, then taxes will be increased on the poor as well, and the poor will have to pay more of their fair share.
30 October 2008, 6:21 pmArt Downs:
I wonder who the advocates for higher marginal tax rates may be?
Are they they hyper-wealthy with inherited fortunes that are hid away in off-shore tax shelters?
Are some the losers of society who would rather leech off the their economic betters?
The most stupid of the lot rail about ‘corporate profits’. They are so caught up in the politics of envy that they do not realize that taxes on corporations accomplish a number of things, most of which assure negative consequences.
There can be less money for capital improvements and research and development and the hiring of personnel. Prices of the products or services can be increased and the extra burden passed on to the customers. What else happens to profits? Those that are paid out as dividends to individuals will be taxed as income. Some dividends may go to ‘institututions’ that pay out money to pension recipients. A small percentage will go to executive compensation.
What nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity?
What was the net result of the ‘Luxury Tax’ that the first President Bush was suckered into supporting by Democrats? Did it bring a lot of revenue into the treasury or did it simply kill jobs?
Where have socialists ever created a paradise?
30 October 2008, 6:30 pmSharon:
So…Obama is going to raise the taxes of people whose taxes he has said repeatedly he won’t raise, because he’s a Democrat and Democrats are all liars and nanny nanny boo boo, you have cooties? Have I grasped your argument?
BS, Barack Obama is going to raise taxes on people he promised not to because he has to say he’ll that for them to vote for him. He’s counting on the gullibility of the American people. He’s also a lawyer, so, I expect a lawyerly argument to try to explain away his lies.
Pho, you are not only a moron but a rude moron, as well.
What part of “no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. do you not understand?
Couples in the U.S. almost never file separately because tax laws discourage it and it is more complicated. Of course, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will include reintroducing the marriage penalty (underwhich people pay more in taxes for filing jointly rather than as single payers), but most people still file jointly.
But Obama is counting on useful idiots such as yourself, Pho. That way he can flip between $250k, $200k, and $150k without anyone noticing.
30 October 2008, 6:52 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Let me simplify things for you: from Barack Obama’s own website
Irrelevant. I have no idea whether the numbers are accurate or not.
My point is simply that Sharon is functionally illiterate.
More evidence of stupidity:
But Obama is counting on useful idiots such as yourself, Pho.
I strongly suspect Obama is not courting my vote at all.
30 October 2008, 10:34 pmSharon:
So, what you’re saying is that you are just a jerk trying to call me an idiot for showing that Obama’s numbers don’t add up? And that it is “irrelevant” if we show you are being an ass? Well, that makes sense, given your other comments.
BTW, Pho, I didn’t say Obama was counting on your vote. You’re a useful idiot regardless of your ability to vote in this country.
30 October 2008, 10:39 pmYorkshire:
Gov. Richardson lowered the Muddled Class to $120K today. BO is probably thanking Bill and Joe for their support. Maybe tomorrow it will get to $100K, or maybe $80K.
31 October 2008, 8:41 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Archives » Who Are “The Rich” Whose Taxes Will Be Raised? Part II:
[...] As I said before, Barack Obama’s “rich”–the ones whose taxes will be increased–is a moving target, from $250,000 to $150,000. Now, Bill Richardson says “the rich” start at $120,000. “What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those,” Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube. [...]
2 November 2008, 9:22 am