One problem for Senator Obama and his class-warfare crowd is that repealing the Bush tax cuts for those with earnings of more than $250,000 would raise only about $40 billion a year, according to Cato Institute economist Alan Reynolds. That would leave President Obama with a $360 billion shortfall to meet his other proposals. Either those nurses and policemen are going to have to be defined as "rich" by Team Obama, or the Democrats' pledge of balancing the budget in five years is a fantasy.

So with this bit of information embedded in the story the only misinformation here has to do with social security tax increases on household vs individual incomes?

Data from the Cato Institute is almost misinformation by definition.

There's a big difference between household income and individual income. If a two people each make 50K a year, they are already being taxed on the full amount of their paychecks. Lifting the cap won't affect them at all. It will only affect individuals making over $90,000, no matter who else is in their household.

Dems, how many lies, in your opinion, should a news item contain to make it noteworthy?

Dems, how many lies, in your opinion, should a news item contain to make it noteworthy?

I think that answer will depend on whether or not the lies benefit the GOP......

It sounds like not just the top 2% but most of the bottom 98% had better get ready for higher taxes under an Obama administration.

COl - note the Moore column cited in this story identifies "various" tax proposals by the Obama campaign.  The items that jump off the page are the ones I have cited in my posts.  Media Matters chose to focus it's misonformation net on a relatively small piece of the picture while leaving the more important pieces to stand as truth.

Dems_Sol - I rarely find myself agreeing with you, but you did a good job on this one.  The suggestion that 'most of the lower 98%' will see their taxes raised is an outright lie, and should have been highlighted by MMFA.

Every once in a while, someone writes something so deceptive and disingenuous that you could dedicate several posts to debunking all the lies.

Yeah, sorry Dems. I thought you were dismissing the misinformation highlighted by MMFA. I didn't get that you were pointing out how much more BS there was in Moore's piece. Good catch!

No apologies necessary - we'll just fight extra hard tomorrow :-)

I lived in New York City for a year, and I made way less than $100k.  You know what?  I wasn't struggling.  Our apartment even had a private rooftop deck overlooking Midtown.

Sure, the rent is insane, but I saved plenty by not having to pay for a car or gas.

One problem for Senator Obama and his class-warfare crowd...

Actually, it's the GOP that's been engaging in class warfare for years - the rich and ultra-rich (their supporters) vs. everybody else.

It's just amazing how often the very thing of which wingnuts accuse others turns out to be a fundamental feature of their character.

Class warefare is AKA progressive income tax.  When one class of income earners are taxed at a different percentage than another group you are dividing people by class.  Conservatives believe that people should pay taxes uniformly. With obvious exceptions to those below the poverty line a flat rate for all would satisfy that desire.  Liberals on the other hand tend to favor a progressive income tax that has upper level earners paying a greater percentage.  Between the progressive system we have now with all sorts of screwy deductions you can hardly find two people who end up paying the same rate. That is not uniform taxation.  When politicians target only certian classes to pay more or pay less they are engaging in class warefare. 

"Conservatives believe that people should pay taxes uniformly. With obvious exceptions to those below the poverty line a flat rate for all would satisfy that desire."

So...you ARE in favor of a progressive tax rate after all?  If an exception for one group is OK, then it's a "class" tax rate...now isn't it?

So...you ARE in favor of a progressive tax rate after all?

Not sure you uinderstood my post. I am in favor os a flat tax rate above an established poverty line.   Us conservatives are only mildly heartless.

"I am in favor os a flat tax rate above an established poverty line."

I understood perfectly.  I just interpret what you said differently from what you THINK you meant: if you are in favor of ANY exception then you ARE in favor of what we have now...different tax rates for different economic groups.  All you would do is rearrage it to LOOK different.

..then you ARE in favor of what we have now

How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.  I am in favor of a flat tax with an exemption for all earners, not just the poor,  below the poverty line - see my response to Nerzog below for further clarification. 

"How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.  I am in favor of a flat tax with an exemption for all earners, not just the poor,  below the poverty line "

Read what you just said: you are in favor WITH AN EXCEPTION.  An exception IS a different tax rate for a different economic group.  Just what we have now: different tax rates for different groups.  You would just rearrange the "exceptions"

OK - I have since clarified my position. 

