9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  July 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  One must admit that economics is not McCains strong suit. With McCain, its hard to know what will happen with taxes. With Obama, its pretty obvious.

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  July 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  Right. With Obama, rates for the middle-class will go down, and rates for those making more than $250,000 will go up. Sounds good to me.

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  July 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  You believe in the tooth fairy don’t you Pat.Here’s a prediction, the rich will pay less and the middle class will pay more. You read it here.BTW,you never did tell me your definition of middle class. Household income, give me a number.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  July 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  Well, let’s see. The real median household income in 2006 was about $46,000. So I suppose the middle class, which is an unofficial term, of course, would cover households with incomes that are not a whole lot more or a whole lot less than $46,000 (although the median number likely is a tad lower now). By the way, did you see the story in the WSJ about how “the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group’s share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income”? Check it out:

• 5. Mike Carroll  |  July 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  So, taking 50k as your high range and 40k as your low, your middle class is burdened by paying 2.9% of the income tax burden. I assume you would then want them to pay what, 0%?
  Don’t you think that all save the really poor, whoever that might be, should have some skin in the game?
  “”The group’s share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income”? Check it out:”
  I agree but so what. They are making more money, they are paying more taxes in real dollars and as a share of the tax burden. Exactly as advertised. I would think you would be dancing in the streets. Bush tax cuts soak the rich.

• 6. Pat Cunningham  |  July 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

  Perhaps I misstated the income range for what should be considered middle class. As I say, “middle class” is an unofficial and somewhat amorphous term. But that doesn’t change the fact that tax rates on the super-rich have declined under Bush. How fair is that? Mike, unless you’re one of them, which I don’t figure you are, why do you so enthusiastically defend the super-rich? The gap between rich and poor — indeed, between rich and middle-income folks — is getting wider. There’s something wrong with that, especially at a time when federal budget deficits are reaching record highs. Apparently, the super-rich don’t mind passing the growing national debt along to future generations, just as long as tax rates on their own obscene incomes are made ever lower.

• 7. Mike Carroll  |  July 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  Pat-just like a stopped watch, you are right occasionally.I am hardly one of the super rich or the top 1%.Obama’s policy statement of raising taxes on those who make 250k and above would have no impact on me.
  For the life of me I can’t figure out your argument. Why in the world do you care if the tax rate on the rich has declined. Of course it has, that’s what an across the board reduction in tax rates means. But the facts (and facts are pretty stubborn things as we know) are that the rich have paid more in taxes in real dollars and as a percent of the total tax bill after the Bush tax cuts than before.
  And, BTW, what makes an income obscene and who determines that?

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  July 30th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

  Mike: Regarding your remark in comment No. 1 about how it’s obvious what Obama would do with taxes, I hope you’re not taking your cue from McCain. Read this:

  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/30/1234797.aspx

• 9. Mike Carroll  |  July 31st, 2008 at 6:36 am

  Nope, taking my cue from what Obama has said.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed