Here's a chart that will make you blow a gasket: Compare Democratic & RepublicanTax Plans

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html

The Republicans' plan to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $36.6 billion more than the Democrats' plan, which extends cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000.

[texastoast]

1. Kicky n/t

[blondeatlast]

2. Right down to the nitty-gritty. Thanks; passing it on. k/r nt

[JNelson6563]

3. This should be on billboards across the land!

:toast:

[quiet.american]

10. Great idea! It really does say it all. nt

[paparush]

19. TeaBaggers and NeoCons couldn't figure it out.

They need it drawn on a chalkboard with little arrows and words no longer than two syllables.

[JNelson6563]

24. haha You make a valid point!

:toast:

[gateley]

31. +1

[red red red]

4. K & R n/t

[WhiteTara]

5. amazing, isn't it? n/t

[foxfeet]

6. K&R

[mike_c]

7. a graphic worth one thousand words....

Very nice.

[Toucano]

8. Impressive! Thanks for sharing that. n/t

[ellenfl]

9. i hope rachel has this.

although it would be better if faux would show it. :silly:

ellen fl

[oldhippydude]

45. yes she

featured it last week i believe on her show.. fokkks dont hold your breathe!!!

[Canuckistanian]

11. Almost identical - until you reach the $1/2 million dollar mark

Then it gets absurd.

[tomp]

14. agreed. and the dems offering moreto the loser income groups....

...and taking more away from the rich. both programs suck, the repubs' sucks more.

[BurtWorm]

12. 'You know, Muffy, instead of buying a second yacht , what say we create 1,000 jobs.'

'Why yes, Throckmorton. It is the patriotic thing to do with our new tax break, isn't it?'

[Hissyspit]

13. I think my words were "Holy F*ck-All." Let me check...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8937370

Oh, yeah. They were. :-)

[Pryderi]

15. "Yeah, but they need that tax cut to invest and grow businesses that create jobs"

[Statistical]

16. Also if NO tax cuts get extended that is roughly how much YOUR taxes are going up.

More if you have children (about $600 per child) and married (marriage penalty comes back).

The marriage penalty is harder to calculate because is varies on household income but for here is an illustrative example.
Two single persons making $50K taxable would each owe $10,369 in taxes.
Two married persons making $100K taxable (combined) would owe $25,152 in taxes. A ~$4500 penalty for being married.

My guess is Republicans & Democrats deadlock on this and nothing passes.

[Sherman A1]

17. Agreed

[kenfrequed]

18. Honestly...

For the sake of the deficet if all the Bush tax breaks go away it wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Statistical]

21. For the sake of the economy that adds up to hundreds of billions in reduced consumption.

Not such a good thing when trying to grow the economy.

Still I agree somewhat that losing all tax cuts isn't the worst outcome.

From best to worst I rank the outcomes as:
* extend cuts for those under $200K
* end all cuts (all rates & brackets revert to 2000 levels)
* extend cuts for everyone but temporarily (sunset in 24 months)
* extend all cuts long term

[Sheepshank]

37. I'm thinking those losing the TEMPORARY tax break

will still be buying the same amount of gas, spending the same in utilities and eating the same steak and lobster. They are not really going to the fire the people they never really hired in the first place.

[hfojvt]

27. that's not much of a penalty

if you figure that the two single people are paying rent on two places and have double utility bills and pay higher auto insurance and pay more for health insurance, etc., etc., etc.

Although some of that does not apply for two people who live together but are not married, they don't have the two rent (or two house payment) problem at least.

[Statistical]

29. Well the apples to apples comparison would be your later one (two persons living together)

Obviously two unrelated random single people isn't a household.

Hence single rent (or mortgage), utility, cable, car payments, internet, insurance, etc.

2 person household single - lower tax rate
2 person household married - higher tax rate

The exact same two people living the exact same lifestyle. Married = pay more taxes. That is the marriage penalty. It was stupid and nonsensical. Would be a shame if it comes back.

[SlimJimmy]

33. Agreed. The marriage penalty was never a good idea, and

I find it curious that some here are trying to defend it. Bottom line. If they are saying to let the tax cuts expire for everyone, then that's exactly what they are doing.

[ProudDad]

43. Another wedge issue...the mythical "marriage penalty"

Most people are NOT effected by this mythical "penalty"...

Only those with larger, similar incomes. For the rest the income averaging effect results in lower taxes for the couple than would pertain for two single people.

