America's Richest Will Pay More Under Obama's Tax Plan

By Sam Pizzigati
August 1, 2008.


A debate between campaign economists on taxes shows a clear divide on tax policy between Obama and McCain for America's wealthiest.

The rich, as a group, are indeed paying a larger share of the nation's income tax dollars, but only because they're pocketing a much larger share of the nation's income. As individuals, the IRS data show, the rich are actually paying less -- far less -- of these incomes in taxes than they have in years.

n fact, if average taxpayers in the top 1 percent had paid taxes in 2006 at the same rate as the top 1 percent paid taxes 20 years ago in 1986, those average top 1 percent taxpayers would have each paid $136,518 more in 2006 taxes than they actually did.

What do the McCain and Obama campaigns feel about this top-tilting tax status quo? Both campaigns had a chance to explain last week in the nation's capital, at the 2008 Presidential race's first debate devoted purely to taxes. The host for the event: the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two bedrock pillars of the capital's policy wonk community.

Tax Policy Center researchers last month published a preliminary analysis of just how the McCain and Obama tax plans would likely play out. The researchers unveiled an updated analysis at last Wednesday's debate, 56 dense pages of numbers and charts

Under the McCain plan, the Tax Policy Center figures indicated, Americans in the top 0.1 percent -- that's everyone making at least $2,871,682 -- would average $192,645 less in taxes in 2012 than they would if the current tax situation were simply extended.

After-tax incomes for the top 0.1 percent, if the McCain tax plan became law, would jump five times faster than after-tax incomes for taxpayers in the middle of the U.S. income distribution and 15 times faster than average incomes for the poorest fifth of Americans.

Under Obama's tax plans, the top 0.1 percent would pay more in taxes, not less -- an average $788,959 more. Middle- and low-income Americans, by contrast, would see sizeable tax cuts. These cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis, would save Americans in the middle almost four times more than the savings they would see from the McCain plan. Poor Americans would save 30 times more under Obama than McCain. At last week's debate, Obama's lead expert -- University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee -- spoke first. Not surprisingly, Goolsbee welcomed the Tax Policy Center numbers. McCain's tax plan, he energetically charged, would "magnify" the "regressive" legacy of the George W. Bush years.


Complete article at: AlterNet

So if you feel the need to give the top 1% income earners in the US a boost in after tax income vote McCain. And if you're one of the 99% of middle income and ordinary folk who have been finding it harder to maintain a good standard of living under the Bush administration the Democrats should be your choice right?

Except of course life's not that straight forward and all the political hogwash and fear mongering that the Republicans spill cause many to vote based on emotional issues like fear, security and prejudice. Anyone who still thinks the Republican Party has the interests of the majority of Americans at heart needs to see a shrink real bad! I mean please folks, can you really blame the economic crisis facing America on some odd-ball extremists hiding out in a cave in the Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan? You need to look a bit closer to home for the crackpot extremists responsible for that

To be fair, I think that almost everyone in the U.S. should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes. Only the very poor should not be expected to match that same percentage. The rich in this country provide a large amount of support to our economy and taxing them at a higher interest rate, just because they have a higher gross income, seems prejudice to me. But, that is what is happening right now. The rich are paying more taxes just because they are rich.

There are even taxes called luxury taxes in the US where purchasing these items will get more of your hard earned money taken by the government. A luxury tax is supposed to be a tax on luxury items like jewelry, high end electronics, and other items that are not essential to a person's livelihood. We all buy these items, but only the very expensive versions of these items are given the luxury tax. I didn't pay a luxury tax when I purchased jewelry for my wife, yet the jewelry is non-essential. Almost no one pays a luxury tax on a plasma TV, except the plasma TVs that cost a bundle, yet plasma TVs are a luxury over a traditional CRT or cheaper LCD TVs.

I for one, think we already tax the rich enough. To tax the rich more because they are rich... If that isn't prejudice, I don't know what is.

Even those making $250k+ a year aren't going to be taxed all that much more. The only people that are going to be taxed significantly more are those making $3mil+ every year, which is a handful of people, and likely those that are getting a salary plus stock compensation from the company and who knows what else.

And I haven't seen any luxury taxes around here, is that a state only thing? I know people that have gotten some pretty big and expensive things and they never paid a luxury tax on it.

I am not going to blame the Republicans for all the problems, I think both parties are at fault, and neither of them have the people in mind as much as they do themselves. That is not to say there isn't some politians out there that aren't trying, they are just out numbered by the ones that have their hands out.

they have both done things to screw us over.
if anything we need to get more people into the work force making money instead of sitting on their butts stealing from the rich because they dont even wanna try at life and think they are entitled to free money for life.