What's that, you say?
Secondly, the attack on Niki Tsongas is demonstrably untrue. The national GOP has attacked Barack Obama using the exact same $31,850 mark. Just three days before the PolitickerMA.com story, FactCheck.org revealed that the claim was incorrect:
What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. (The McCain campaign relies on an AP article which puts the cutoff at $31,850, but that figure is from 2007, not this year.) So the McCain campaign claims that anyone making “as little as $32,000” would be affected by the rate increase.
But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our “taxable income.” The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that “people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.” In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.
So it turns out that not only did Tsongas not vote for a tax increase–in fact she voted to uphold the law that President Bush signed in 2003–but the tax bracket would not change for someone earning only $31,850. Only singles with no dependents and no itemized deductions who earned over $41,500 would be affected by the change in tax policy that President Bush signed in 2003.
I suppose it would be too much to expect the state Republican machine (the Edsel that it is) to at least be the slightest bit accurate in their attacks, but I would hope that a political news site such as PolitickerMA.com would at least acknowledge that the claims of the GOP's press flack had been discredited in the days before the attack.
Cross posted at my blog No Drumlins.
it’s far from the biggest complaint around. To your credit you used the word “mislead” and not “lie”.
<
p>The “tax and spend” crap is right up there with “San Francisco values” crap. It’s too fluffy for facts so to call it misleading is like me saying that anyone who calls fried fish tasty is being misleading.
<
p>As for the tax stuff, you’re absolutely right it is misleading. But, $31850 + $5450 + $3500 = $40,800, substantially more but it’s not clear that the traction means much. Also, where’s the other $700 come from? Has 31850 increased by 700 for single taxpayers?
Also, where’s the other $700 come from? Has 31850 increased by 700 for single taxpayers?
<
p>Yes. The brackets are indexed to inflation.
<
p>2. Did I mention Barney was lame? Oh, yes. I did. I’m mentioning it again for emphasis.
<
p>3. Of course they screwed the numbers up. If someone’s single, with no kids, making $42k – that’s not exactly a terrible living.
<
p>4. I’m going to be sick and tired of having to swat away the idea that allowing Bush’s bill to sunset is a ‘tax hike.’ No, it isn’t. It’s allowing a bill to die that we couldn’t afford, going back to the rates we had previous to this administration. I think more Americans are concerned with the fact that we keep wracking up debt than they are of the uber scary “tax and spend liberal” moniker. Thankfully, the Republicans have made parodies of themselves and just can’t use the same lines anymore.
<
p>
As someone who lives in the city of Boston I can assure you that making $42,000 in this city is a terrible living. Without government assistance which at that “ginormous” sum you wouldn’t be able to you can’t do much in Boston besides pay rent with that income. Let’s look at it will you.
<
p>Your take home pay on $42000 will be somewhere in the neighborhood of say $575 – $610 or lower weekly depending on what your contribution to your healthcare is. On a monthly basis that’s roughly $2400 in a four week month and $3000 in a six week month.
<
p>Let’s look at expenses in the four week month.
<
p>Rent – $1000 (I pay $975 for an apartment basically in the hood) You can get this lower but it would require roomates and then not much lower.
Car Payment – $250
Car insurance – $150 (this depends on your STEP could be as high as $200)
Cable/Internet – $100 for even a basic plan.
Electric – $40
Heat – $70/month if you are on an installment plan.
Phone – $40/month for basic cell service.
<
p>So you are at $1650 with just about all of lifes basic necessaties covered. Well not gas. That leaves you $750 a month to a) put gas in your car, b)eat with, c) maybe try to have a social life.
<
p>Yup that’s the life of Reilly right there Ryan.
<
p>So OK Obama wants to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. Still sounds bad to me.
I didn’t even say it was good.
<
p>And I didn’t say “living in the city” either.
<
p>I showed you that in eastern Massachusetts it pretty much is. You can draw a circle for 30 miles around boston and the numbers would pretty much stay the same.
<
p>In Massachusetts $42,000 is not a boatload of money. It’s barely enough to get by and put a small amount in the bank.
I make less than that, live within 30 miles of Boston, and I’m doing okay on my own, thanks.
Hence relationships, roomates and other scenarios.
<
p>However, a lot of people live on $42k or less in the area. Not all of them can afford to live in Newton or Brookline, alone, on that salary… but there are plenty of places where they could – inside or out of the city. If they want nice residential living, there’s plenty of suburbs out there that are nice and close to the city. Speaking from the North Shore, try Winthrop, Swampscott, Salem, Lynn, Marblehead, Saugus, etc. etc. etc. All within 30 square miles, most with decent public transportation, some even on or very near the T. Seriously, you need to get outside. Not everywhere is as expensive as Metro West. There’s a lot of people living with $42/k a year or less in this area, me knowing a few of them, and their lives aren’t exactly terrible. I’ve love to advance some policies to make them easier and better, but I’m not going to be dishonest and say that it’s not possible to have a decent life making the average salary for an employee in Massachusetts.
why the incorrect response? Was it on purpose, or was Barney just being lazy?
