« Floridians Serious About Watering Plants. Really Serious. | Main | Gives a new meaning to “laying pipe” »

She works hard for the money, so hard for it honey….

Courtesy of a friend of the site (who just welcomed a baby girl into the world — congrats!) comes this image from the Washington Post comparing the effect of the McCain and Obama tax cuts. And wouldn’t you know it — under McCain’s plan, over 80% of the taxpayers (those who have a famly income of less than $111,646 per year) would pay more than they would under Obama’s plan. In fact, the only ones who pay more under Obama’s plan are the 1% of lucky fuckers with family income over $603,402. I ain’t crying for them, are you?


| Comments (19)


The more I read things like this, the more depressed I get because I know that McCain is going to win. There are far too many stupid people in this country. And it just makes me sad.

Wait a second? Am I to assume that is based on a family of 4? Doesn't say. The problem I have with that chart is that a family of 4 making up to 19k isn't going to be paying taxes now and they are probably getting all sorts of rebates. If Obama is going to cut their taxes even further how is he going to pay for the substantial subsidy we are going to be giving people to be poor?

Uh, Nick...again, I find your comment perplexing. I just...I don't know, is it me, Quizlaw readership? Is it?

Because, really, the more I read the comment the less sense it makes.

Um, what is there not to understand?

1. this graph sucks because it doesn't give enough information. Like, how big is the supposed family? I like a family of 4 because well, that gets bandied about a lot. Could be a family of 2, could be a family of 10, makes a big difference.

2. A family of 4 that makes a whopping 19k a year is probably living in poverty to begin with? Ok? Follow me here?

3. That said family isn't paying any taxes already. Between the normal deductions and the credit for the kids, they are already getting a refund. Follow me?

4. If you decrease the amount of tax they are already not paying, while keeping the amount of deductions and credits the same you are in effect subsidizing their poverty, or put another way, more welfare. But a worse kind of welfare because it's fake welfare.

5. Are you still following me or have the numbers gotten to large?

6. If you cut the taxes on the people already not paying them and then give them more money in refund, somebody then has to make up the difference and it isn't going to be the people at the top, because even if you increase their tax, they are just going to find better ways to hide it. Therefore, the people who will be paying this are going to be the people in the middle.

Hey Nick, if you're going to get all uppity, learn the difference between: to, too and two.

Ah yes, because when you can't come up with a come back, a retort or even a bare argument against someone on the internet, there is always the coup de grace, criticize minor grammar mistakes.

Consider me a schooled uppity asshole.

Doesn't change the fact that both this graph and the underlying tax policy sucks.

The interpretation of the graph seems odd. For starters, Americans (overall) will be paying less in taxes under McCain than Obama: -2% change vs -.3%. In other words, McCain is giving the entire country a tax break, whereas Obama is giving a tax break to some (those who need it most), but is increasing the burden on others.

Also, it isn't just the "1% of lucky fuckers" that are paying more under Obama than McCain. It's anyone making over $111,000.

Overall, there are good things about both candidates (according to this graph). I like that everyone is getting a tax cut under McCain (95% for Obama). But I like that those who need the break the most are getting a large break under Obama.

I also like that everyone gets a tax cut, but the problem with the Obama tax cut is that those people likely don't pay any federal income tax anyway. If this was about who a tax cut would help them most it the biggest tax cuts should be made in the 19 - 38 and 38-68 ranges. those people end up getting "hurt" the most by the income taxes.

The thing is that this looks really good for Obama. Like he's being magnanimous and helping the poor, (and conversely McCain is helping the rich) but in reality, he's not doing a damn thing but shifting the tax burden on to the lower middle class.

Rob, not sure how you're misinterpreting the table. -2% vs. -.3% is the average change in taxes, which is greatly influenced by the huge amounts saved by the wealthy in the McCain plan. It's not a measure of the savings for Americans overall--just a skewing of the mean based on those outliers.

