FW: The Reality of Taxes (bush vs. clinton)

I recieved this reality of taxes email... Please read on.



original message:
--------------------------------
Taxes under Clinton 2000


Single making 30K - tax $8,400 28%
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 28%
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 31 %

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 28%
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 28%
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 31%



Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $4,500 15%
Single making 50K - tax $12,500 25%
Single making 75K - tax $18,750 25%

Married making 60K- tax $9,000 15%
Married making 75K - tax $18,750 25%
Married making 125K - tax $31,250 25%

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary is elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie "The Sting" with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened. If you want less of your hard earned money - vote Democratic. If keeping as much as possible is important to you - vote Republican. The numbers & history speak for themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

oooh aahhh... seems so nice under bushy...




BUT!!!!


Total Money Supply in the economy 2000 4.3 trillion dollars

Total Money Supply in the economy 2008 10.2 trillion dollars....



Aka


If each dollar that you earned under clinton was worth a dollar....

Now it is worth 4.3/10.2 = 42 cents.



So we see


2000 single under clinton making 30k - taxed 8400 and you're left with 21,600
2008 single under bush making 30k - taxed 4500 and you're left with 25,500



multiply by .42..... well now you (30k man) REALLY have 10,500 worth of purchasing power under bush in clinton dollars.



did that not convince you?



lets try again....


Canadian Exchange rate 2000 1 us dollar = 1.39 canadian dollars
Canadian Exchange rate 2008 1 us dollar = 95 canadian cents

So we go back to that single individual making 30k....

2000 single under clinton making 30k - taxed 8400 and you're left with 21,600
2008 single under bush making 30k - taxed 4500 and you're left with 25,500

and we multiply the 25,500 x (.95/1.39) = 17,300 that would be... single under bush... in clinton dollars adjusted for canada


A little better if you look at it that way... but the poor chap is still worse off under bush


wait.... lets do it one more time...


2000 pound sterling... $1.55
2008 pound sterling... $2.05


1.55/2.05 = .75


25500 *.75 = 18,750


So... clinton in 2000 and you've got 21,600


or bush in 2008 and you've got 17,300 ; 18,750 ; or 10,500 in 2000 dollars depending on how you look at it after taxes...

lets average

17,300 + 18,750 + 10,500 = 15,500


So... even though you thought you're getting 25,500 it is only worth 15,000 or about 60%



this is getting fun!

Lets compare the guy making 125k to the guy making 30k


Clinton...

125k- 38,750 he's left with 86250 lets say he spent 10,000 on food and clothes... 76,250 disposable income


and our 30k guy under clinton... 21,600 and he spends 10,000 on food and clothes... 11,600 disposable income


THE GAP between rich man and poor man during clinton:

76250/11600 = 6.57



Bush...

125k - 31250 = 93750 but that 93k is only hold 60% value... 56250... he spends 10k on clothes and food... 46,250 disposable

and our 30k guy under bush... 15,500... and he spends 10,000 on food and clothes... 5,500 disposable income


now how much richer is the 125k guy vs the 30k guy?


46250/5500 = 8.4



SO SEE... what really happened was...


under clinton... rich man was 6.5 times richer than poor man

and under bush... he's 8.4 times richer


You don't want me to calculate the change in disparity between the man making over a million dollars annually and the small guy...

the one thing that I will agree with in the original Forward...

The numbers & history speak for themselves.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


That is a good style of analysis. Unfortunately there are some critical errors in your numbers.

Increased money supply does not translate dollar for dollar into inflation. According to the CPI statistics, it now takes $1.23 to buy the same goods it took $1 to buy in 2008. Say they are fudging and it is actually closer to $1.40.

Wages have increased at least 20% in the same period of time. So net of everything, we haven't seen more, in real terms, of more than a 20% increase in the cost of living during this period.

Thus you need to make your factor of .42 more like .8, which will change the numbers drastically. They will come out favoring Bush by a significant degree.

That said, if you factor in the increase of goverment debt load , that benefit possibly goes away.

Bottom line is that I like the Bush tax cuts, they benefit everyone. I also liked Clinton's apparent fiscal discipline, not to say that Hillary will bring the same as Bill. Bottom line is that taxes need to fall further for everyone. We need to balance this out by purging our goverment from any waste and non essential programs. We also need to bail on the dollar and the Federal Reserve, tell the rest of the world to go &%$% themselves, and start over from scratch. I don't believe there is a NESERA, but I do believe there should be one.

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
Thus you need to make your factor of .42 more like .8, which will change the numbers drastically. They will come out favoring Bush by a significant degree.

