PDA

View Full Version : Tax Rates Would Top 50% Under Obama


pjc
July 22nd, 2008, 10:09
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/tax-rates-for-new-yorkers-would-top-50-under-obama/82191/
PJC> Just another "BS Article" for Travis to whine about.

A lot of this applies to California taxation laws as well.

'Significant Difference' Is Seen For High-Income Areas Like the City
By JULIE SATOW (http://www.nysun.com/authors/Julie+Satow), Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 18, 2008


New York tax filers reporting more than $375,000 a year in earned income may end up paying nearly 60% of their wages in taxes to the government under a Barack Obama (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Barack+Obama) presidency, economists who have analyzed his plan said.

(http://www.nysun.com/pics/6013.jpg)
Click Images for Slideshow (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6013.jpg)
http://www.nysun.com/pics/6013_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6013.jpg)
Alex Wong/Getty
Senator Obama speaks at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center July 15, 2008 at Washington, DC.



http://www.nysun.com/pics/6017_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6017.jpg) http://www.nysun.com/pics/6018_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6018.jpg) http://www.nysun.com/pics/6019_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6019.jpg) http://www.nysun.com/pics/6021_large.jpg (http://www.nysun.com/pics/6021.jpg)


The Democratic presidential candidate is proposing not only raising the federal income tax, but also adding a Social Security tax for those Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. For New Yorkers, that could mean that if the current Social Security rate is applied, the marginal tax rate, or rate on every extra dollar earned, could rise to 58%.


"This is a very eye-popping number," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said.


Under current law, there is a 12.4% Social Security tax on salaries up to $102,000 a year. While the Social Security tax is split equally between employers and employees, economists widely hold that employees shoulder the entire tax burden because employers simply pass along the cost of the tax in the form of lower wages.
Mr. Obama has spoken of creating a so-called doughnut hole, where those earning more than $250,000 would have to pay an additional Social Security tax; anyone earning between $102,000 and $250,000 would be exempt.


Mr. Obama has yet to clarify what that additional Social Security tax will be, although his campaign said it is not likely to be as high as 12.4%. Rather, it said the tax is not likely to run higher than 4%, translating into a marginal tax on wages of as much as 52% for New Yorkers, who are subject to income tax at the federal, state, and city levels. The current marginal rate is 42%, which would continue under the McCain (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=John+McCain) proposal. Full calculations of these figures are available in the slideshow accompanying this article.


"Obama originally seemed to be saying he would apply the full 12.4%, although lately he seems to be backtracking," Mr. Viard said. "One thing is for sure, you are going to see an increase of several percentage points on the marginal federal income tax from the Obama plan."


Some observers said that raising taxes at a time when the economy is teetering on a recession could exacerbate the economic woes.


"If the economy remains soft through next year — and it seems unlikely that it will be robust — it would be a very bad time to raise taxes of any sort, but particularly to raise them in this way," a professor who teaches federal tax law at Yale Law School, Michael Graetz, said.


The Obama campaign said it is too early to know the exact marginal tax rate because no plan has been finalized. "There is not a specific plan, it is something that Obama would want to work together with Congress to figure out," the economic policy director for the Obama campaign, Jason Furman, said. In respect of the payroll tax rate on income above the doughnut hole, he said, "some of the plans we are looking at, and we are looking at a range of plans, think Congress might like to have rates that are in the neighborhood of 2% to 4%." He added that the plan could also be phased in over a period of years.


There is also a difference between the marginal tax rate and the average tax rate, which is the rate that Americans pay as a portion of their overall income. The average tax rate under the Obama plan would be lower than the 52% figure because of deductions for charity, lower rates that apply to capital gains and dividend income, and other factors. "The average tax rate for the top 1% is, on average, about 20% under current law. Our plan would maybe be only two percentage points higher," Mr. Furman said.


While the average rate will be lower, the marginal tax on wages is considered a critical measure because it "affects the incentive to work and report income to the Internal Revenue Service, as well as invest in legal and illegal tax shelters," the director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, Len Burman, said. Mr. Burman recently authored a widely read study of the two candidates' tax proposals.


In addition to tacking on a Social Security tax and raising the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, the Obama campaign is also proposing limiting the value of itemized deductions. Known as "Pease," the provision was named for Rep. Don Pease of Ohio and was instituted in the 1990s to help reduce the deficit. President Bush (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=George+W.+Bush) phased out much of the Pease, and Mr. Obama would restore it, tacking on a few additional percentage points to the marginal tax rate.


As for the alternative minimum tax, the two candidates do not differ widely, although Mr. McCain had originally called for its repeal. In addition, the AMT affects New Yorkers earning between $100,000 and $300,000, but does not impact those in the highest income bracket.


Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%. When New York State and City taxes are added in, the tax rate would be 33%. In comparison, the tax rate for capital gains and dividends is currently 22%; this would continue under Mr. McCain's plan, though some analysts say that if he won the presidency a Democratic Congress might maneuver him into an increase in these taxes, or pass an increase over his veto.


