PDA

View Full Version : Understand Tax Cuts


jamesglewisf
10-04-2000, 06:35 AM
The ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/debate001003_truthsquad.html) had something interesting to say about tax cuts:
Issue: Tax Cuts

What Gore Said: “Almost half of all the tax cut benefits … under Governor Bush’s plan, go to the wealthiest 1 percent.”

Fact: Bush’s tax relief proposal would reduce tax rates across all levels of income. Because people in higher income brackets pay more in taxes, they would receive the bulk of the savings. By the Bush campaign’s own calculations, 44 percent of the reductions would go to those earning more than $300,000 — the top 1 percent of earners.

Pay close attention to the fact. ABC News says that Bush is proposing to cut taxes across all levels of income, but since people in higher income brackets pay more in taxes, they would receive the bulk of the savings.

Let's look at an example, and this has nothing to do with actual tax rates, by the way.

If I lower the tax rate for a person making 300,000 by an actual 5%, he will save 15,000. If I lower the tax rate for a person making 40,000 by an actual 25%, he will still save only 10,000. Who got the bigger tax cut?

How about simple example with real tax rates?

I used the Quicken Turbotax Tax Estimator (http://www.quicken.com/taxes/estimator/). Both income levels were for married filing jointly with one dependent and no itemized deductions. The person paid $40,000 pays $3,638 in taxes (about 9.10%). The person paid $300,000 pays $88,092 in taxes (about 29.36%). If you lowered them both by an actual 9.10%, the person at $40K pays no taxes while the person at 300K still pays $60,792 in taxes. So, who got the bigger tax break? Of course the 300K family did, but the 40K family is paying no taxes at all.

BTW, change the $40,000 income to $75,000 and what do you get? $10,800 in taxes (about 14.4%). Drop both tax rates by an actual 14.4%, and 75K family pays nothing in taxes while 300K family still pays $44,892 in taxes.

jamesglewisf
10-04-2000, 06:43 AM
It is not "us" versus "them." It is not the middle class versus the rich.

Every paycheck, the government takes some of your hard-earned money. It is like they reached into your pocketbook and took it. A tax cut is not charity. It is not a gift. A tax cut is taking less money out of your paycheck. It is not giving you money, it is letting you keep your own money.

jamesglewisf
10-04-2000, 07:25 AM
I forgot the best part of the examples. Sample soundbites from the 75/300 two-person example:

Soundbite: Lewis' tax cut proposal gives 80% of of the tax cuts to the wealthy.
Facts: 75k saves $10,800. 300k saves $43,200. Total savings of $54,000. 75k got 20% of the $54,000 in tax cut. 300k got 80% of it. Soundbite is factual.
Fairness: Totally unfair. 75k no longer pays any taxes, and 300k still pays $44,892 in taxes; but I still look like a jerk.

Soundbite: Under the Lewis' tax cut proposal, the wealthy get a tax cut that is four times the size of the middle class.
Facts: 75k saves $10,800. 300k saves $43,200. $10,800 times 4 equals $43,200. Soundbite is factual.
Fairness: Totally unfair. 75k no longer pays any taxes, and 300k still pays $44,892 in taxes; but I still look like a jerk.

Do you see how easy it is to twist the facts using statistics?

blinc
10-30-2000, 03:15 PM
Oh yeah... the spins the PR people put on other people's votes in congress, the senate, etc. There are two things I'd like to see happen... a flat tax and different ways that bills are voted upon.

Flat tax I think is a fair solution. I like the idea as it doesn't single any one tax group out for bigger tax cuts, or place the burden on one group. I'd love to hear opposing views on this.

Voting on bills... Arrgh! Too many good bills are being voted down, because there are other proposals being written into them. It just serves to muddy the issues and it makes a simple vote on an issue impossible. Why can't there be a vote on one issue at a time? Why does there have to be multiple issues introduced on one bill? If it's to save time.... I don't think so. It seems that a lot of time is being wasted on deciding how to alter one part of a proposal, while important things are being put on hold!

Ok, I know I don't explain myself well, on the multiple issues thing - but I hope you all know what I mean.

theyeti
10-30-2000, 07:20 PM
AACCCKKKKKKK!!! too many numbers for poor old yeti's brain! :) lets just not turn this into a political arugment, please, i've already had too many of those...
I guess either candidates plan would be fine... they're basically the same thing once you get down to it.
ERRGHHHH!!

necrominator
11-03-2000, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by jamesglewisf
The ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/debate001003_truthsquad.html) had something interesting to say about tax cuts:
Issue: Tax Cuts

What Gore Said: “Almost half of all the tax cut benefits … under Governor Bush’s plan, go to the wealthiest 1 percent.”

Fact: Bush’s tax relief proposal would reduce tax rates across all levels of income. Because people in higher income brackets pay more in taxes, they would receive the bulk of the savings. By the Bush campaign’s own calculations, 44 percent of the reductions would go to those earning more than $300,000 — the top 1 percent of earners.

Pay close attention to the fact. ABC News says that Bush is proposing to cut taxes across all levels of income, but since people in higher income brackets pay more in taxes, they would receive the bulk of the savings.

Let's look at an example, and this has nothing to do with actual tax rates, by the way.

If I lower the tax rate for a person making 300,000 by an actual 5%, he will save 15,000. If I lower the tax rate for a person making 40,000 by an actual 25%, he will still save only 10,000. Who got the bigger tax cut?

How about simple example with real tax rates?

I used the Quicken Turbotax Tax Estimator (http://www.quicken.com/taxes/estimator/). Both income levels were for married filing jointly with one dependent and no itemized deductions. The person paid $40,000 pays $3,638 in taxes (about 9.10%). The person paid $300,000 pays $88,092 in taxes (about 29.36%). If you lowered them both by an actual 9.10%, the person at $40K pays no taxes while the person at 300K still pays $60,792 in taxes. So, who got the bigger tax break? Of course the 300K family did, but the 40K family is paying no taxes at all.

BTW, change the $40,000 income to $75,000 and what do you get? $10,800 in taxes (about 14.4%). Drop both tax rates by an actual 14.4%, and 75K family pays nothing in taxes while 300K family still pays $44,892 in taxes.

10,000 will mean a lot more to a working mom who makes 20,000 dollars a year and has to pay taxes to meet ends meet.