Right wing e-mail decrying tax codes...(should I hit 'reply all?')

[Mezzo]

It breaks my hear to receive this e-mail, since the girl who sent it to me is not usually politically active.

>start<

Most voters are completely ignorant of the pertinent facts that should be considered when one enters the voting booth.

After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I got sick. For the most part, all of them bashed Bush on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media stating as fact, "Bush is only out for the rich in this country.

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. So let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.

Http ://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.HTML

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 60 K - 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, ALL 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. 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.

>end<

[hobbit709]

1. I always hit reply all on stuff like this.

If nothing else, it got a lot of people to stop forwarding me this kind of crap.

[Mezzo]

2. I tried to edit this so the chart would be easier to read, and it

still didn't post properly.

[LiberalFighter]

14. People believe that if they are in the 28% tax rate that all of their

income is taxed at that rate.

Maybe if they did their own tax return instead of having someone who is not that much more capable they would know better.

[NMDemDist2]

3. you know, that one is really making the rounds

I like to use the country club analogy

I consider taxes as my 'dues' to live here. I like the surroundings to be nice so I'm willing to pay my dues for the privilege.

[peace13]

4. So tempting.

But...sometimes it can bite you in the rear end! Peace, Kim

[JHB]

5. Among the things it leaves out...

...is that it's only addressing Federal income tax. How much did those same samples save by lowering taxes on dividends? On the elimination of the Estate Tax?

How about including how much their share of the National Debt increased under Bush?

[nxylas]

6. Are the figures correct?

Or is the Right "creating its own reality" again? It doesn't matter to me because I'm not an anti-taxer, but it does change the nature of how to respond. If the figures are bulshit, then you just need to say so. If the figures are accurate, then the counter-argument becomes more complex.

[Mountainman]

28. The figures do not tell the complete story. The investor class does not earn money like

the middle class. They receive income from excess wealth that is invested and is taxed at a much lower rate than these tables. If the income is gotten over seas it isn't taxed at all. You need to get the amount of income and compare it to the amount of taxes paid on it not just look at these tables.

You need to develop some critical thinking skills. So many people on the right screw themselves because they fall for this kind of bull shit. "It sounds go so it must be true." You need to get some of the results of the past few years to see what has been going on. Look at the statistics of how wealth as piled up on one side over the last 7 years.

You do not help yourself by remaining ignorant of the facts and letting emails like this do your thinking for you.

[JHB]

7. Yeah, hit "reply all".

Just choose your words carefully and back up what you say (and best to point out you're only responding because of the indiscriminate propaganda-pushing of whomever decided to send this around.

[skipos]

8. since they are so into money

here are some numbers for them from dailykos.com

Days since Mission Accomplished: 1764

Direct costs per minute of Iraq war and occupation, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: $238,425

Direct costs of Iraq war and occupation for the 326 days remaining in Mister Bush’s term: $111,926,232,000

Direct costs of Iraq war and occupation for the 100 years of McCain’s wet-dream: $12,531,618,000,000

[Kali]

10. yes send this in your reply-all

[safeinOhio]

9. Well hell

I use to be one of those "single making $75k". Being able to pay that much tax is only a dream now.

[trof]

11. always, Always, ALWAYS 'reply all'!

If they're dumb enough to send me their email list, I'm smart enough to educate EVERYBODY!
:-)

[LiberalFighter]

12. Whoever wrote that was not a former IRS employee.

They would know that one is not taxed at one rate on the whole amount of their income. And it is only on the taxable income after the standard or itemized deduction and personal exemption and exemptions for those with children.

As a single person I never paid 28% on all of my income. Not even 10%.

[gilpo]

13. These are bullshit numbers

I looked up the 1999 tax schedule (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040a--1999.pdf) and here is the number for 30K Single- $5060. and 50K single- $10646.

Call'em on it!

[Finishline42]

18. The web site now has a "if you're responding to an email" link

If you go to the link, it has the correct numbers. The numbers used in the email do not include the standard deduction and probably other stuff as well.

Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Taxpayer Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law
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
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

Something else is bracket creep - single income of $30k in 2008 is at 15% and in 2005 it's at 25%, in 2002 it's at 27% and in 2000 it goes to 28%

[JHB]

22. My, how less-impressive those savings are in that version

Kinda undercuts the whole point of the message, eh?

Little wonder why it used scare-em numbers in the first place.