<
p>The other thing that makes this claim far worse than it sounds is that if an individual is making around $42,000, the increase in the 25% tax bracket to 28% would affect only a tiny sliver of that income.
<
p>Let’s say in fact that an individual is actually making $44,000. Then the “tax increase” for that individual would be represent an increase of $60 a year, or exactly $5 a month. That doesn’t really play too much in your monthly expense numbers, does it? Of course, any individual making $42,000 or less would have no increase at all.
<
p>Clearly, what the Republicans are worried about is their base of wealthy elites, not the working or middle class. Same story, different election.
<
p>A person making $42K or less with any kind of capital gain or dividend (i.e. anyone who saves and invests or most elderly who have saved and invested) will see their tax increase, as the capital gains and dividend tax rate increase.
The vast majority of middle-class Americans who “save and invest” do so for retirement, meaning that they will not realize their capital gains until their retirement years. So yet again you are misleading.
<
p>In the meantime, we can (and the Obama campaign has) devise tax cuts and deductions for the middle-class that will more than make up for the reversionary rate on capital gains following repeal of the Bush tax policy.
<
p>Most recent released IRS Statistics, see table 2 on this acrobat file of the 25 million tax returns filed, 19 million earned 100K or less and disclosed long term capital gains.
<
p>11 million of the total 25 million disclosed $50K or less and disclosed long term capital gains.
<
p>How many of those disclosed dividend income which will also be taxed at a higher rate if Obama is elected? I don’t know but I’m sure I can find out with a bit of work.
<
p>Regardless, so much for your ‘vast majority of middle class don’t have capital gains’ argument.
<
p>Believe it or not, many in the middle class do save. Many also invest in the stock market and recognized gains and dividend. Many elderly also are cashing out, earning in the 40-60K range and it’s capital gains and dividend.
<
p>Why you would seek policy that discourages said savings is a mystery to me.
substitute $250 car payment and $150 car insurance and (a) put gas in your car for a $59 MBTA pass. Heck, add in another $41 for assorted taxi rides, and you’re at $100. If you’re living in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville/Quincy/etc, it can be done quite easily.
<
p>So, you are at $1350 with just about all of life’s basic necessities covered. That leaves you with $1050 to (b) eat, and (c) maybe try to have a social life.
<
p>You’re not getting rich, but for a single person it ain’t half bad.
<
p>P.S. I don’t even spend $100/month on transit. Subway fare, the occasional taxi, and all of my bicycle expenses was $800 in 2007, less than $70/month.
The only time I’ve owned a car in my 18 years here was when my employer got relocated out near Hanscom after an acquisition. Between the T and Zipcar I don’t need to. Before Zipcar, I’d rent a car on weekends.
<
p>I’m pretty sure gary and EaBo oppose funding public transportation, but that’s another discussion entirely.
Car Payment – $250
Car insurance – $150
–> replace with a $59 monthly T pass. Stop burning gas, increasing our oil dependency
<
p>Cable/Internet – $100 for even a basic plan.
–>My Comcast plan is $45/internet + $12/basic cable (I don’t watch TV, the only reason I have basic cable is because otherwise internet would be $15 more expensive, so the total comes out a couple bucks cheaper)
<
p>Electric – $40
–>
don’t watch TV and your electric bill would be like mine, which is between $20 and $30 every month
My opponent says I’ll raise taxes on those making over $32,000. It’s a lie; I’ll raise taxes on those making over $41,500 because you have to adjust for the standard deduction, unless of course they itemize in which case the adjustment might be more, then again if they’re over 65 the adjustment might be more, and if they’re blind….
<
p>Withering response.
If my taxable income exceeds $32K there’ll be a tax increase.
<
p>If you saved and invested even a little in the stock market, you’ll have a tax increase if you make less than $32k.
<
p>Nuance the meaning of what it means to “make” $32K and you have the makings of a dull AICPA speech and not a very good gotcha.
but don’t forget that EGTRRA also increased the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. Not sure of the specifics, but pretty sure that that is also in the “sunset” provisions of the tax bill. Middle Income taxpayer w/ two kids would see a $800 in taxes paid through loss of tax credit.
<
p>W/ bad enough economic news coming through everyday, not exactly sure that many are going to buy tax increases as a way out of an impending recession.