MyFox
 

HEAFFA2DA's Blog

by HEAFFA2DA from FLORIDA

Last Post 163 days, 4 hours Ago


What happens when someone who knows nothing about a particular subject tries to write a blog about that particular subject? You get an hilariously funny blog filled with incorrect claims.

Booggymann certainly showed his lack of knowledge concerning income taxes. He listed a link: www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html knowing that some will blindly believe that his following calculations are shown on that web site. What the link actually brings you to is a report titled “Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History“ from 1913-2008. It shows all the tax brackets for each year, but it does not, for example, say how much tax a single taxpayer making 30K actually paid any year. Thank goodness for that, otherwise Booggymann might have been able to even fool some who have any knowledge at all of income taxes. Thank goodness also, because here is where the laughs really take off.

Here is Booggymann’s claims:

Taxes under Clinton 1999

Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

ALL OF THESE AMOUNTS ARE INCORRECT!

Let’s examine one of Booggymann’s claims - that in 1999, a single taxpayer making 30K paid income taxes of $8,400. Booggymann looked at the 1999 tax brackets showing that 30K for a single taxpayer was in the 28% bracket. So he multiplied $30,000 times 28%, and claimed $8,400 of taxes was paid. FUNNY, FUNNY STUFF!

First, Booggymann doesn’t even know that tax brackets are based on taxable income, not what someone makes. In 1999, the single standard deduction was $4,300 & 1 personal exemption was $2,750. So this single taxpayer making 30K had taxable income of $22,950.

So this single taxpayer who made 30K in 1999 was actually taxed on $22,950 (or less if he itemized deductions) which was taxed @ 15%.

Therefore his tax was $3,446, not $8,400 as Booggymann claimed.

Secondly, Booggymann thinks that if your total income figure is within a higher tax bracket, then all your income is taxed at that rate. MORE FUNNY, FUNNY STUFF!

The reality though is that even if you make a $million, your taxable income is taxed progressively up the brackets.

Take Booggymann’s claim that a single taxpayer making 50K paid $14,000 in taxes in 1999. Booggymann took this whole $50,000 & multiplied it times 28%

This taxpayer actually had taxable income of $42,950 (even less if he itemized). Even though this $42,950 falls in the 28% bracket, the first $25,750 was taxed at 15%. His income tax was $8,686, not $14,000 as Booggymann claimed.

ALL of his numbers in his blog are not even close to reality. Booggymann claims the single taxpayer making 30K is paying $3,900 per year less than in 1999 ($4,500 in 2008 compared to $8,400 in 1999), as I said - NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Are the numbers for the same income less in 2008, than in 1999? YES. For example, the single taxpayer making $30,000 paid $690 less in 2008 than in 1999. If you think this taxpayer isn’t paying it back in increased local or state taxes, then you likely agree with Booggymann’s numbers too. For example, when U.S. Treasury revenue declined due to the tax cuts, less federal money was sent to the states. One of Jeb Bush’s solutions was to reduce the percentage of local school taxes that the state paid. You now make that up by paying a greater percentage of local school taxes. In other words your property taxes increased to help offset your income tax cut. The politicians want you to disregard everything else, & just see what happened on your 1040. Sadly, some are fooled this way.

Booggymann then goes on:

“Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates” &

“If Obama or Hillary are 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.”

Now either Booggymann just blindly believes any propaganda that sounds good to him, or he is simply mistaken, or he’s an outright liar. Neither of the Democratic candidates are saying they will repeal the tax cuts “of the people that fall into the categories above” (Booggymann specifically stated income of $125,000 or less).

Clinton’s plan for income taxes is to “Increase on income over $250,000. Make the current (Bush tax cut) rates for "middle class" families permanent.” Also “Would create a matching refundable tax credit for contributions made to 401(k)s.”

Obama’s plan is “"Repeal Bush's tax cuts for top 1%. Eliminate income taxes on seniors earning $50,000 per year or less.”

So the reality is “the people that fall into the categories above” would do better under Clinton’s or Obama’s plans, not worse as the scare tactic propaganda claims.

BTW - Clinton’s & Obama’s plans are also on the Tax Foundation’s web site @ http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/comp
are/
Guess Booggymann just happened to miss that page.

 

This hilarious blog I’m referring to is “Comparing apples to Apples” written by Booggymann on 04/07/08. Booggymann started by proclaiming “Taxes…Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.” As you saw, Booggymann’s whole blog is certainly amazing, to say the least.
5 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1
chassan read my blog view my photos
Apr 10, 2008 | 6:00 AM

I didn't put much stock in Booogymann's numbers, but his blog did signal the importance of paying attention to candidates' statements about what they would do if elected and especially how they would pay for whatever proposals they advance.