[gilpo]

23. The numbers I looked up are "taxable income", so after any deductions

The only fair way to compare, I think.


Welcome to DU!

[Finishline42]

24. Thanks.

Just got that email this morning from one of my right wing friends - I can't believe how many of them just mindlessly pass that shit on. They don't care if it's a lie.

I think it's funny how the website put the link in to counter the propaganda.

[Wickerman]

15. This one seems to be the latest meme o'hate from the Rethugs

It's been posted a few times in the last few days. Some helpful info in this thread, but the important thing to remember is the effective tax rate. That is the rate that you actually pay. Those tables show what your after deductions income tax was for the given years. What's not factored into that email is what deductions are you eligible for, what your local taxes and fees are, etc. Links in the thread below show you that we, the middle class, have gained the tax burden that was previously placed on the top 5% of the country's wealthiest.

It's all very cold, calculated and cynical. The richest get a huge tax break that they have no need of and wind up paying a very insignificant (relative to their wealth and percentage-wise) amount of tax. Meanwhile, the middle class get soaked with more taxes from all angles and we, seeing how bad it is for us, assume the rich have it as bad since they pay more in dollars, but much less in percent.

Your whole post outlines the giant shell game that the Republicans under Bush* have foisted on us. Until one understands the effective tax rate then this email is simply noise. When you understand the ET then it is an out and out lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2929484

[B Calm]

16. IT'S ALL MADE UP CRAP! Here is the facts on the Bush tax cut e-mail

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

[Mezzo]

17. your link just takes me to the main page. nt

[B Calm]

25. Not sure what I did wrong? here ya go.

This is in the Economy Forum!

hay rick (70 posts) Tue Feb-12-08 11:04 PM

Original message

Bush tax cut e-mail

I received this e-mail from one of my Republican friends the other day. At the bottom of the letter I have added a few "inconvenient truths" that seem to have escaped the writer's notice.

> Can you handle The Truth of Taxation
>
> After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I literally wanted to puke. For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in this country.
>
> 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… so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
>
> 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, ALL 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. 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. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.
>
> NOW, CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH??

Inconvenient truth number 1.

Neither Obama or Clinton has advocated repealing tax cuts for people in the tax brackets that the author lists. They both speak of eliminating cuts for taxpayers earning in excess of $250,000 per year. In fact, both candidates speak of expanding tax cuts and/or tax credits for the middle class. Taxes that mainly impact the rich and which Democrats would like to see restored to former levels, or at least higher than current levels, are the capital gains, dividend, and inheritance taxes.

Inconvenient truth number 2.

The numbers he claims to get from the referenced tax tables are not the numbers you actually get if you apply the tax tables to the example incomes. I do the author's first example below. Try it yourself!

Married Filing Jointly 2008 Single 2008
Marginal Tax Brackets Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over Tax Rate Over But Not Over
10.0% $0 $16,050 10.0% $0 $8,025
15.0% $16,050 $65,100 15.0% $8,025 $32,550
25.0% $65,100 $131,450 25.0% $32,550 $78,850
28.0% $131,450 $200,300 28.0% $78,850 $164,550

Married Filing Jointly 1999 Single 1999
Marginal Tax Brackets Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over Tax Rate Over But Not Over
15.0% $0 $43,050 15.0% $0 $25,750
28.0% $43,050 $104,050 28.0% $25,750 $62,450
31.0% $104,050 $158,550 31.0% $62,450 $130,250

The author's numbers:
1999 (Clinton) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
2008 (Bush) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
claimed difference: $3,900

Actual numbers from tables:
1999 (Clinton) Single making 30K - tax $5,052
(0.15 x $25,750 = $3,862.50) + (0.28 x $4,250 = $1,190) = $5,052.50
2008 (Bush) Single making 30K - tax $4,099
(0.10 x $8,025 = $802.50) + (0.15 x $21,975 = $3,296.25) = $4,098.75 actual difference: $953

In this case, 76% of the claimed "tax cut" evaporates as soon as you actually do the math.

Inconvenient truth number 3.