As for the estate and gift tax, Obama is proposing excluding anyone with less than $3.5 million, and charging a tax of between 15% and 45% for anything over the limit. McCain is proposing a $5 million exclusion and a flat 15% tax rate for anything over this limit.


The candidates' tax plans reflect their philosophical differences, economists and political analysts said.


In the estate and gift tax, for example, Obama is treating it like an income tax, where children who come into a lot of money would pay the same rates as if they had been earning the money over time, a managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte, Clint Stretch, said. For McCain, the tax is more like capital gains, where the children are considered to have invested in the parents and therefore should pay something akin to a capital gains tax.


"While Senator McCain is saying that the Bush tax cuts are, in essence, correct, Obama is proposing to go even further than Bush in cutting taxes for the lower and middle classes and restore Clinton's higher taxes for those with higher incomes," Mr. Stretch said.


"Their tax plans highlight the dichotomy between the two candidates and their different approaches," a partner at Grant Thornton and the director of its tax legislative affairs group, Melbert Schwarz, said. "Obviously in a high income area like New York City, you are going to have a lot of people who are in the highest income tax bracket, where Obama's proposals could make a significant difference."

R_TAYLOR
July 22nd, 2008, 12:15
Yeah but Bambi will be safe,the birds will be singing and all will be well with mother earth.Travis is waiting for Obama to walk on water and we are waiting for Jimmy Carter x 2. He will be a disaster for this country but facts dont mean a lot to libs.

b-makk
July 23rd, 2008, 10:03
Welcome to Canada!

woundedyak
July 23rd, 2008, 10:15
That guy will break the middle class. 39% federal tax. 14% S.S. tax 2% med tax. And that's not counting you local and state. He will also cut out the bush relief tax in2010. So add another 3500.00 a year there. Then he wants to double the capital gains tax. So first off, anyone with a house and a 401k will get double taxed on that. Second,why would anyone want to invest into America with a weak dollar and double the tax?

kenaroo
July 23rd, 2008, 13:48
Scare tatics.. the way it's going there will be no Social Security with all the baby boomers retireing and sucking off the SS.

how about this ... create an alien worker visa so we can tax non american nationals working in the states.

quoted on taking over 700 billion out of the states on a yearly basis.. wow.. how about passing a 50% tax on those workers and keep ours where it's at.. 50% is just the cost of working in the states illegally.

sounds good to me

R_TAYLOR
July 23rd, 2008, 15:00
The babyboomers paid into SS for years.I beleive it was LBJ,democrat, that decided he could take that money and spend it.Its the US Govt. that is doing all the sucking here.Heads should roll in congress for years of spending that hard earned money.

nelson979
July 23rd, 2008, 15:05
.Heads should roll in congress for years of spending that hard earned money.

amen my brother

Sheaco
July 23rd, 2008, 16:15
Flat Tax, and be done with it. Everyone pays the same no matter what.

A question: Which is worse Raising taxes even higher or borrowing money from foriegn Goverments that may or may not have our best interests in mind?

It seem like to me that the two sides have there own Ideas on how to bail out our struggling economy. What it boils down to is, neither have any idea how to budget OUR money smartly.

It's about time for another party " Boston Tea Party" my two cents

R_TAYLOR
July 23rd, 2008, 21:28
If the govt. would get the hell out of the way,we would be drilling our own oil instead of importing 65% . We could keep jobs here instead of being forced to leave because of work rules and regulations.I swear if the govt. would close the doors for 5 years this country would take off like no other.

pjc
July 24th, 2008, 09:54
Sheaco, history has proved that raising taxes does not decrease the deficit. Consider how many people are planning their incomes to work under or around B. Hussein's plans. That's bad for the country all around and then tere are the folks that will work their finances offshore.

We are in a real predicament and getting worse. The only answer is to cut spending and now - but where do we start?

dan200
July 24th, 2008, 10:13
The only answer is to cut spending and now - but where do we start?
If Congress has an 18 percent approval rating pay them 18 percent of their salary.

No first class seats for politicians on planes or at hotels.

All portions of government that cannot stay within their budgets and create debt for the country are personally liable for said debt.

Revamp welfare entirely and cut the dead weight.

Those were off the top of my head. Here is what some quick research found.




How Your Government Wastes Your Money
by Brian Riedl (June 3, 2005)

This year, Washington will spend an eye-popping $22,039 per household. That is the highest inflation-adjusted total since World War II, and $5,000 per household more than Washington spent just four years ago. With difficult decisions ahead, government waste should be the easiest place to begin bringing spending under control.

Amazingly, Congress hasn’t undertaken any serious look at government waste since the 1984 Grace Commission. Lack of information isn’t the problem: Hundreds of recent government program audits are collecting dust on bookshelves across Capitol Hill. Instead, the problem is that reducing waste would distract lawmakers from shipping pork-barrel projects home and shoveling government spending to favored interests. So it is no surprise that the federal government costs 33 percent more than it did in 2001.

