Bush tax cuts

[Galahad]

My federal tax rate has increased each year from 2003 to 2007, even if my taxable income declined.

So line 43 is lower each year than the previous year and line 63 is higher each year than the previous year?

 

[Fizzgig]

So line 43 is lower each year than the previous year and line 63 is higher each year than the previous year?

I pulled my info from TaxCut's reports on yearly taxes. Gimme a moment to pull up each program again to figure out your answer!

 

[Fizzgig]

So line 43 is lower each year than the previous year and line 63 is higher each year than the previous year?

Line 63 is EITC on the 1040... That's a whole bunch of zeroes! Did you mean line 68?

 

[Fitswimmer]

The only statistic that will mean anything is "after cashing their paycheck, how flush does the average joe feel after they've paid their bills"?

That's the bottom line when it comes to elections. That's why I think the Republican party is in trouble this go round. They are not offering a plan for Average Joe to feel better after he's paid those bills. They're out of touch with what people are feeling.

 

[Galahad]

Line 63 is EITC on the 1040... That's a whole bunch of zeroes! Did you mean line 68?

Sorry - just looking at the 2007 1040. Line 43 is Taxable income. Line 63 on the 2007 form says "this is your total tax".

 

[LuvDuke]

30 years ago it says 28.3K and in 2005 - 31.2K. It peaked in 2000 (the tech bubble). It declined in 2001-2 (bubble burst - 9/11) and rose again. It decline a few dollars from 2003 to 2005. I think your point is over stated. Most folks personal situation is just that - personal - affected much more by their own circumstances and even choices than "the economy".

I don't think counting the income of 15 year olds makes the case. The fact is, comparing the wages of 30 years ago, wages have gone down for the prime wage earning group of 25-44 years olds and has gone down in double digits.

Those are the hard numbers regardless of the spin.

The average Joe/Josephine doesn't need a historical income table to tell them they're going backwards. They feel it everytime they cash their paycheck and spend it on heating, healthcare, groceries, etc. People are having trouble paying for the basics.

Telling the average Joe/Josephine they're really better off today isn't a winning strategy for the Republicans. They'll be laughed off the presidential stage and will make FDR's 1932 victory over Herbert Hoover look like a squeaker.

 

[Fizzgig]

Sorry - just looking at the 2007 1040. Line 43 is Taxable income. Line 63 on the 2007 form says "this is your total tax".

Ah ok... No, my total taxes actually went down one year of lower taxable income, but my federal tax RATE (taxable income divided by total federal taxes) went up that year. Consistently, the federal tax rate has risen for me.

Is that the answer you're looking for?

 

[mill4023]

Here you go. Go back 30 years and compare the 1974 median income (2005 adjusted dollars) of "25 - 34 year olds"/"35- 44 year olds". Income is going down, and compared to 30 years ago, has gone down by double digits.


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p08ar.html

First of all, I thought we were talking about the Bush tax cuts, so I'm not sure what the relevance of going back to 1974 is. That data also only goes to 2005, so I'd be curious to know what numbers look like for the past 2 years because IMO, that would tell me a lot more about how the economy is doing right now.

Median income for all males over 15 (in adjusted 2005 dollars)
1974: 29,268
2002: 31,739
2005: 31,275

Median income for all females over 15
1974: 10,673
2002: 18,250
2005: 18,576

So altogether, the median inflation adjusted income has gone up between 1974 and 2005.
Between 2002 and 2005, it went down 1.4% for men and went up 1.7% for women.

Sure, you can pick specific groups and make your statistics look however you want, but the overall median income certainly hasn't gone down since 1974. I guess you can interpret all of those numbers however you want. Personally, I'm not seeing this big scary falling of wages. I am still curious what the last 2 years of data look like.

I also think it's important to note that the unemployment rate went from 5.8% in 2002 to 4.6% in 2006. Seems like a good thing to me.

 

[Galahad]

I don't think counting the income of 15 year olds makes the case. The fact is, comparing the wages of 30 years ago, wages have gone down for the prime wage earning group of 25-44 years olds and has gone down in double digits.