"marriage penalty" is just another right-wing meme...

----------------------------------------------------------

"The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e. filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.

The source of this increase in taxes has its roots in the progressive tax-rate structure in income-tax laws, that is, a higher income pays a higher rate of tax. In such a context, income averaging is advantageous to the taxpayer. E.g. two married persons, one making $80,000 and the other making $20,000 in a particular year, will pay a lower combined tax than they would if both had an income of $50,000 in the same year and filed as two single people.

In the United States, income averaging (i.e., the "married filing jointly" status) was advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this somewhat, the U.S. provided a higher tax bracket for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

[Joanne98]

20. I'm going to take that canvassing with me.

[sybylla]

22. We did that in '08 with the WP's McCain/Obama comparison

Taped it right to the backs of the clipboards.

Wish I could see this chart. Apparently I need to be a registered user to see it.

[gateley]

32. Do you mean on WaPo?

I saw it, but I may be a registered user. What info would you like? I'll see if I can get it and post it for you here.

[sybylla]

48. Thanks for the offer - it's loading for me today.

Don't know what the problem was yesterday.

[LynneSin]

23. I'm curious as to how many millionaires were at Beckkkapaloosa the other weekend

Not counting, of course, Beck or Palin.

How many millionaires were out there in the audience fighting for their tax cuts.

Hell how many of them made over $250k a year for that matter.

I find it odd that the peons are fighting for their rights of their feudal masters to keep all their money!

[Drale]

25. I got three words for them

Fuck the Republicans, anyone who would vote for those crimials should automaticly have to have a catscan because there has to be something wrong with them.

[progressoid]

26. Unless you're Rush Limbaugh

If you're like him, you see this chart and get out the lotion and a box of Kleenex.

[TatonkaJames]

28. What is sad is the fact that

Those making 1,000,000 actually need the extra 103,000 ? Are they that unpatrioticly greedy ?

[gateley]

Wow -- as I was scrolling down I was surprised at how similar they are, then WHAM! nt

[SnakeEyes]

30. While the Republican plan is disgusting....

with those massive cuts to rich people.

I want to know why people on DU aren't upset with the Democrat's plan. That is certainly not a progressive plan. Why does anyone over 200K need a tax cut? Why does the rich still get the biggest cuts? And how come the more you make the more of a cut you get? It should be the other way around. The poor need it the most and they are the ones most likely to spend it, helping the economy in the process.

[Myrina]

38. +10

indeed.

[ProudDad]

44. +10 -- We're in a class war folks -- and the wrong side is winning

whether the puppets are labeled -D or -R...

[OhioChick]

34. I see a bit of favoritism there. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

35. Well, we know for sure THAT chart will never see the light of day on any of the mainstream media

outlets. Probably disappear like a flaming comet....never to be seen by most people.

EDIT: That was published on August 8...and has anyone seen it around before??????????????

Why doesn't EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC candidate have a huge copy of that chart and carry it around with them??????????

[TroglodyteScholar]

46. I'm pretty sure I saw it...

...on or around 8 Aug.

[aggiesal]

36. I believe that the big bubble ($103,835) ...

is about to burst.

I only have one thing to say about that, "Ba haa haa haa" :toast:

[DesertFlower]

39. notice how much it goes up after

$500,000.

[GreenTea]

40. Show this graph to your nearest uninformed republican sheep!

[femrap]

41. May the

wealthy greedy people choke on their $$$$

[sulphurdunn]

42. I thought the original deal

was that all the tax cuts would expire in ten years?

[ProudDad]

47. They do unless the democans and republicrats

find another "compromise" to extend the cuts.

bush the lesser couldn't pass the original costly tax cuts for the rich unless he used the "budget reconciliation" process -- which only required a simple majority but HAD TO sunset in 10 years.

The republicans figured (rightly, it appears) that the Democans DAREN'T allow them to end so either:

1) They'd hamstring the pResident if he were a Democrat (and it has)
2) They'd be able to extend them if the pReseident were another republican

They win either way...

The REAL ELEPHANT in the living room is the fucking WAR budget -- now over 59% of discretionary expenses...

I agree 100% with the republicans about "smaller government". I'd make the USAmerican government at least 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars smaller by hacking the shit out of the bloody, useless, counter-productive, dangerous war machine!

[Scurrilous]

49. Thanks.

:kick: