always good to see the media clarifying and reporting on substantive issues. that's real journalism folks!

And what happens if you're making between 161k and 2.9m?

They don't even bother to ask which money McCain is not going to spend in order to give EVERYONE a tax break.

As an aside, The pres has no say on taxation, only spending, by submitting a budget. Why are presidents supposed to have taxation schemes, when that is the job of the legislature?

>> ^DavidRaine:
And what happens if you're making between 161k and 2.9m?


I updated the summary to include the link to the full report.

If I recall correctly, that range contains the crossover from net reduction, to net increase. When all people in that range are averaged together, it ends up being a very slight reduction. However, that's balancing a relatively large number of people in the $180,000-ish range who get a fairly substantive tax cut, with a smaller number people who get over $500,000 who get a pretty big tax hike.

The Obama talking point is that the changeover is designed to happen at $250,000/yr income, which seems borne out by this report.

I also think the CNN reporter highlights another conservative myth successfully pushed by the Republican party with her "You would expect the Democrats to raise taxes on lots of folks, not just the super-wealthy."

Only if you get all your information from the Republican party, lady.

>> ^aaronfr:
always good to see the media clarifying and reporting on substantive issues. that's real journalism folks!


It's closer than we're used to but not quite real journalism, it just seemed so because of what we've got to compare it to these days. Real journalism might have drawn a sharp difference between expiring temporary breaks Bush and a complicit congress gave the rich and actual new taxes rather than trying to paint the expiration what was a temp measure as a new tax. That's the biggest part of that jump for the rich, not new taxes or "going after" anyone as she said at 1:40 or so.

>> ^DavidRaine:
>> And what happens if you're making between 161k and 2.9m?

Unfortunately, you are killed by roving death squads.

>> ^DavidRaine:
And what happens if you're making between 161k and 2.9m?

>> ^NetRunner:
I updated the summary to include the link to the full report.


Thanks! I'll check it out.

Why do presidental candidates HAVE TO change taxes? It seems to me that Americans need to have "tidal taxes" that swing back and forth with each president.

It's so nice to have objective material to see.

Wait - low income starts at $33k?!?!

What the hell does that mean for me? I'm poverty stricken? I make way less than that!

Yep, I guess we're some poor sonsabitches, MG.

Right now I'm sitting in my apartment ($385/month) at my desktop (2001 Compaq) after just riding my bike ($300) to a wedding where I gave the bride and groom some framed photographs of themselves ($5).

... hold the phone... I AM poor! When did this happen?

Up vote for the link more so than the video. And Democrats have been the better purely economic choice for the majority of Americans since FDR. What is she thinking?

Finally progressive tax structures, not regressive. Bush was a fucking idiot. The middle class needs to recover.

and who is CNN voting for? I KNOW!

Nvm. Interesting comparison.

>> ^dgandhi:
They don't even bother to ask which money McCain is not going to spend in order to give EVERYONE a tax break.

The days are long gone that the Republicans can play the "we are going to cut spending" card. They've been in charge of Congress more or less since 1994 and have out spent the Democrats...and that's not even counting the "trillions" spent off the budget on Iraq.

I make under 20k and have to pay about 20% in combined social security tax / income tax / sales tax. Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate is 15%.

This is kind of pointless without a discussion of how realistic these tax plans are with respect to the candidates' budget plans.

I say we take half of everything a person earns over a million

WOW, I hope the low and middle class votes he picks up from this far outweigh the rich votes he just lost.

I guess anyone earning less than $38k in McCains plan gets sent to the numerous war fronts he plans to open up.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wait - low income starts at $33k?!?!
What the hell does that mean for me? I'm poverty stricken? I make way less than that!

National averages I guess. I make a decent amount more but because of cost of living of where I live(ie, I couldn't get a room to rent below $750/month). I think that number comes from a national average that incorporates cost of living adjustments.

> I gave the bride and groom some framed photographs of themselves ($5).

Look we got a restraining order, if we see you at our bedroom window again with a camera I don't know whats going to happen.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, June 13th, 2008 5:58am PDT - promote requested by Fjnbk.

I smell flawed criteria. 38k - 66k is low income? Even in Los Angeles this is bullshit. In any event, why does the government deserve that extra income tax? That's the real question. Take that NetRunner and DFT!

^ We've got to pay for the Stargate program somehow.

For those of you shocked that they consider 38-66k low income, you're right. In 2005 the median personal income for adults (over 18) in the US was $25,149, if you only count people over 25, it's $32,140. Seems kind of messed up that they would report on the possible injury to multi-millionaires, but not even bother to mention the majority of Americans, who fall in the undefined "lower then low" category.

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