Friday, February 22, 2008

Taxes under Clinton & Bush...What's wrong here?

From Tax Foundation:

Taxes under Clinton vs. Bush

Consider these stats before VOTING !!!!

Interesting... This needs to be forwarded to those living in "DENIAL"Check your tax bill. Double check using the tax table provided. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. Check out this link!

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, A LL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen.

Remember the old cliche: "Welfare votes for Welfare" The Liberals never, ever, mention the dreaded question of: Where and Who does the money come from?



Anonymous said...

These numbers aren't correct. They are calculated incorrectly. The numbers from the Tax Foundation website are the marginal income tax rate brackets from the IRS. You can't just take somebody's income and multiply it by that rate. There are things called deductions and exemptions. And the rates are graduated. Even Bill Gates only pays 10 percent on his first $8,000. The Tax Foundation has written about this popular e-mail/blog material here:

Watch 'n Wait said...

Anon...Thank you ever so much for that info. I really appreciate your taking the time.

Watch 'n Wait said...

Another comment via email:

Oh there's something wrong with those figures alright. First, Congress sets tax rates, not the executive, so neither Bush nor Clinton is responsible for the tax rates. Second, we are beginning to notice that there isn't enough money to do what we want to have done, so we are near the point at which we all finally recognize that we are either dramatically undertaxed, or we are dramatically over expectant. When we decide which it is, we will either reduce our expectations, or we will dramatically increase our tax burden.

DrDave said...

Actually, the way taxes are calculated, you pay the marginal rate (after exemptions/deductions) for income in a given range. But the numbers given here are not calculated correctly.

For example, in 1999, the marginal rate on income between $0 and $43850 was 15% so the income tax for a single taxpayer with an income of $30K was $30000 x 0.15 = $4,500 (not $8400).

And in 2008, the same taxpayer would pay 10% on the first $16049 and 15% on the remaining $13950 and their tax bill would have been $3700 (not $4500).

I assume the rest of the chart is just as, or more, inaccurate. And yes, this does not account for deductions and exemptions that would also affect the taxpayer's liability.

Anonymous said...

What a surprise, another right winger using misinformation to promote his flawed thinking. I suppose Saddam was responsible somehow. never mind he doesn't take into account deductions/expemptions, or that any savings W accorded the middle class has been obliterated by the more than DOUBLE price per gallon increase in fuel. Or how about the our rediculous deficit that guys like this can't even wrap their minds around b/c its too large (thanks to W and the republicans 6 years of total control). How 'bout this... we pay a little more, I'd be happy ro return to the Clinton economic model, and we pay for the stuff we buy. This guy, like so many of his kind, thinks in only blacks & whites. What a fool, if only it were that simple.

Watch 'n Wait said...

Again, thanks so much for your enlightening comments. Knew something wasn't right, and sure enough...

Anonymous said...

Damin it, I didn't get a chance to "consider these stats before VOTING !!!!"

Anonymous said...

I love how right wingers post inaccurate data and then get all hot and sweaty about it.

A Democrat votes as an adult. The Democrat realizes that taxes are only one issue of many facing a President. Republicans vote like children; on one topic like taxes.

By the way, Wait, consider that it was the Republican that got the US involved in that conflict in Iraq and he flip-flopped on the reasons we invaded. "They host terrorists" "they have weapons of mass destruction" "they are working on weapons of mass destruction program related activities" Which reason is it?

Watch 'n Wait said...

Actually, it was oil. There were no weapons of mass destruction, nor were they hosting terrorists. However, due to our invasion and occupation, there are plenty of terrorists now. Am I surprised? Hell no.

Anonymous said...

There's another problem with your stats. Inflation. The person in 1999 making $30k is better off than the person in 2008 making $30k. That person in 1998 would need to make over $38k to break even. The reason they pay less taxes in 2008 is because they shifted into a lower income tax bracket and they need the help. Conversely, someone in 2008 making $30k could get by just as easily on $23k in 1999.

You did a good job picking your round numbers. You managed to pick ones that would always shift income brackets over the course of the 9 year comparison. If anyone is getting paid the exact same amount as they were 9 years ago, that is a very bad sign for their personal finances.

Edmund said...

And so it goes. Bad information from the left. You are clouding what is clear. Clinton nearly doubled the income tax & turned one income homes into two income homes to survive. Please argue that. You can't change history.