Inflation breeds bracket creep. This phenomenon is simultaneously creating the Alternative Minimum Tax predicament. The author neglects to adjust incomes for inflation in his examples, thereby avoiding the effects of bracket creep. Let's correct that "oversight" for him. Here's an inflation calculator- http://www.westegg.com/inflation /
The calculator only goes up to 2007, so I will use 1998-2007 as a proxy for my example. The calculator says I need approximately $38,619.94 to maintain purchasing power equivalent to $30,000 in 1999. Going back to the tax tables, the tax on this equivalent income is $5,998. The Bush "tax cut" is now actually a tax increase. In fairness, the increase is in inflation-debased dollars and is offset by increased income. However, whatever is left of the "middle class" part of the Bush tax cuts is looking pretty trivial by now.
If only the story ended there.

Inconvenient truth number 4.

Deficit spending. Is a tax cut really a tax cut if it is accompanied by borrowing that exceeds the amount of the tax cut several times over? The borrowed money will have to be repaid with interest in the future, either by current tax payers or their descendants. Of course, it is impossible to know how much of the deficit will be repaid by current taxpayers and when. The total amounts, however, are well known. The total federal budget data for the chart below is taken from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Draw your own conclusions. All figures are in billions.

Year Income Tax Receipts On-Budget Deficit* Total Deficit
2000 Clinton 1,004.5 86.4 (surplus) 236.2 (surplus)
2001 Bush 994.3 -32.4 128.2 (surplus)
2002 858.3 -317.4 -157.8
2003 793.7 -538.4 -377.6
2004 809.0 -568.0 -412.7
2005 927.2 -493.6 -318.3
2006 1,043.9 -434.5 -248.2
2007 1,163.5 -344.3 -162.8

*The on-budget deficit excludes the Social Security "surplus" which is borrowed by the Treasury to pay current expenses. That money is owed to retirees in the future. If it is not repaid in full, the Bush tax cuts will also turn out to be benefit cuts.

[nealmhughes]

19. Back in the Golden Age of union jobs, full medical coverage -- even dental -- and discretionary $

I lived in NY. Never begrudged a penny of my taxes, those little trains above and below ground have to get funded somehow, you know, and the alternative would be what? A car-infested Manhattan and Brooklyn 100X worse than it is now? No NIH in Grover Norquidst's wetdream. No public libraries, either, most likely, nor any education beyond the 3 Rs by firelight in that world. Until the trees were cut down in Central Park for firewood, that is.
These "tax protestors" are just people who do not play well with others. I think most of them live in their parents' basements and fondle their pudenda with a copy of "Atlas Farted" or whatever the old crone from Petersburg wrote.

[warpigs]

20. X-IRS employee doesn't know how to read a tax table??

First - the tax rate (single) for 1999 is 15% on the first $25,750 (AGI of course) which is $3,862.50 then add 4,250 X 0.28 = $5,052.50 for 1999 not $8,400. The 2008 is actually a tax of $4,098.75.

Second, the tax rates brackets adjust upward every year. So someone making 30K in 1999 was in a higher bracket for a part of the AGI. This bracket increases every year so now a $30K AGI would not be in the higher bracket (they added a lower 10% bracket as well in 2002).

[jmowreader]

27. Now we know why he's an EX-IRS employee!

[Libby2]

21. You should always hit, "reply to all." IMHO

[jmowreader]

26. I'm doing the numbers now, but all of the original numbers are wrong

Here are the real numbers, contrasted with what the freeper sent.

In this, I used the standard deduction and assumed two children for the married couple, and pulled my numbers out of the IRS tax tables. I also used the 2007 tax tables instead of the 2008 tax tables...mainly because the 2008 tax year isn't over yet and those tables haven't been released.

Single making $30,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $8400
Reality: $3439

2007:
Freeper: $4500
Reality: $2793

Before I go on: the freeper ran his numbers without doing any deductions and he calculated the whole bill at the highest marginal rate for that income--neither of which you should do.

Single making $50,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $14,000
Reality: $8,686

2007:
Freeper: $12,500
Reality: $3,069

Single making $75,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $23,250
Reality: $15,851

2007:
Freeper: $18,750
Reality: $12,993

Married making $60,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $16,800
Reality: $6,274

2007:
Freeper: $9,000
Reality: $4,569

Married making $75,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $21,000
Reality: $10,315

2007:
Freeper: $18,750
Reality: $6,826

Married making $125,000/year.
1999:
Freeper: $38,750
Reality: $24,389

2007:
Freeper: $31,250
Reality: $18,023

The lesson of this little exercise is "don't ever let a freeper do your taxes."

[B Calm]

29. "Don't ever let a freeper do your taxes." ha ha.. Cost of Living is

another factor too. I don't want a freeper expaining to me about the cost of living either!