Today the Senate voted along party lines to approve a new budget plan that purports to cut spending and taxes for the middle class, but in reality represents one of the largest tax increases in American history because they will let the Bush tax cuts expire. As the article points out here, a family of 4 who makes $50,000 will see a tax increase of 191%. Scared yet? What about a single parent of 2 who makes $30,000, surely they will see a tax decrease right? Nope, how about an increase of only $1,600 per year. Here is some more of the same article:
This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie. This is the economy that Obama and his friends in charge of Congress will bring. No doubt it represents change. But as John McCain keeps asking, is it the right kind of change?
I have no doubt Bush will probably sign this disaster of a tax hike, but if he had any guts he would veto it. What does he have to loose, he’s already getting the boot in less then a year any way. He might as well go out giving the finger to the Dems one last time. Oh, and to all of you Obamabots out there, doesn’t this worry you at all? I know you love to complain about tax cuts for the rich, but how about insanely large tax raises for the poor/middle class? Of course, we all know that if you want free health care and free Cadillacs and free Air Jordans, someone has to pay for it. You thought it was going to be those wealthy tycoons like that guy from the Monopoly game board who would fit the bill for your Utopian paradise of free crap. Of course, it turns out that it was going to be you all along.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
But how did our articulate #1 liberal Senator vote? Or was he busy looking for a more inclusive church?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I think this is McCain’s main platform right there. Hey you schlubs who only make $50,000 a year, want a 150% increase in your taxes, vote for Obama.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:15 am
This website just loves Air Jordan’s. Do you have a whole closet full of them?
June 5th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I actually haven’t had a pair in about 20 years, but I found the point amusing.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
So the alternative to raising taxes is to continue to borrow more.
What’s more conservative?
June 5th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Bob, you still operate under the delusion that Bush is a conservative and that conservatives still support him. The fact is, mainstream conservatism gave up on Bush something in 2003. We may have voted for him over Kerry, but I have not been a big fan of Bush’s or the other RINOs for a long time.
The solution is certainly not raising the taxes on people who make the economy work, that is a recipe for economic turmoil. The answer is keeping taxes as they are and cutting government spending. There are at least 3 departments I can think of just off the top of my head that we could eliminate entirely, save billions of dollars, and no one would notice any difference. That would be a good start. I will say this, I hope Obamessiah campaigns on taxes, at least with McCain we have a chance at normal tax rates in the next four years.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am
That’s a good point, Bryan. The Department of Education, which mushroomed under Bush’s liberal spending programs, should be cut entirely.
What liberals like Bob don’t understand is that power should be vested as close to the individual as possible for effective governance. The local school board is a lot more instrumental in our children’s lives than standardized testing across the nation. The local planning commission is a lot more responsive to our needs than cookie-cutter Washington regulations.
It seems to me that our big-spending Democrat friends have a fundamental misunderstanding of where power is best exercised.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’m no politician, accountant, or rich guy. I’m in that 50K bracket and this headline caught my attention. As seems to be the trend for me during this election cycle I decided to do my own research when I noticed the article you linked to did not describe the methods to which those numbers were produced. I’ll venture a guess that the author just saw the budget numbers in 2010, divided that by # of Americans per tax bracket and viola.
I’ll assume the author knows how to add, subtract, multiply and divide but I will not assume the author did any research past that.
Upon going to the senate’s website (for the first time I might add so anyone with more experience please double check me) and viewing the bill 10 minutes later, way down at the bottom, I’ll paraphrase some jargon…
“…middle-class families would be protected from paying higher taxes…[list of a bunch of tax deductions]…and insist that every effort should be made to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, shutting down abusive tax shelters, addressing offshore tax havens, and without raising taxes agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.”
Am I the best to interpret that? Nope. But I’ll try. This states that middle class America will be protected from tax hikes up to the point that they can close the tax loopholes the upper class/corporations have been abusing. So if they catch absolutely 0 loppholes is the only way middle class gets a 191% tax hike. Under the current administration, thats probably what would happen, good thing we’re changing. So there is no possible way to declaratively state how much middle class taxes will increase, it is intellectually dishonest.
Also, it might make it a little less cloudy in which direction your healthcare, cadillacs and air jordans connection was directed if you went ahead and added to it fried chicken, spinners and gold teeth.
Stay classy repubs, I’m off to the “obama’s mom likes communism, obama likes his mom, obama likes communism” transitive theory.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Actually, I knew more white kids who wore Air Jordans the black kids. There was no intentional racial component to my post, although I admit now that I can see how you might say that. Those examples were actually strung together from previous discussions we have had on this board that had nothing to do with race. Let me rephrase my point then: When Obama promises you free gold standard health care, a free car and free shoes, someone is going to pay for that, and it ain’t gonna be the rich only.
