An amazing graphic demonstration of the differences between the Democrats and Bush's party

[womzilla]

Courtesy of The Washington Post back in June, a comparison, by brackets, of the income tax reforms proposed by the two major candidates.

The graphic, behind the cut, was prepared by the Tax Policy Center.

The short version: If your household makes less than $111K per year, you will save more money under Obama's plan than under McCain's. If you make more than that but less than $600K per year, you'll pay less in taxes under both plans, but more under Obama's than under McCain's. (Thanks mnemex for the correction.)

If, like a bare minimum McCain "rich person", you make over $5 million, you'll pay a lot less under McCain's plan. Nice to be you!

ETA: Also, check the display from del_c in my comments which adds a second dimension to help demonstrate *how many* people will benefit more from Obama's plan than McCain's.

Comments

[del-c.livejournal.com]

The difference is even more stark when you account for the percentage of the population in those income groups. I made these graphs in June, based on a report by the Tax Policy Center:


Almost nobody benefits much under the McCain plan, and almost nobody fails to benefit under the Obama plan.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

That is a good presentation.

[mneme]

Hmm. In the interest of a fact-based reality, doesn't the 11lk-160k group do better under McCain's plan (-2.4) than Obama's (-2.1)? (also, "between 160k and 600k", not "less than 600k").

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

What's the bottom line on projected revenue and growth stimulus for each plan?
And never count on a tax on the high end to actually return more income - they have more dodges in their arsenal.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

According to the Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750), the Obama plan's projected revenue is about $1.3 trillion higher over the decade 2009-2018. (Both plans are lower revenue than "current law", by which the Center means the law that will be in effect once the Bush tax cuts are sunsetted.)

Since both plans still call on deriving a great deal of tax revenue from high-income people--since that's where most of the income is--I think that's, conceptually, a wash.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

"Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
"both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion. McCain would increase the debt by $5 trillion."

So, essentially, they are playing around and trying to seem like they are doing stuff, but actually, just giving us more national debt and thereby making the dollar even softer.

Oh, joy.

[del-c.livejournal.com]

The Clinton administration made the mistake of paying down the Reagan-Bush debt, only to hand the achievement on as a gift to the Bush II administration to use as slack. I can't blame a candidate for not bothering to promise the voting public a reduction in debt; they've said they don't want it and won't thank you for it.