What Would You Pay Under Each Candidate’s Tax Plans?

October 17, 2008

What Would You Pay Under Each Candidate’s Tax Plans?

“If your annual salary is less than $112,000, you’d pay less in taxes under Obama’s plan; if your salary is higher, McCain would cut your taxes more. “While the aggregate tax cut is bigger for McCain, a larger number of voters get more money under Obama,” says Alan Viard, a tax-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Obama is choosing to emphasize tax cuts for the middle class, whereas McCain’s strategy is to keep rates lower at the top as a way to facilitate long-run growth.” For example, a person with an income of $1 million could see his taxes increase under Obama by as much as $94,000, whereas under McCain’s plan he could save about $48,000.”

Obama McCain

If you make You would save You would save

Less than $19,000 (go back to college) $567 $21

$19,000 - $37,600 $892 $118

$37,600 - $66,400 $1,118 $325

$66,400 - $111,600 $1,264 $994

$111,600 - $161,000 $2,135 $2,584

$161,000 - $227,000 $2,796 $4,437

Top 5% of earners You would pay You’d save

$227,000 - $603,400 $121 $8,169

$603,400 - $2.87million $93,709 $48,862

more than $2.87million $542,882 $290,708

I don’t know about you but I’m voting with my wallet. ”Income redistribution” my ass.

Categories: Business, Politics
Share:

Dumb & Dumber

As the 3 month long NBA Finals begin D&D try and tackle who will emerge with the Larry O'Brien Trophy when it's all said and done.

Dumb

After being humiliated in the Finals last year by Boston (you know expectations are high when losing 4-2 without your starting center is considered humiliation), the Los Angeles Lakers have but one objective this year: Win It All. Anything less would be a failure. So, after bringing the gold medal home for all Americans in Beijing this past summer, Kobe has the sole focus of bringing the gold Larry O'Brien trophy back where IT belongs: The City of Angeles. And make no mistake about it, with KG sidelined with a bum knee, the Lakers are the best team in the NBA, and the best team always wins. The only team that can really give the Lake Show a run for their money is The LeBrons, aka the Cleveland Cavaliers. I agree that LeBron is the best player in the game. But history shows that the best TEAM wins the Finals, not the best player. That's why the Spurs have won 4 titles in the last 10 years, it's why Detroit won in 2004 and it's why the Celtics won last year. Assuming the Cleveland vs. Lakers scenario plays out, the Lakers will undoubtedly have the best team between the two. Last year, they were without Bynum and Trevor Ariza, and were playing with Gasol for only 1/2 season, and came within 2 games of winning it all. This year, with the core of the team healthy, both Ariza and Lamar Odom (not to mention Kobe) available to D up King James, and a supporting cast that is deeper and better from 2-12 than Cleveland, the Forum Blue & Gold will be poised to hoist the trophy once again. LeBron will have to wait at least another year to claim his crown and Kobe, ala Steve Young, can finally take that monkey off his back, earning his first title without Shaq.

Dumber

I gotta go with the Cavaliers. I know Dumb is picking the Lakers. He loves them so much he probably wishes he could be the girl Kobe raped in Colorado - just to say he “had some champion in him”. LeBron’s got home court advantage, meaning he’ll throw white powder in the air like Boston George at a Peter Frampton concert. Aside from the ridiculous talent, admittedly mostly possessed by LeBron, they have chemistry and play as a TEAM (unlike the Lakers, who play because they might get their dicks sucked after the game by Laker Girls - can’t blame em). True, the Cavs need Ben Wallace and HoMo Williams to ensure victory over Bean Town or LA, but I’m very sure LeBron is PISSED about last year — His time has come

White Noise

Homeless & Their Pets Rant: Why in the hell do homeless people always have dogs? I assume it is some kind of a begging tactic, but what the hell? PETA wants to hang Michael Vick by his balls, yet any dreadlocked idiot who cannot take care of him/herself has a cute little puppy. My parents wouldn’t let me get a dog until I was 14 or so and we had a house with power, a yard, access to dog food and only smoked crack on the weekends (you know - normal). So I’m at the DMV the other day (talk about the LCD of society), I step outside due to enjoy my 1.5 hour and what is it I see at the park? Numerous homeless with dogs. Are these poor things fed? Are they constantly getting brown weed smoke blown in their faces? If you can’t have at least a crappy apartment and a form of income, you shouldn’t have a dog. I guess the one good thing is since these people don’t work, they can spend all day with the dog. Also, since they live outside, I guess you don’t have to worry about the dog being taken out to the bathroom. Regardless, I don’t effing get it. Maybe it is for companionship, but since there are roughly 12,500 homeless in SF, I figure they can all hang out and leave poor fido out of it.