I used .6 as my averaged number...

lets say we use your .8


21,600 vs. 25, 500 * .8 = 20,400

You still loose.

reply to post by Sri Oracle



No, your example reflects a 60% drop in purchasing power, when in reality it has been somewhere well below 20%. Only a few % if you believe the goverment.

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity


I compared the us dollar to the canadian, bps, and adjusted for m3. I averaged those numbers and consequently arrived at 1 dollar 2008 = 60 cents 2000 (aka my .6)

thats an average of your buying power per gbp
your buyer power per canadian $
and your dollar vs. all the other ones out there.


but if you don't like my index by all means use the cpi index....

1.23 as you suggest.

thats 1 dollar 2008 is worth 71 cents in bills printed circa 2000


the value of the dollar has fallen through the floor

whether you use .6.... .71 or even the super conservative .8...

the gap between rich and poor measured in "disposable income" after 10k of "essential" spending has increased during the past 8 years.

time for bed... I'll check my math tomorrow...




Sri Oracle


[edit on 8-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]

The dollar goes no where near as far now as it did in the 1990's...

It is worth drastically less... and everything is substantively more expensive.

Bottom line is the bottom 80% are getting like 10% of the tax cuts... while the top 1% are getting around 60%... or something along those lines if I remember that chart correctly from 2004...

And we are borrowing 2+ billion a day from China alone to pay for this crap.. and now we are in a hole larger then what was held by all previous 42 Presidents... Combined.

While it is without doubt that Bush will be seen historically as one of the worst Presidents ever ... (that is if there is anyone around who even can or will give two squats)..

Let us not forget that Clinton set Bush up to spike the ball.. Nafta, Gatt, WTO, Dereging the FCC, etc, etc, etc... all Republican Wet dreams..

Bill Clinton goes down as the best 'Republican' President this country ever had.

reply to post by SavageHenry


Yup good post and you have to love Busheys 3 Trillion dollar budget for this year. That is a great graph. I used to be a hardcore republican but now I see the big picture aside from all the propaganda they throw out there.

Oracle heh more outstanding money is not a good thing if you think it is then you are gravely mistaken. According to the M3 from 1913 to 2005 we had 10 trillion in outstanding money. Now we have 14 Trillion. So in 2 years we have created 4 trillion in money a 40% increase. Thats not good Oracle thats inflation.

Im sure your going to say well the top 1% pay 30% of the taxes I know your going to throw that out there well let me throw some facts to you in my thread that I just did www.abovetopsecret.com...'
When the CEO wages have grown 38% in one year to an average pay for the top 500 companies of 50 million a year. This data was from 2006. In 1980 the average CEO got 40x the pay than the average worker. He now gets 600x. 10% of the corporate profits go to the top executives. Another fine examples of why things are stacked against the little guy. Tack on to that a poor monetary policy that has inflated a lot of people to poverty this is a real mess.

The fact is wages have gone no where in the past 15 years hell look at minimum wages it was like pulling teeth to get that raised by $2.

I think you need to take some classes on monetary policies and economics if you really want to learn about how the real world works.

Numbers are interesting...

Especially when you talk BIG numbers..

We always hear those in poly-tics (poly=many - tics=blood sucking creatures) tossing numbers around.

Big .. little .. Astronomical..

What really bothers me about this habit of theirs is that they desensitize us common folk... to magnitude of what these numbers are.

Most people will never see a million dollars in one big lump, in person... especially when it is THEIRS.. (although there is always the remote possibility it could happen to you!)

Yet most of us have no qualms about using numbers that there is no possibility you would ever see it live.. and a factor of zero that it would be yours.. 1 billion dollars!!!!, 1 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!


So I have a little numbers factoid I have memorized that I like to share with people when ever this topic comes up...

I break it into seconds.. as every one knows what they are.. and they are so small.. Anyone would give you 20 seconds of their time... but not very many would give you 20 dollars...

1 million seconds is 11.5 days

Most people have lived that long.. so they give you a hmmp and nod their head..

1 billion seconds is 35 years...

This is when peoples eyes get pretty wide...as that is a considerable amount of time to a human life... and more then many people get.

1 trillion seconds is .. 31,688 years...

And that is when their eyes either glaze over... or they seriously snap out of that numbers ignorance that our culture has lulled most of us into..

As that is an insane amount of time...

Yet the Pentagon can lose 2.3 Trillion bucks.. like you lose an M&M in the couch...

And were supposed to be like.. oh thats ok..

right..

Let us make it real simple.

