It is very, very unlikely that 3% increase in tax rates at the highest bracket to increase an individuals taxes by more than 3% except at very, very, very high levels of income (where most of the income is subject to the highest bracket). Even then, it would not be as high as a 10% increase in taxes.
People don't seem to really understand the graduated tax system. If you increased the highest tax rate by 5 percentage points from 35 to 40%, only that income ABOVE the income threshold would be subjected to the tax increase. The tax on the income below that threshold would be unchanged. Given that highest threshold for married couples is about $360,000 of TAXABLE income (which is about 20% less than real income, your results may vary), this affects very few people.
As a matter of example, consider in 2008 the 35% bracket for married couples kicked in at $357,000. To have $357,000 of taxable income, your real income would likely have been well north of $400,000 (as not all income is taxable due to deductions, exemptions and credits). But lets say you made $500,000 with a taxable income of $400,000. A married persons tax bill would have been $111,575. If you instead raised the upper threshold by 5 points to 40%, the taxes would instead have been $113,690, an increase of $2,115. This would be a 1.9% increase in your tax bill (on a 5 percentage point increase in the highest rate)....
The problem with discussions on taxes is that people don't really understand how they work. They are ugly in the details, but the actual results of taxes paid as a percentage of income are much, much lower than people realize. For example, note that at $500,000 of income your federal tax bill (though well inside the highest tax bracket) is $111,575 or 22% of income (not 30, 40 or 50%, which seems to be the understanding of many)
Last edited by upsideguy; 07-09-10 at 10:55 AM.
Last edited by Goobieman; 07-09-10 at 11:39 AM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Neither yes nor no.
These tax cuts for the wealthy should never have occurred;but, by now we should all know where the conservatives stand and who they represent. Nor do I think the Democrats represent the middle working class very well.
The Obama Administration is committed to letting these tax cuts expire:
If allowed to expire, this will effect even people who pay no taxes at all -- refundable tax credits will be lowered. Here's one example:“I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts,” Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a May 2008 interview.
Obama also said, in a June 2007 Democratic debate at Washington, D.C.’s Howard University, that repealing the Bush tax cuts would help pay for universal health care and other social programs he envisioned.
“The Bush tax cuts -- people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives,” Obama said.
At least President Obama is staying true to form...The 2001 tax cuts increased the amount of the Child Tax Credit that is refundable – money which can be earned even if no income tax is owed – to $1,000. Unless Congress extends the tax cuts, low-income families will only be able to get a maximum of $500 per child.
Thank you, Quazi!
I was pointing out that often times people who are OPPOSED to tax hikes are called "Greedy" for wanting to keep their money rather than having it go to the government.
You provided the perfect example of why there's hypocrisy on the other side when they're continually throwing out the "greedy" term against anyone that is against tax hikes, because many on their own side have a view that could also be greedy. IE, "its not going to affect MY taxes so why should I care that they're goin to raise others".
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Letting these tax breaks expire effects every single one of us - because it confiscates money from a free economy and puts in the hands of bureaucrats who use the extra money to buy votes. It infuriates me that someone would say, in effect, "It doesn't effect me; so I don't care." On 2 fronts -- one, because it WILL effect you. And, two, because it reminds me of this:
An old saw, but true."THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Thank you, Quazi!
Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!