Comments on: You wouldn’t understand….It’s a Republican thang! http://www.steamd.net/2008/02/you-wouldnt-understandits-a-re.html Rants, raves, and other geeky nonsense Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:30:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jeff Whitfield http://www.steamd.net/2008/02/you-wouldnt-understandits-a-re.html#comment-13 Jeff Whitfield Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:43:44 +0000 http://www.steamd.net/?p=54#comment-13 <p>You're absolutely right, Rick. The numbers do lie. The only thing that is true is that Bush did cut taxes...but not by as much as this site claims. Here's the real numbers with links going to the tax table documents on the IRS website:</p> <p><strong><a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--1999.pdf" rel="nofollow">Taxes under Clinton 1999</a></strong></p> <ul> <li>Single making 30K: tax $5,060</li> <li>Single making 50K: tax $10,660</li> <li>Single making 75K: tax $18,037</li> <li>Married making 60K: tax $14,249</li> <li>Married making 75K: tax $18,899</li> <li>Married making 125K: tax $36,677</li> </ul> <p><strong><a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2007.pdf" rel="nofollow">Taxes under Bush 2008</a></strong></p> <ul> <li>Single making 30K: tax $4,113</li> <li>Single making 50K: tax $8,930</li> <li>Single making 75K: tax $15,180</li> <li>Married making 60K: tax $11,430</li> <li>Married making 75K: tax $15,503</li> <li>Married making 125K: tax $29,111</li> </ul> <p>The tax cuts may not have been as much as the site claimed...but they were still pretty significant. Taxes on the wealthy are what was perhaps the most significant change. It went from about 40% down to 35%. To see the impact of this, let's say you were single and made $300,000 at the end of 1999, at that rate you would have to pay about a third of your earnings to taxes ($96,873.10). For 2008, you would have to pay around $85,068.25, which is a difference of $11,804.85. That's a pretty significant chunk of change.</p> <p>To compound it even further, let's step it up into a higher bracket...someone who earned $300 million. Not a month goes by that you don't hear about a CEO getting a big bonus worth millions of dollars. How does the tax breaks impact them?<p> <p><strong>Taxes on $300 million in 1999:</strong> $118,778,073.10<br /> <strong>Taxes on $300 million in 2008:</strong> $104,979,074.25<br /> <strong>Difference:</strong> $13,798,998.85</p> <p>And this doesn't even begin to cover corporate tax breaks, tax shelters, tax deductions, or any of that mess. $13 million off of $300 million doesn't seem like a lot...but the point is that people making this kind of money don't need tax breaks to begin with.</p> <p>The main point to my post wasn't whether the information was correct; it was the fact that the authors of this e-mail were trying to make the case that lower taxes are good. When you have a government that is hemorrhaging money, borrowing from other countries, and raising the deficit to the Nth degree, someone has to pay. The government is funded by the citizens of this country. Whether you like it or not, everyone has to pay taxes. But why should it have to be the lower and middle class that bear the heavier load? The wealth of this nation should bear it.</p> <p>Thanks, Rick, for pointing out the erroneous data these guys were trying to spin on people. This is the very thing that drives me bananas. </p> </p></p> You’re absolutely right, Rick. The numbers do lie. The only thing that is true is that Bush did cut taxes…but not by as much as this site claims. Here’s the real numbers with links going to the tax table documents on the IRS website:

Taxes under Clinton 1999

  • Single making 30K: tax $5,060
  • Single making 50K: tax $10,660
  • Single making 75K: tax $18,037
  • Married making 60K: tax $14,249
  • Married making 75K: tax $18,899
  • Married making 125K: tax $36,677

Taxes under Bush 2008

  • Single making 30K: tax $4,113
  • Single making 50K: tax $8,930
  • Single making 75K: tax $15,180
  • Married making 60K: tax $11,430
  • Married making 75K: tax $15,503
  • Married making 125K: tax $29,111

The tax cuts may not have been as much as the site claimed…but they were still pretty significant. Taxes on the wealthy are what was perhaps the most significant change. It went from about 40% down to 35%. To see the impact of this, let’s say you were single and made $300,000 at the end of 1999, at that rate you would have to pay about a third of your earnings to taxes ($96,873.10). For 2008, you would have to pay around $85,068.25, which is a difference of $11,804.85. That’s a pretty significant chunk of change.

To compound it even further, let’s step it up into a higher bracket…someone who earned $300 million. Not a month goes by that you don’t hear about a CEO getting a big bonus worth millions of dollars. How does the tax breaks impact them?

Taxes on $300 million in 1999: $118,778,073.10
Taxes on $300 million in 2008: $104,979,074.25
Difference: $13,798,998.85

And this doesn’t even begin to cover corporate tax breaks, tax shelters, tax deductions, or any of that mess. $13 million off of $300 million doesn’t seem like a lot…but the point is that people making this kind of money don’t need tax breaks to begin with.

The main point to my post wasn’t whether the information was correct; it was the fact that the authors of this e-mail were trying to make the case that lower taxes are good. When you have a government that is hemorrhaging money, borrowing from other countries, and raising the deficit to the Nth degree, someone has to pay. The government is funded by the citizens of this country. Whether you like it or not, everyone has to pay taxes. But why should it have to be the lower and middle class that bear the heavier load? The wealth of this nation should bear it.

Thanks, Rick, for pointing out the erroneous data these guys were trying to spin on people. This is the very thing that drives me bananas.

]]> By: RIck http://www.steamd.net/2008/02/you-wouldnt-understandits-a-re.html#comment-12 RIck Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:47:26 +0000 http://www.steamd.net/?p=54#comment-12 I strongly suggest you check the data that the email is based on. If you go to the website of the Tax Foundation (the link should be in the email), you will see that even they call the author of that email a liar. This table is false. After you've seen the note on their website, post another comment. I'll be looking for it. I strongly suggest you check the data that the email is based on. If you go to the website of the Tax Foundation (the link should be in the email), you will see that even they call the author of that email a liar. This table is false. After you’ve seen the note on their website, post another comment. I’ll be looking for it.

]]>