In 2000 ... gas was an estimated average of $1.52 in March.

In 2008 ... gas has hit new high national average of $3.20 as of yesterday.


So ... gas is more than double, it is required for everything from getting back and forth to work, transporting goods, raising food crops, etc.


People are not getting paid that much more.

Minimum wage is $5.85/hr as of this very moment.

In 2000 minimum wage was $5.15/hr.

So, in 2000, a person working 40 hours a week was making 206 a week and $10,712 a year (your average service worker).

Today, that person makes $234 a week and $12,168 a year.

A difference of $1,456.


Let us say this person lives 10 miles from their job and has a vehicle that gets 20 mpg. They work 5 days a week. 20 mile round trip, 100 miles a week. 5 gallons of gas every week for work alone. In 2000, it would cost them $7.60 a week to got to work a week, today it costs them 16. Before, they had to work an hour and a half, now they must work three hours just to get to work. So $30/month before, $65/month now ($420 more a year). Add to that about $100/month for car insurance. Well, we can assume the average minimum wage person cannot even afford a car even if their job depended on it.

Now, take in account that unless they eat only ramen and drink tap water, that every food item and drink has risen in cost since then. I suppose if they don't have the money for a car to get to the store, a cab is definitely too expensive at a minimum of $10 (5 each way) per trip. So better live next to a grocery.

What about things like electricity, water and gas ... yep, those have gone up to. Price of rent, definitely.


The pay has not gone up equally to the cost of inflation for the lower/underclass.


So ... wages have only increased by 20% in the same time prices have inflated 40% is if you are part of the top few that have had a huge raise. If a few thousand had a pay increase from 1 million a year to 3 million a year ... it skews the average.

Technically minimum wage increased by about 13.6 percent, but, how much does $28 a week mean to you in an argument on how much your raise helped you out paying your bills and expenses?


Rich people love Bush's tax cuts. Poor people just wish their money was worth the same it was 10 years ago.

BTW, 8 years ago in 2000 alone, Clinton paid off 360 billion from our national debt ... how much of our national debt has Bush paid off net during his stay in office?


Just know right now, every American owns almost $31,000 of our national debt. It rises by an average of 1.7 billion per day, and is 9.4 trillion right now.


Forget tax breaks and the bull#, and fighting wars ... let us put effort at fixing our country before it breaks.

You are exactly right in every way shape and form...


I boil when us peasants are mocked by these super rich punts on TV... Telling us this impending recession/depression is not so bad.. and how easy we have it and so forth...

Does anyone think Georgie boy Bush and his class cares if gas is $4 bucks a gallon?... Think they would even blink if it was $40 a gallon???
These people are so rich.. It is irrelevant what it costs to survive, as they could still live high on the hog if gasoline was $1,000 a gallon... It would not impact their lives on iota..

Fact is the more they charge us for gas and other staples of life.. the more they have in their pockets.

That bread is $2.50... all the other staples are up?

Think these SOB's can empathize with us?


There is a saying I love repeating when the time fits.. and the time certainly fits..

"Working class people voting Republican.. Is like chickens voting for Col Sanders!"

(that is out of the underground socialist handbook issue #442 1989 edition)

There are many discrepancies here.

Clinton...

125k- 38,750 he's left with 86250 lets say he spent 10,000 on food and clothes... 76,250 disposable income


and our 30k guy under clinton... 21,600 and he spends 10,000 on food and clothes... 11,600 disposable income


THE GAP between rich man and poor man during clinton:

76250/11600 = 6.57



Bush...

125k - 31250 = 93750 but that 93k is only hold 60% value... 56250... he spends 10k on clothes and food... 46,250 disposable

and our 30k guy under bush... 15,500... and he spends 10,000 on food and clothes... 5,500 disposable income


now how much richer is the 125k guy vs the 30k guy?

This is when your numbers seem to get completely out of wack. You state that the dollar has less of a buying power in 08 but you do not add this into your "10000" it costs to buy food and cloths. Also, where did the 10000 come from and how does it only cost 10000 for both the wealthier and poor? I am fairly poor and I know I don't spend 10000 a year on food, cloths, AND rent , but I know if I were wealthier I would likely spend more than 10000 on the same necessities. I do not mean to be busting chops but it jumped out at me.

It does not make sense to use a random number for both the rich and poor and use this number without adding your 'mathematically proven' inflation from '00 to '08.

