Oregonians Will Get Hit Hard (sales, mortgage, house)

[BLAZER PROPHET]

First, let me say I am neither republican or democrat. I always vote for the best person to do the job- regardless of party affiliation. Also, since Obama has sewed up the election, I tip my hat to him and hope his presidency brings good results. BOTH candidates seem to be people that want the best for the country.

That said, Oregonians who are "wealthy" are really going to get hit hard by Obama's new 50% tax on all incomes over $250,000. The main reason is our state income tax. According to an article I read, at $250,000, an Oregonian will take home approx $86,000, after all taxes. That, in & of itself, almost makes an argument for a sales tax. Remember, I said "almost". In fact, Oregonians making over $250,000 will now be the #1 most taxed in the US of all 50 states.

It makes me glad to be a pauper.

[PNW-type-gal]

There is a 3% difference in the tax table rate between the Obama plan and the McCain plan for incomes at $250,000 - hardly a huge difference. The big difference for that bracket comes in capital gains taxes - Obama will keep them where they are and McCain wants to cut the rate from (the current) 15% to 7.5%.

I don;t know where "50%" comes from, but it's completely incorrect, as far as federal tax rate. Obama's absolute TOP rate who take the current 35% to 39% - the rate for the $250,000 income would go from the present 33% to 36%.

SOURCE: http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

[PeacePlease]

My understanding is what PNW-type-gal said.. the rate change is from 36 to 39. I also vote for the right person not because of which party they belong.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by PeacePlease

My understanding is what PNW-type-gal said.. the rate change is from 36 to 39. I also vote for the right person not because of which party they belong.

The problem with talking tax rates is that you first have to specify WHAT tax and then clearly separate the tax rates in the table with the actual tax rates. For instance, if you earn $50,000 a year in salary you don't just go to the tax table and look up $50,000 - there are a ton of adjustments to income.

McCain, for instance, likes to claim that the taxes on American business are the highest in the world. Which, if you JUST go by the tax table, is mostly true. But if you go by actual taxes paid, after adjustments to income, it's not true at all. Much like the idea that the wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes, which is true in terms of actual dollars paid but not true in terms of percent of income. If you have someone who earns $40,000 and someone who earns $4,000,000, the $4M income earner is much more likely to use capital gains tax rates and and some specific tax loopholes and rates and pay, in percentage of income, a lower rate.

Hence the Warren Buffet quote, where he says he paid 17% on $46M, without using shelters, while his secretary paid 33% on her much smaller income. The secretary likely has SS and FICA taking a bigger relative bite out of her income, probably doesn't have much income in the way of capital gains and, unless she owns a house and pays mortgage interest, probably doesn't have a lot of deductions to income.

[Smiled]

I don't know where that 50% came from. I don't know where you read that. Oregonians are taxed at about #34 or so.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

In the article Obama was quoted as stating he would tax at 50% those making more than $250,000 per year. The rest of the article I skimmed over, but I did manage to write down those other facts.

Maybe they're wrong, but it seemed credible to me.

Sorry if I stepped on any liberal toes.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

In the article Obama was quoted as stating he would tax at 50% those making more than $250,000 per year. The rest of the article I skimmed over, but I did manage to write down those other facts.

Maybe they're wrong, but it seemed credible to me.

Sorry if I stepped on any liberal toes.

The article you're quoting is either using some metric I've never seen, or it's wrong.

You're not "steeping on toes," you're just passing along info I don't think is true. Feel free to put up the link.

[PNW-type-gal]

Okay, here is a link to the "50%" report, from the Tax Foundation:

The Tax Foundation - How Do the Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans Affect Taxpayers’ Marginal Tax Rates?

The economists use a macroeconomics concept called marginal tax rate to express the tax rate on the last (or next) dollar on income earned, rather than income as a whole. So while your effective tax rate (ie: the tax you actually pay) would be in the 20-30% range, marginal tax rate looks specifically at the tax rate on that last dollar on income.

Under Obama's plan, at the two top tiers, the marginal rate is 50% of the next dollar earned, and McCain's is 47% (same as the current system under Bush) - again, not a huge difference between the two.

[John Shaft]

Someone once described the republican and democrat parties as Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B. Looks to me like he was spot on; the difference is in degree and not in kind. We will still send half our money to a grossly inept government that wants to add to its expenses (e.g. healthcare) while it has completely failed at what it's already been tasked to maintain (e.g. our infrastructure). If they could demonstrate some sort of ROI on our money they have burned, maybe I would accept the notion that "one more teensy tax hike is all we need for prosperity for everyone."

[Smiled]

As Dick Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter."