Obamas tax plan

[barbelith]

Barbie, what's the point of presenting a fact-based arguement with you? It's been done by myself, and so many other's around here that it's is utterly pointless for anyone to waste their time on a lost cause such as yourself.

You seem to confuse "fact" with "things I heard on Rush Limbaugh."

 

[OK SITHLORD]

If this is for real, i'm in trouble!!!

 

[barbelith]

The Left pioneered violence as a form of political expression.

Violence as a form of political expression has been around far longer than the modern left/right divide.

 

[barbelith]

If this is for real, i'm in trouble!

Me too. But at the end of the day I'll still have more money to play with than most people, so it's hard to get too worked up about it.

 

[RoboDad]

If this is for real, i'm in trouble!!!

Since I have no reason to doubt the WSJ when it comes to verifying the accuracy of financial information they publish, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's for real, and we're all in big, big trouble.

 

[OK SITHLORD]

Me too. But at the end of the day I'll still have more money to play with than most people, so it's hard to get too worked up about it.

Not me!! I'm just an average joe, bro. this plan will kill me, not looking forward to this, if dude is elected, looks like i'm ^^^^ed!!

 

[Nuka Cola Kidd]

Not me!! I'm just an average joe, bro. this plan will kill me, not looking forward to this, if dude is elected, looks like i'm ^^^^ed!!

I think a lot of people are saying that

 

[barbelith]

Not me!! I'm just an average joe, bro. this plan will kill me, not looking forward to this, if dude is elected, looks like i'm ^^^^ed!!

Sorry, but if you're pulling down more than a quarter of a million dollars a year you're not an average joe by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[barbelith]

Since I have no reason to doubt the WSJ when it comes to verifying the accuracy of financial information they publish, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's for real, and we're all in big, big trouble.

Bear in mind it's an editorial in a paper with a hard right editorial position. I don't have reason to doubt the math but it's interesting that most prominent economists have backed the Obama plan while criticizing McCain's as a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[OK SITHLORD]

Sorry, but if you're pulling down more than a quarter of a million dollars a year you're not an average joe by any stretch of the imagination.

Mabey i'm reading the graph wrong, but the way i see it is us middle class people are screwed!!

 

[barbelith]

Mabey i'm reading the graph wrong, but the way i see it is us middle class people are screwed!!

The graph (and tax increase) starts at $250k. If you don't make that much, you won't be paying anything more than you're paying now (and in most cases save more than you would under McCain). If you do make that much, you are certainly not an average joe.

 

[KitFisto]

That chart is missing a 0 if it's supposed to start at 250K

 

[Darklord Dave]

The graph (and tax increase) starts at $250k. If you don't make that much, you won't be paying anything more than you're paying now (and in most cases save more than you would under McCain). If you do make that much, you are certainly not an average joe.

No, the slant of the WSJ article is that lower income earners will lose the new tax credits as their income increases and they start losing the credits at $25K.

I'll admit I can't figure out the math WSJ is using and if this is accurate then the Republicans are missing a HUGE opportunity to call Obama a big fat liar (legitimately for once). On Obama's website they have a calculator to determine what your tax cut will be under the Obama plan and I couldn't get it to say that if I make $25K I'll get an increase.

But if that graph is accurate - I don't get an increase anyway - so either way I guess I'M okay.

 

[barbelith]

That chart is missing a 0 if it's supposed to start at 250K

You're absolutely right! We've been told the Obama plan starts in at $250k so often that I didn't even notice the missing zero! I'm very intrigued by this graph now.

I'll admit I can't figure out the math WSJ is using and if this is accurate then the Republicans are missing a HUGE opportunity to call Obama a big fat liar (legitimately for once).

I agree. I suspect we're looking at a highly ... peculiar interpretation considering the nature of the WSJ editorial slant and the well known promises of the Obama plan. If this piece is correct the Republicans will be able to crucify him - and rightly so.

However considering the problems McCain has had getting economists to endorse his own plan - to say nothing of his recent polling performance - I suspect we're looking at a fanciful bit of nothing.

 

[IrishJedi]

Since I have no reason to doubt the WSJ when it comes to verifying the accuracy of financial information they publish, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's for real, and we're all in big, big trouble.

But Obama's plan will help the Middle Class!

 

[drbrad1975]

https://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

Some more helpful reading....

 

[drbrad1975]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081...ma__tax_calculator__inaccurate_and_misleading

some more interesting reading.....

 

[IrishJedi]

In the words of my Celtic ancestors, "We're fooked!".

 

[drbrad1975]

here's another tax calculator....

https://www.electiontaxes.com/

 

[LordAzrael]

The graph (and tax increase) starts at $250k. If you don't make that much, you won't be paying anything more than you're paying now (and in most cases save more than you would under McCain). If you do make that much, you are certainly not an average joe.

Ok. Time for some economics education here.

Its talking about MARGINAL tax rates - i.e. the effective tax rate you earn on each additional dollar.

This includes not only increases in income tax, but welfare payments etc lost as your income goes up.

Extremely high marginal rates of tax act as a disincentive for people to either got into work, or work additional hours. They cause the capacity of the economy to decrease - means less welfare for all and decreases tax revenue for the government.