Back to the OP. I think we are worse off now then in '00. Even though the percentage of taxes are lower, we are not taking into account the burden of inflation, which is ravaging the lower classes, the increasing national debt, the burden of policing the world, and the housing crisis. Is Bush to blame and was Clinton awesome? No and No. They both work for the same team, therefore Bush isn't solely to blame and Clinton is just going to perpetuate the killing of the middle class.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
There are many discrepancies here.

This is when your numbers seem to get completely out of wack. You state that the dollar has less of a buying power in 08 but you do not add this into your "10000" it costs to buy food and cloths. Also, where did the 10000 come from and how does it only cost 10000 for both the wealthier and poor?

Anything in this category of course is estimation... If you do not like my method of estimation.... please present your own...

but I do think you will find that the gap between "rich and poor" has expanded over the past 8 years in the US economy as a matter of mathematical necessity; even though the appearance of the tax rates have improved drastically for the sub 30k "poor" .

The original "FW:" tried to make it look like everyone was better off with lower taxes under bush... especially those under 30k.


What point I am making is that everyone; sans the very highest eschelons of wealth were so beaten by the expansion of M3 that those tax breaks were moot. And because the buying power of the little man was smacked and he was already, "just getting by" he has now been dragged to "down and out"


On the simplest level... consider these numbers:


Rich man earns 100,000
Average man earns 30,000
Poor man earns 10,000

everybody is taxed a flat 30 percent...

Rich man goes home with 70k
averge man 21k
and poor man 7k

and lets say the bare bones cost of living is 7k

Rich man has 63k disposable
average man 14k disposable
poor man breaks even and prays next year will be better.

a decade passes and now everybody is taxed 30 percent except the little man... he only pays 15%..


But now the cost of living has gone up 25%

7k x 1.25 = 8,750

So you have Rich man going home with 70k, spends 8750 = 61250
Middle guy 30k - 30% = 21 spends 8750 = 12250


Poor man 10k - 15% = 8500 spends 8750


now he's in the hole; on the streets...


Bottom line... even if you give a 15% tax break to the bottom class...

If you deflate the value of that bottom classes currency by 20% you are dragging them down... and since they are so close to break even already you are making them approach zero...

and when you compare the disposable income value of rich man to poor man over the period it is going to swell as the poor man approaches zero, regardless of the small change in the rich man's wealth; calculus... divided by zero plus.


aka, all discrepancies and methods of calculation aside, all changes in tax structure aside, the gap between the classes grows when you print money.... and over the past decade we have printed money at an unprecedented rate; unsecured by any real asset.... especially unsecured by any real asset now in the hands of those under 30k.


Sri Oracle

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


Please not that an email is a hoax.

First of all, neither Obama nor Clinton propose income tax increase for anyone except for those earning significantly more than the highest of the quoted incomes, $125,000

Second the quoted numbers "before" and "after" Bush's tax cuts are grossly incorrect

Correct numbers (assuming 30,000 is income before deductions)
from www.taxfoundation.org...
Single, income of 30,000 before cuts-$3,157.50 after cuts-$2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 before cuts-$7,262.50 after cuts $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 before cuts $5,085.00 after cuts $4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000 before cuts $6,585.00 after cuts$5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000 before cuts $14,262.50 after cuts $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 before cuts $9,426.50 after cuts $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000 before cuts $29,378.50 after cuts $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000 before cuts $23,426.50 after cuts $19,462.5

A tax calculator www.moneychimp.com... allows to determine tax based on taxable income (after deductions).

For a 30,000 single this would yield
Before cuts (2000)- $4,988
After cuts (2007) -$4,109



The hoax e-mail uses numbers calculated by multiplying income by TAX BRACKET PERCENTAGE (which is incorrect). Sometimes, the hoax e-mail even includes a link www.taxfoundation.org... where TAX
so the recipient of the hoax e-mail can "verify the numbers". What the hoax e-mail does not tell is that tax is not calculated by simply multiplying income by tax bracket percentage. How taxes are actually determined can be explained by the following example.

According to 2000 (before cuts) and 2007 (after cuts) rules, taxes for 30,000 single are determined as follows:
2000
$3,780.00 plus 28.00% of taxable income over $27,850.00 www.va.gov...

2007
$747.00 plus 15.0% of taxable income over $10,120.00
www.va.gov...

Based on those rules
2000 tax is $4,988
2007 tax is $4,109

The net difference before and after cuts is $879, not $3,900 as claimed by the hoax post.

reply to post by SavageHenry


It's easy to just blame the President, but you have to look at who ran the congress during those years & also what external forces were acting on the economy at those times. No President ever faced the pressures that 9/11 put on GB2. Not that I want to defend his policies.

JP