Those are the hard numbers regardless of the spin.

The average Joe/Josephine doesn't need a historical income table to tell them they're going backwards. They feel it everytime they cash their paycheck and spend it on heating, healthcare, groceries, etc. People are having trouble paying for the basics.

Telling the average Joe/Josephine they're really better off today isn't a winning strategy for the Republicans. They'll be laughed off the presidential stage and will make FDR's 1932 victory over Herbert Hoover look like a squeaker.

I thought it was interesting that the #'s, for all age groups, peaked in 1989. The 90's weren't very good from the standpoint of "declining median income".

 

[Fizzgig]

The average Joe/Josephine doesn't need a historical income table to tell them they're going backwards. They feel it everytime they cash their paycheck and spend it on heating, healthcare, groceries, etc. People are having trouble paying for the basics.

Telling the average Joe/Josephine they're really better off today isn't a winning strategy for the Republicans. They'll be laughed off the presidential stage and will make FDR's 1932 victory over Herbert Hoover look like a squeaker.

I agree; the Budget Board IS a scary place.

There are a TON of threads talking about prices for heating oil, how to better insulate their house and water heater, how to stretch a paycheck better, how to better invest in their 401k with the economic downturn, etc.

Lemme just say, the price of a tank of heating oil in the Northeast specifically gives me the heebie jeebies. Especially when they include their historical numbers.

 

[Galahad]

Ah ok... No, my total taxes actually went down one year of lower taxable income, but my federal tax RATE (taxable income divided by total federal taxes) went up that year. Consistently, the federal tax rate has risen for me.

Is that the answer you're looking for?

Sure. I understand. I think that would be consistently true. Marginal rates (the cut off from bracket to bracket) were reduced, which is why real taxes paid would have gone down. Individual deductions and type of income etc would determine the "effective tax rate.". Ours has gone up each year, as have our taxes. However, they would have gone up more steeply without the tax cuts.

 

[LuvDuke]

First of all, I thought we were talking about the Bush tax cuts, so I'm not sure what the relevance of going back to 1974 is. That data also only goes to 2005, so I'd be curious to know what numbers look like for the past 2 years because IMO, that would tell me a lot more about how the economy is doing right now.

Median income for all males over 15 (in adjusted 2005 dollars)
1974: 29,268
2002: 31,739
2005: 31,275

Median income for all females over 15
1974: 10,673
2002: 18,250
2005: 18,576

So altogether, the median inflation adjusted income has gone up between 1974 and 2005.
Between 2002 and 2005, it went down 1.4% for men and went up 1.7% for women.

Sure, you can pick specific groups and make your statistics look however you want, but the overall median income certainly hasn't gone down since 1974. I guess you can interpret all of those numbers however you want. Personally, I'm not seeing this big scary falling of wages. I am still curious what the last 2 years of data look like.

I also think it's important to note that the unemployment rate went from 5.8% in 2002 to 4.6% in 2006. Seems like a good thing to me.

No we were talking about median income going down. Regardless, it's going to come down to this: If you feel flush after you cash your paycheck, vote for the Republicans.

The average Joe/Josephine does not feel flush. They feel like they're losing ground and the statistics won't mean a thing. What does make a difference is the cost of gas, groceries, home heating fuel, healthcare costs, etc. and the ever growing chunk it takes out of stagnant wages.

"Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago" is not a winner for the Republicans.

 

[LuvDuke]

I thought it was interesting that the #'s, for all age groups, peaked in 1989. The 90's weren't very good from the standpoint of "declining median income".

Bingo! We're losing ground no matter what the spin.

 

[Charade]

Sure. I understand. I think that would be consistently true. Marginal rates (the cut off from bracket to bracket) were reduced, which is why real taxes paid would have gone down. Individual deductions and type of income etc would determine the "effective tax rate.". Ours has gone up each year, as have our taxes. However, they would have gone up more steeply without the tax cuts.

That's what I was trying to ask previously in this thread. What would your (the generic "your") situation be if the cuts weren't there. People are saying they are worse off. Would they be more worse off today or better off today than before the tax cuts?

