Friday, August 13, 2010

Tax Cuts

CNN shed little diamond-encrusted platinum tears today on behalf of those supposedly unfairly disadvantaged, the US citizens who make about $250,000 a year. Boo-hoo, it's so hard to be them, especially now that the Bush tax cut package is expiring.
These are individuals whose household income might bring them into the top tax bracket of $250,000 a year but who, with two parents working, might still find themselves struggling to stay in the stability of the upper-middle class in the expensive urban areas where they often work.
Much of the anger about the scheduled sunset of the Bush tax cuts for the increase in top-bracket taxes comes from this productive group of Americans.
Sounds awful, doesn't it? I almost felt sympathy, because not only is it expensive to live in suburbia, it's also just generally boring and tacky there.

Then I popped over to the Washington Post, and looked at this chart comparing the expiring tax cuts and the ones Obama is trying to replace them with:

The Bush tax plan vs. the Obama tax plan in one chart


In case that's too small to read, the $200,000 to $500,000 yearly income line sees a change in tax burden of $409 a year. Those "poor" "disadvantaged" working Americans making 250,000 a year are going to be paying extra taxes of about one tenth of a percentage point of their yearly wages. The equivalent, if you were making say $50,000 a year, would be having to pay an extra $81 in taxes. Don't get me wrong, I too would prefer to have an extra $80, but even if were going to be out by $400 at my families current income level, it wouldn't be enough of a hardship on me or mine to justify column inches at CNN. Whatever little sympathy I might have had for those who make several hundred thousand a year melted away when I saw that chart. As it melted and flowed, it took my respect for CNN with it.

That Washington Post chart is awesome by the way. It makes it very clear who the Bush tax plan helped, with it's clear delineation that once you hit millionaire, your tax cut jumps to 6 times it's previous size. "Thanks for joining the Club, here's your $85,000 door prize..."

2 comments:

List with Laszlo said...

Of course the biggest increase for us middleclass people will be the loss of $1,000 per child income tax credit. In other words, those of us with the most mouths to feed will have less in a stagnant economy to feed our kids. So much for Obama's promise that no one making less the $250,000 a year will see a tax increase!

Unknown said...

Kids are a choice. Among some people (even here in the United States) it is a sign of wealth to have a huge family. That makes them a luxury item like alcohol and tobacco. Those things have the highest tax.

I don't mind paying my fair share to help kids get an education and health care because in the long run those two things will benefit all of us. I do wonder why those who benefit the most from these things seem the most reluctant to contribute to them.

Given the current population growth models in the United States we have no reason to encourage population expansion. As such, we have no reason to offer incentives through tax breaks to those who choose to have children.

With my wife in school I take full advantage of tax breaks for students. Of course I want to decrease my tax burden as much as possible. I understand that these are put in place as incentives towards education. If they disappeared she would still go to school and I would rearrange the budget to make it work.