While lawmakers focus on expanding government, The Heritage Foundation uncovered the following ways in which Washington wastes tax dollars:

First, the federal government cannot account for $25 billion it spent in 2003. That’s billion with a “b.” Federal auditors know that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but don’t know who spent it, where it was spent or on what it was spent. That amount is more than the total federal taxes paid by all of the residents in each of 28 states. It’s enough to fund the entire Department of Justice budget.

That’s just the beginning. Another audit shows the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to file a refund for these fully refundable tickets.

And that’s not counting the 27,000 times the Pentagon paid twice for the same airline ticket, at a total cost of $8 million. This wasted $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M-1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Credit-card fraud is another problem. Federal employee credit-card programs were designed to streamline government procurement rules by allowing government employees to purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. But this well-intentioned idea was quickly abused. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used govern*ment-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.

Not to be outdone, investigators randomly sampled 300 Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee credit cards. They found that, over six months, 15 percent of them charged a total $5.8 million in personal expenses that included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments and cash advances.

The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 held by people no longer employed by the agency.

Waste also permeates the student loan program. In 2002, the Department of Education certified the Y’Hica Institute’s participation in the federal student loan program and disbursed $55,000 in loans to three of the school’s student loan applicants.

One problem: Neither the Y’Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. Congressional investigators created them (on paper) to test the Department of Education’s verification pro*cedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants “Susan M. Collins,” after the senator requesting the investigation. Is it any wonder that $22 billion worth of student loans remain in default?

From the Redundancy Department of Redundancy: Washington runs 342 economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled, 130 programs serving at-risk youth, 90 early childhood development programs and 72 safe-water programs. This means not only additional bureaucracies to run these overlapping programs, but also an administrative nightmare for program beneficiaries who must navigate each program’s distinct rules and requirements.

Among the many examples: The Army Corps of Engineers is alleged to have purposely rigged dozens of scientific studies in order to justify expensive (but unnecessary) water projects. The federal government loses $20 billion annually by accidentally overpaying the recipients of government programs.

Just a few examples to remember the next time lawmakers claim there is no room to restrain spending.

Distributed Nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire


Since I am responsible for my own expenses and bills I stay within my means. I cant afford a Mercedes so I don't drive one. Our government collects far more than enough to effectively run things. They should have to stay within their means as well. THey simply are not. There is only so much money and they need to get by on what they have already, not look for more dough from us.

Sheaco
July 24th, 2008, 15:13
Sheaco, history has proved that raising taxes does not decrease the deficit. Consider how many people are planning their incomes to work under or around B. Hussein's plans. That's bad for the country all around and then tere are the folks that will work their finances offshore.

We are in a real predicament and getting worse. The only answer is to cut spending and now - but where do we start?

So we all agree on " Read my lips...No new taxes" LMFAO!!

Trim'in the Fat.
How about this: All Goverment agencies voluntarily cuts 7.5% of their spending, Here's the catch if they don't, then they Get a manditory 15% cut for the next years funding and don't get an oppurtunity to get any additional raise in funding for 5 years.

The numbers may change but theres a basic idea. Goverments is no different then a buch of Junkies chasing " The Devils **** ".

Like my Dad says " If you didn't like my first answer your diffently NOT going to like my second" meaning you better take the offer on the table cuz it's only going down from here.

pjc
July 24th, 2008, 15:42
On public sector budget cuts, let's be more specific.

Cut all areas 35%+ or "contract out" services with the exception of law enforcement and other public safety agencies.

kenaroo
July 27th, 2008, 20:21
The babyboomers paid into SS for years.I beleive it was LBJ,democrat, that decided he could take that money and spend it.Its the US Govt. that is doing all the sucking here.Heads should roll in congress for years of spending that hard earned money.


Agreed.. kinda like the cali government taking the green sticker money and spending it on other things besides OHV use..

scott-dsms
July 28th, 2008, 17:14
If Congress has an 18 percent approval rating pay them 18 percent of their salary.

No first class seats for politicians on planes or at hotels.

All portions of government that cannot stay within their budgets and create debt for the country are personally liable for said debt.

Revamp welfare entirely and cut the dead weight.



Not to be outdone, investigators randomly sampled 300 Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee credit cards. They found that, over six months, 15 percent of them charged a total $5.8 million in personal expenses that included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments and cash advances.

The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 held by people no longer employed by the agency.


Great post Dan - I know I shouldn't laugh, but....HAHAHAHA!! It's too idiotic and ridiculous to be real, BUT it is REAL so I have to laugh. If any one of us ran our households or business's that way we would be living under the nearest bridge eating out of trashcans for a living.

WAJ these people are, and then they have the BALLS to tell all of us what to do, what to drive, what to eat, and how to live our lives.

Note to Self: Apply for USDA sponsored credit card...buy Colts tickets, take wife for fancy dinner and gambling, arrange for limo - end note