Friday, August 29, 2008

Obama: taxes only for the top 5%

Last night, presidential candidate Barack Obama said he was only going to tax the top 5% of earners. So I thought I'd share with you some information about who pays taxes. From the National Taxpayers Union for the Tax Year 2006:

The top 1% threshold is $388,806 AGI and they pay 39.89% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 5% threshold is $153,542 AGI and they pay 60.14% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 10% threshold is $108,904 AGI and they pay 70.79% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 25% threshold is $64,702 AGI and they pay 86.27% of all federal personal income tax.

The top 50% threshold is $31,987 AGI and they pay 97.01% of all federal personal income tax.

The bottom 50% threshold is less than $31,987 AGI and they pay 2.99% of all federal personal income tax.

(Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income)

Since Democrats, and liberals in general, are all about fairness, how is it fair that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes? Shouldn't we all be paying a 'fair' portion? If we were really being 'fair,' wouldn't they have to pay only 5% of the federal income taxes?

And do people actually understand that if you make more than $64,702, you're in the top 25% of taxpayers? With this threshold, most public employees are 'rich.' And those good factory workers, like at Jeep and Hydromatic - good UAW union jobs - are probably in that group, especially if there are two wage earners in the family. These are the people who are already paying the vast majority of the taxes. So is it fair to make them pay more so that people who make less than $31,987 can pay less than the 3% they're currently paying?

Of course, Obama and Sen. John McCain were asked how much you have to make to be rich - neither of them were very accurate when it comes to how the tax code defines 'rich.' But then, if they keep talking about the rich as people who make more than half a million a year, you'll keep supporting them, not realizing just how many of YOU actually end up footing the bill based upon the tax code.

Pay attention, people, because if those nasty Bush tax cuts expire, you can expect to pay more regardless of how much you make. A married couple making $60,000/year would see their tax bill go from about $9,000 up to $16,800. A single person making $30,000/year would go from $4,500 up to $8,400. But Obama, who wants to let those taxes expire, only wants to tax the 'rich.' I suppose that if you let tax cuts expire, you're not really raising taxes, even though the result is the same.

Don't be swayed by the words, especially when the speaker is counting upon your definition rather than the government's. Do the research yourself and make an informed decision.


Tim Higgins said...


Watching Glenn Beck interview Bob Barr on TV last night I heard perhaps the best definitions of rich from Mr. Barr that I have ever come across:

1. Not me

2. The government

The A-Hole Lawyer said...

I had not watched the DNC at all this week, other than a few short moments. Myself and more importantly Mrs. AHL, didn't want me going to bed angry. But last night I watched Obama's speach. (Know thy enemy, grasshopper).

I didn't yell at the TV too much, I was really too surprised to do so. I know he was "preaching to the choir" (a clich'e, not a racist reference), but does he really expect people to belive his rhetoric when his history and RECORD betray it.

Cut taxes - a flat out lie.

Increase jobs - economic impossibilty given his socialistic agenda.

Leave Iraq and the Middle East with dignity and success, while preventing Iran and the new Russia from gaining power - Fantasy.

The economy is in shambles - Lie.

The speach went better than I expected. But under the stern challenge to debate McCain on security was the same old theme; Bush bad, politics of envy, capitalism is evil, Goverment is the solution because Republicans will keep you poor and homeless.

We are a young country, and in 232 years have made progress in every arena leaps and bounds ahead of those across the world. Last night, Barrack Obama became the first African American to accept a major party's nomination for President. A Harvard grad., a Senator, and child of a mixed marriage. We have come so far.

Slavery and servitude has existed in Asia for thousands of years, Slavery and Servitude has existed and continues in the Middle East, and Slavery and Servitude has existed and continues in Africa. Yet We Have Overcome!. The candidacy and nomination of Obama are proof of this fact.

But, wait........................ When he looses, the voices singing praise, "crying their eyelashes off," and bursting with pride will DECRY RACISM IS ALIVE IN AMERICA.

Because when he looses, due to his lack of experience, lack of candor, extreme liberal voting record, and his socialist plan which will wreak havoc on our country and citizens, these factors will not be cited as the reason.

The Claims will be - White Racist Conservative Christian America supports the status Quo. Barrack Lost Because he is Black.

Barrack should loose because he is wrong. Wrong on taxes, wrong on energy, wrong on Socialism, wrong on national security, and wrong on health care. He is inexperienced and illogical in his economic and policy positions. That is why he will loose.


Maggie Thurber said...

A person's age, gender, race, religion, ancestry, color of skin, color of hair, etc... are irrelevant to me. Unlike so many who profess to follow the teachings of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, I judge by the content of the character, the experience, the skills and the record of elected officials when I vote.

And in other such decisions I've made in hiring, appointing to boards, etc.

Frank said...

I did not watch his speach last night (or others this week) from Denver. While I should have listened to his speach to be a better,more informed voter in the coming elections, just hearing some of the reports and speaches from other dems did not sway my opinion on who to vote for.
While the dems continue to blame Bush for the problems that we face, who was it that vowed to make changes in 2006 when they had the majority in Congress to make those changes? It sure wasn't the republicans.
Just like TAHL & you had mentioned, I vote for the person who I feel has my best interests in mind. It does not matter the color of their skin, social, religious backgrounds, etc...
As we have seen on the local level how most of the democratic party rules and manages the affairs of government, I would not want it on the national level.

Hooda Thunkit said...

Well, I had to wash my hair, so I missed it ;-)

But, I'm better for having missed it, just as I've missed all of the rest.

Still I've heard enough to know that the MSM's silence about the speech was deafening...

Google Analytics Alternative