I can tell you as someone who has a family of 5 and makes less the 100k a year, my taxes pre Bush tax cuts were about 3000 more per year then they are currently. If those cuts are allowed to expire, why in the world would you not expect that 3k more per year to go back into effect. Don’t tell me you actually believe a single thing Pelosi and her ilk say? Are not these the same people who promised to clean up congressional earmarks, fix our energy problems and end the war in Iraq. Yeah, I’ll put my faith in those folks never.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
As much as I hate to introduce facts into a discussion, it’s worth noting that Obama has proposed his own tax plan which would restore Bush tax cuts on upper income earners, but reduce taxes further for middle class and poor earners. The sum of his proposed tax cuts is $80 billion.
IMHO I don’t see the wisdom of cutting taxes when you have around $8 trillion in national debt, with huge interest payments required to fund that debt, coupled with a loss of national sovereignty as our need to cater to debt holders requires us to kiss China’s rear end.
A sane tax policy would start with ending income based taxation that cripples U.S. competitiveness and costs us billions in enforcement costs, not to mention time wasted dealing with an ever complex code. Instead, we need to shift to a consumption tax.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I wasn’t bothered by the jordans/caddy’s comment, it just stuck out to me and wanted to poke.
Personally I could never had jordan’s 1) couldn’t afford them and 2) patent leather isn’t my thing. I had the Shawn Kemp shoes, they came with a free child.
Honestly, pre-Bush I wasn’t paying taxes, so I can’t comment on that. However by this Senate resolution it looks loke they’re leaving the door open for the next President to do some good. As Bob says, Obama has his own tax plan so I would venture to guess this was done in part to leave his plans open and not handcuff him. If McCain wins, they’ll probably just reintroduce Bush’s plan, either way the tax cuts don’t end until you do your taxes in 2010 so there is plenty of time to find a new President and introduce better reforms.
Personally, the less remnants of Bush the better.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
LMFAO, nice rip on Kemp, I actually did laugh out loud.
Bob, I can’t believe, we actually agree on something. I’m all for reforming our stupid tax code (I used to practice ERISA law and the CFR and the USCA portion of the tax code is utterly ridiculous). I’m in favor of some kind of consumption/flat tax, leaving food and necessities virtually tax free.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Bryan, we probably agree on more than you think.
Remember, I supported Ron Paul for President.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Bryan,
Surprised to hear that you would support a consumption tax (sales tax, VAT, whatever). (Bob, not surprised that you like it) Three problems right off the bat:
1. It obviously incentivizes a black market, which in turn legitimizes government oversight like a resturant owner who doesn’t trust his bartender. I want less of the government in my life, not more.
2. It is more efficient, which would yeild additional money for the government. imagine the market distortion those wh0res could perpetrate with even more money at their disposal. Efficiency in government is bad. Remember, “don’t just do something, stand there”.
3. Discourages tourisim, which is a meaningful source of revenue for our post industrial economy.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Bob, you’re actually one of my favorite bloggers here, not because I agree with you a lot, but because at least you bring your A game and give good arguments. It happens rarely, but in the blogosphere it is nice to encounter folks, even if they disagree, who do feel passionately about what they believe and bring good arguments about what they believe.
Threetours – at this point I would be willing to try anything that gets us out from under the horrible tax code we have now. Personally I’d love to do away with withholdings just so that everyone would have to actually write a check at the end of the year. When they saw how much they were actually paying, I have a feeling that our tax system would quickly be revamped.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Bryan,
Clarity would start with doing away with corporate taxes, since it is actually workers/consumers who pay. Let the 35kpa shift worker see that he is paying 35% taxes through his company and he’d effing riot.
I am really not sure I agree about our tax system. It is awful, but I really like inefficiency in government. If they got their act together it would certainly have a negative impact on all of our lives. (this is actually one of my objections to McCain. All that cross aisle reaching actually might get more legislation enacted. As Arlen Specter said “what we (congress) do best is nothing”) Efficient taxes increases government strength, which is quite simply not conservative.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
My wife calculated that my taxes (I guess I am rich by dem standards) would increase by 12,000 dollars. I will disclose that our household AGI was 220K last year. I thought BO promised me (during the debates, where he was awful btw) that my taxes would not increase if I made less than 250K per year.
Btw – my wife is a CPA with a Masters of Science in Taxation and a card carrying independent. I trust her numbers. She is also no fan of GWB.