 

[mill4023]

No we were talking about median income going down. Regardless, it's going to come down to this: If you feel flush after you cash your paycheck, vote for the Republicans.

The average Joe/Josephine does not feel flush. They feel like they're losing ground and the statistics won't mean a thing. What does make a difference is the cost of gas, groceries, home heating fuel, healthcare costs, etc. and the ever growing chunk it takes out of stagnant wages.

"Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago" is not a winner for the Republicans.

It doesn't matter what anyone says, you are going to stick to your opinion whether it's true or not. Because apparently you have a far better understanding of what the "average Joe" is feeling than anyone else here. And no matter what the actual facts are, all that counts is that you KNOW that most of the 300 million people in this country are doing worse now than they were 8 years ago
I'm curious how you aquired this all-knowing information. How many people have you talked to? Do you think you've talked to enough people to make your data statistically significant? Or do you just know we're doing so bad because CNN told you?
Well guess what...I know lots of "average Joes". They are all doing fine. I guess that makes my opinion right.

I thought we already went through this. Wages are NOT going down compared to the cost of living. That's what it means when you talk about "inflation adjusted dollars". Wages have kept up with the increasing cost of living.
Here are a couple more charts for you. One is actually the first one on the page you pulled yours from, but it doesn't work as well to support your viewpoint, so I assume you kept looking until you found one that you could pull one small chunk of to use as "evidence".
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01ar.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p07ar.html

Oh yeah, and in 2006, median household income was up and poverty was down as well.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070829/NATION/108290051/1002

Are we in a big boom where everyone is getting rich? Of course not. But we certainly aren't in a horrible economic downturn caused by the evil Bush's tax cuts for the rich either. What we are in is an economy that has some problems, most notably the housing market problems caused by the stupid lenders. The other thing we are in is an election year, where the number one strategy being employed by the democrats to try to get elected is to bash the economy, convince everyone it's terrible and the only way to fix it is to vote for them.

Oh, I forgot though, none of the facts and figures are important. Not the fact that incomes have basically kept pace with cost of living increases, not the fact that the poverty rate has been dropping (at least a little), not the fact that the unemployment rate has gone down, leaving fewer people struggling to find jobs.

You know all those "average joe's", so you already know how everyone in the country is doing.

 

[Fizzgig]

That's what I was trying to ask previously in this thread. What would your (the generic "your") situation be if the cuts weren't there. People are saying they are worse off. Would they be more worse off today or better off today than before the tax cuts?

I don't think the $6/paycheck increase with the tax cuts will win that argument with normal people, situated against highly visible price increases in "normal" bills.

 

[NewJersey]

I do not disagree with much of what you've said.

I think the fact that the economy HAS been about to absorb so mnay of the job losses from the lending industry (my husband being one of them) is a testament to the overall strength of the economy.

Tax cuts increase revenues. We have the second highest corporate tax burden in the world. Companies need corporate tax breaks as an incentive to create MORE new jobs. We need to ride the mortgage storm out. We need to give hefty hefty hefty tax incentives for alternative energy creation and use.

As far as the war in Iraq, thats where we part ways. I think thats money we have to spend at this point, not looking to debate that...but that JMO.

I actually agree with cutting the capital gains tax and I think a cut in the corporate tax wouldn't be a bad idea. But I think Bush's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and we didn't cut spending - we are in over our heads and my generation will be left with the bill.

As far as Iraq, we will agree to disagree.

 

[mill4023]

Bingo! We're losing ground no matter what the spin.

I forgot. Who was the president in the 90's?

Who was the president for the 8 years prior to 1989 when the income hit a peak?

 

[Galahad]

I forgot. Who was the president in the 90's?

Bushes and Clintons. Perhaps we should stop the cycle and go into rehab.......

 

[Fizzgig]

I forgot. Who was the president in the 90's?

Who was the president for the 8 years prior to 1989 when the income hit a peak?

Seriously, I think we're too good of friends and debaters for you to resort to the "But but Clinton!" tactic in a thread about the Bush tax cut.

Maybe you meant this differently?