The progressive tax rates makes sense. The "class warfare" label is a bogus rhetorical device generated by a Right Wing think tank, much like "death tax".

Why shouldn't rich people pay a higher rate? Instead of looking at what is taken, look at what is left. Just for conversation, let's say that a person making 50,000 pays 20%, and a person making 500,000 pays 30%. This is just basic, of course, not counting deductions, etc. That leaves the first person with 40,000 to live on, and the second with 350,000. The second person's lifestyle is no more impacted than the first. In fact, it is probably impacted less. The richer person has benefitted more from the opportunities that an organized society offers, and probably uses more of its resources, and has more to lose if it collapses.

Think of taxes as a fee that most of us pay for the opportunities and benefits of living in the greatest country in the world. The wealthy in this country live like kings, and will continue living like kings, even if they have to kick in a little more to support the society that enables them to live like kings.

It is not up to any government to decide how much of someones earnings they are allowed to keep.  It is an intrusive principle.

To tax uniformly would be to eliminate deductions, which are nothing more that the govermnment trying to encourage people to spend a certian way, and charge a flat rate. If we exempt first $40K of income and apply a flat 20% rate to all income above that, than someone that earns 50K annually pays $2,000 in taxes and someone who earns $500k pays $90,000 in taxes.  In my above example the second taxpayer earns 10 times more than the first, but pays 45 times more in taxes.

Using my example above if we use my scenario with your upper 30% rate the person earning $50K still only pays $3,000 in taxes while the $500K earner pays $135,000 in taxes.  While earning 10 times more, they are still paying 45 times more.  And I'll bet the one earning 50K would be paying less than most earning $50K are today.

Do you see that as fair and uniform taxation?

"It is not up to any government to decide how much of someones earnings they are allowed to keep.  It is an intrusive principle"

THAT is an argument for NO TAXES at all! 

Not at all.  Taxes are required to provide for the necessary things government is required to provide.  While it may provide an argument for no personal income taxes there are plenty of ways to levy taxes without the government becomming involved personal lives.  The gasoline tax we are discussing here is a perfect example. 

The gasoline tax we are discussing here is a perfect example. 

OOPS - wrong thread.

I would expect someone who writes in "the daily diary of the American Dream" would know something about income and taxes, but I guess that personnel trait got kicked to the curb along with the previous owners.

From the WSJ bio of Stephen Moore:

=======================

Stephen is the author of five books, most recently, "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer."

=======================

I guess Bush's policies have been good for Stephen Moore. 

Most Americans, not so much.

It's funny how criticizing and changing the current tax system which greatly benefits only a minority of people amounts to "class warfare".

Slavery is not class warfare, a slave revolt is.  Strange how that works.

Very strange, Moon. Even stranger how many of the slaves can be tricked into believing it.

Can't blame George Will. It's not like regular americans do their own taxes or view their own paycheck stubs or w-2s.

 

Well okay the last two probably are true. 

actually, to be really nit picky, FICA taxes are only assessed on personal service income, which may not be the same as an individividual's total income.

I get really cranky when I hear that people making more than $102,000 are complaining about having to pay 'more' Social Security AND Medicare taxes. 

 By the virtue of this cap, it amounts to a de facto lowering of the tax rate on everyone who makes more than the cap - and the more they make - the less of a percentage as a share of total income they pay.  So again - here we have the poor wage-earner makihng minimum wage who pays the full 6.2% for Social Security plus 1.45% for Medicare.

Some 'poor' person making $200,000 gets to pay 3.16% for Social Security and 0.74% for Medicare.  Someone making $300,000 pays 2.1% and 0.49% respectively.  Please be so good as to explain to me why that is at all fair?

I think the cap should be removed.  Period.

I have friends who make more than $100,000. Each.  I really get tired of hearing them say how broke they are.  They have a house, two cars, and one kid.

My husband and I have a house, two cars, and one kid at home.  And we make less then $35,000 - for BOTH of us.  In the same town. Poop.