Most High Earners Wouldn't See Big Bill From Tax Rise

[jpak]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/earners-of-less-than-500-000-wouldn-t-face-higher-taxes-in-democrat-plan.html

President Barack Obama’s plan to let Bush-era tax cuts for the highest-income Americans expire would have limited effect on 76 percent of those taxpayers, a study says.

Under the Democrats’ plan to end a tax break for those earning more than $200,000 per individual or $250,000 per couple, the 3.8 million filers who fall in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range would pay $2 billion more in 2011 taxes, or an average of $532, according to a July 30 letter from the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The study conducted for the House Ways and Means Committee shows that those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 would account for 5 percent of the planned $38 billion tax increase. The biggest burden would fall on the 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million and the 315,000 who earn more than $1 million; the first group would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000, and the second group would owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average, the analysis said.

For those who earn less than $500,000, the tax increase is “relatively low,” said Roberton Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute in Washington who studied the report. “It’s less than 1 percent.”

<more>

[ejpoeta]

1. i can bet that's not how it will be spun. they'll make it sound like

middle class folks are going to get a big tax increase and since people believe what they are told instead of looking things up, they'll believe it.

[dkf]

2. $38 billion? Does that begin to put a dent on the deficit?

Damn.

[dmallind]

3. While I am not in that bracket (but would be happy to be) I think we should raise taxes

on non-poor folks period, me included. I know it's a harder sell politically, and I know that it's difficult to put a cash limit on "comfortable", as I may not be so if I made the same money in SF or NYC as I do in the boonies, but surely the whole point of progressive taxation is to pay more the more you make, and I don't think that starts with 250K.

We want government to do way more that it can afford to, even if you include pipedreams like halving the Pentagon budget (not a bad idea in itself, but suicidal politically. We're not going to have a chance at any part of that without giving it more money.

So why not raise taxes on all echelons. Since we're talking about income taxes here the very poor pay none anyway net. Those struggling with low incomes pay little now, and should get the smallest percentage increase. The middle class should get small but slightly larger increases, the well to do larger and the wealthy larger still - but at every level it should be affordable. If you make $50K you can survive anywhere, and if you can't it's because you have either a huge family or huge expenses that should be deductible. If you make $100k you can survive anywhere and thrive most places and afford more taxes within reason, and if you can't it's your fault. If you make $150K you can afford a bit more. By all means the very rich should pay more, most, and a higher percentage, but there are far more people making 100k than 100MM, so we can get a chunk of momey from them (us) too.

[Turbineguy]

4. $532????!!!

But just imagine how many we could make homeless for that.