Monday, April 28, 2008

Bush tax cuts.....kill em or keep em?

Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law

For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children

Taxpayer.....Tax That Would Have Been Owed under Clinton-Era Tax Law.....Tax Owed under Current Law, with Bush Tax Cuts

Single, income of 30,000.....$3,157.50.....$2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000.....$7,262.50.....$6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000.....$5,085.00.....$4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000.....$6,585.00.....$5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000.....$14,262.50.....$12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000.....$9,426.50.....$7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000*.....$29,378.50.....$26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000*.....$23,426.50.....$19,462.50

*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax

Since I fall into one of these categories, I say keep them. This is just 1 more reason I support John McCain. He may have been against the cuts at first, but at least he is man enough to admit he was wrong back then and supports keeping them now that he sees their effect. The dems can deride him for it, but I think they are the ones that are wrong. They really are supporting a massive TAX INCREASE by trying to end them.

For the rest of the article and a better explanation of how these numbers were derived, follow this link.


The Griper said...

yup, keep them. government is living beyond their means now, as it is. then take a butcher knife to them again.

MathewK said...

I'd exchange your tax rates under clinton for ours any day. If you earn $125K you get to keep so much. I'd consider myself lucky if i got to pay 30K of it in tax. The joys of socialism i tell you, that's what life under a Hillary will be like. Paying top dollar so welfare queens and other parasites can get comfortable on your back.

Anonymous said...

Keep 'em, keep 'em!

Once the Democrats get in power they'll be going back to the 70 percent marginal rates on the "wealthy," which is being defined down to lower and lower income levels. Yikes! My wife and I might be getting hit under an Obama admin, and I know my father-in-law will!

Name: Soapboxgod said...

While it is true that John McCain wants to extend them (and as well we should), it is worth mentioning to points about McCain's initial opposition to them.

A) Though he makes the case now, McCain's initial opposition to them wasn't centered so much on the issue of spending. Rather, McCain's opposition was because he voiced criticism about them being a tax cut for the wealthy.

Considering that the top 10% of income earners (those making about $105,000 a year) pay about 70% of the total taxes collected, and the top 1% (those making about $365,000 a year) pay around 40% of the total taxes collected, it would stand to chance that it is those individuals who ought to reap the benefits of a tax cut. But I digress....

Let us give John McCain the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he was opposed to them for the reason he asserts. Spending was out of control and those "earmarks" are to blame.

B) While earmarks have gotten out of control, they barely amount to a drop in the bucket. Earmarks account for about $16 Billion. Now, certainly that isn't chump change. However, when you take into consideration that the latest budget was just over $3 TRILLION, $16 Billion isn't the sort of Pork we ought to be focused on. The real meat and potatoes is in the transfer payments and entitlement programs. I don't hear McCain talk to much about that.

What's more, McCain is known as the "Maverick". He's the "half a loaf is better than no loaf" sort of guy. That said, why wouldn't he accept the half a loaf of tax cuts rather than going for the whole loaf of tax cuts + cutting spending???

It defies even McCain's logic.

C.H. said...

Hey Joe,

Just checking in. Wanted to make sure everything's going well...I know you've been pretty busy these last few weeks.

As to your question, I'd say keep 'em.

Tapline said...

Joe, Of course keep them. Im on a fixed income and it keeps getting smaller. Even my Social Security is taxed, I say lower pleaseeeeee...stay well...