The taxpayers foot the bill for any new government programs, so everyone needs to pay attention and vote for the presidential candidate they think would not only be the best leader, but also the best financial manager.

Skyder read my blog view my photos
Apr 11, 2008 | 1:11 PM

So this is from Budget.gov

(iii) AVERAGE TAX RATES ON ANNUAL EARNINGS IN % TERMS*
FULL RATE
PRSI
€ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
15,000 23.0% 20.8% 18.0% 13.9% 9.5% 7.7% 6.8% 5.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20,000 28.5% 25.8% 23.5% 19.1% 15.2% 13.8% 13.1% 11.9% 8.4% 7.1% 5.1% 4.4%
25,000 33.7% 31.2% 29.3% 24.0% 17.3% 16.2% 15.7% 14.7% 13.5% 12.5% 10.9% 8.3%
30,000 37.1% 34.8% 33.2% 28.4% 22.2% 19.3% 18.9% 18.1% 16.0% 14.7% 13.4% 12.9%
40,000 40.6% 38.4% 37.3% 33.3% 28.3% 26.4% 26.1% 25.5% 24.0% 21.9% 19.7% 18.6%
60,000 43.9% 41.8% 41.0% 37.7% 33.6% 32.4% 32.3% 32.0% 31.1% 29.8% 28.1% 27.5%
100,000 46.5% 44.4% 43.9% 41.1% 37.9% 37.1% 37.0% 36.9% 36.3% 35.6% 34.2% 33.8%
120,000 47.1% 45.1% 44.6% 41.9% 38.9% 38.3% 38.2% 38.1% 37.6% 37.0% 35.7% 35.4%
FULL RATE
PRSI
€ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
15,000 15.0% 14.0% 9.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20,000 20.7% 18.5% 14.7% 8.3% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
25,000 23.1% 20.9% 17.9% 12.3% 8.7% 7.1% 6.5% 5.5% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 2.9%
30,000 24.6% 22.6% 20.0% 15.0% 11.6% 10.2% 9.8% 9.0% 7.8% 6.7% 5.1% 5.1%
40,000 29.2% 26.8% 24.3% 20.2% 16.6% 15.7% 15.5% 14.9% 13.2% 11.5% 10.2% 9.4%
60,000 36.3% 34.1% 32.3% 29.0% 25.9% 25.3% 25.1% 24.8% 23.9% 22.5% 20.8% 19.8%
100,000 42.0% 39.8% 38.7% 35.9% 33.2% 32.8% 32.8% 32.6% 32.0% 31.2% 29.7% 29.2%
120,000 43.3% 41.2% 40.2% 37.6% 35.0% 34.7% 34.6% 34.5% 34.0% 33.3% 32.0% 31.6%
FULL RATE
PRSI
€ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
15,000 11.1% 8.5% 3.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.

Booggymann read my blog view my photos
Apr 11, 2008 | 7:43 PM

Thank you heaf for allowing me to live rent free in your head,I really am flatered that you would take so much time to right a post about me that took me 2 minutes to cut and paste. You liberals crack me up.

Skyder read my blog view my photos
Apr 11, 2008 | 10:42 PM

Yeah, I'd say the case is pretty much closed on this one :)

Skyder read my blog view my photos
Apr 11, 2008 | 10:47 PM

Oh, and 401k contirbutions are not taxed, therefore there is not a tax rebate on anything that is not taxed. I'm guessing you are a tax law student, who does not stick to studying, primarily.

Boogeymann is dead on with this one, however it wasn't 28%, it was 33%

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




HEAFFA2DA

Enjoys proving the zero IQ's of political wackos. The fun begins when they realize their lack of intelligence. Their typical way of then slithering away & crawling under a rock is to A)deny they said what they said (even if it's 2 posts earlier within same blog), B)say the same BS over & over (knowing that those on their same IQ level will then believe it must be correct since they heard it somewhere before), C)wimply delete posts on their blogs that show them for what they are, D)refer to you by changing your screen name (not abbreviating, but such as Annie Fanny - remember 3rd grade) or, E)the ultimate compliment, post blogs that a 3rd grader would be proud of under a take off of your screen name. Look at their posts, then sadly realize these individuals vote. Then you will have a better idea of why our country is in the mess it's in.

Member Since: 3/21/2008