Anyone making over $111K isn't paying more under Obama; they're just getting back less. A subtle distinction to be sure, but money in your pocket is money in your pocket. That tax bracket would still be paying less under Obama's plan than they are now.

I like that Obama's plan gives higher tax breaks to those who can really use it. Obama's plan does not tax the top 2% of the country any more than Clinton's tax plan did in the '90s (which, if I remember correctly, things were pretty good back then). The only tax cuts Obama is reversing is a portion of the tax breaks that Bush gave to the top 2%. A better comparison of the candidates' tax plan is here from
Business Week
(hardly a left-leaning magazine).


I think Arr Matey's confusion had more to do with how painful your tripe about "subsidizing their poverty" was. Or maybe that's just my confusion. Confusion/fury. You don't subsidize poverty, a subsidy is aid to support the ongoing activity of a party. It's not aid so people can stay poor, because no one is trying their damnedest to be poor. Nobody thinks "oh good, I'm getting $500 more dollars; this makes living on food stamps TOTALLY worth it! I would way rather do this than make, say, $15k more and qualify for the next still-crushingly-difficult-to-get-by-tax bracket." And, speaking as someone who has spent some time there, I'm having a really hard time coming up with argument as to why making being poor $500/year less awful would be a bad thing.

And your argument about "shifting the tax burden onto the lower middle class" doesn't make a damn bit of sense. First, when you say "the people who are going to be paying this are the people in the middle," you're presuming the net intake is static...the only way you could claim that a tax bracket who is paying 3.6% less (or 2.4%, I don't know what you're calling that class) is if somehow you're making it 3.6% less of something that grows to an absolute proportion...which it isn't, under either candidate's plan. As I said, pretty much nonsensical. And even if that *were* true, all of your arguments about the highest tax bracket avoiding paying and burden shifting apply MORE to McCain's plan. Let's put it directly; how could a family possibly pay more under a plan where they pay 3.6% less relative to the current mark, than under a plan where they pay .5% less than the current mark? Both figures presume relative to the status quo. How do you square that circle?

On the nose, Ian. On the nose.

Thank you, you said it much better than I could have, what with my teeny, tiny brain.

I just dont agree with the whole take from the rich, give to the poor mentality. If I want to help people, I will donate to a charity so I know the money is going to people who need it.
Plus I dont think its very fair to put that much of a burden on the rich. I really dont feel like they need to be punished because theyve been successful.

Oh man, Abortions for Everyone...let's not even go there. I mean, you just did, but still...

Maybe you ought to spend some time with people who live on the ass end of the economic scale, maybe that would change your mind a little - because when people even hint at the old "bootstrap" argument I start to get very agitated.

My blood pressure literally just went up - I can feel it tingle!

UNLESS - wait, it just occurred to me that you might be being sarcastic, in which case: Bravo! Give 'em hell!

You sure know how to take the piss out of them, Abortions for Everyone!

calm down Robin Hood... McCain's plan is just as bad.

Let's be honest here. A large portion of the folks over in the $603,403+ annual salary range did not achieve their success by working hard. Many of these people were simply born into this lifestyle. Wether it was due to their parents attending prestigious colleges or wether it was inherited money; they did not struggle from a single-family home and a crack addicted father into Harvard.
This is clearly demonstrated by many who waste their money on $300 Burberry infant jackets.
Tax the hell out of 'em I say!

You know what's funny? I was going to suggest that you watch the BBC Robin Hood series...for inspiration and Lily Allen's dad.

Actually, some did come from single family homes because daddy dropped dead from heroin. Some came from single family homes, with disabled and/or abusive parents. Some want to do what's right for the country and world... but get jaded pretty darn quick when they see people trying to steal what they worked hard for and others taking pleasure in seeing them taxed more... without knowing what challenges they have faced and what other challenges they may face now. And without knowing what good they have tried to do for others.

Yes, there are huge injustices in the world. But... an us and them attitude will only make things worse.