Similarly, if you earned $50,000 in 1999, your income in 2008 should be $63,349.34 if you want to maintain a constant-dollar standard of living. That of course assumes you didn't benefit from career progression, such as a promotion and a commensurate pay increase.

If you earned $75,000 in 1999, your break-even income target for 2008 is $95,024.01.

What about those who earned $125,000 in 1999? Good luck; you need $158,373.35 just to keep even.

Maybe a graphical presentation of the Consumer Price Index in recent years will help you to extrapolate the period from 1999 to 2008:

In your wallet assume the you have one single dollar. In historical terms, while looking at the graph, what is that dollar worth, i.e., what is it's purchasing power (not the blue line)? What is the trend?

Rather than display the incorrect tax data circulating on the Internet, the figures below illustrate the correct amount of tax paid by hypothetical taxpayers in the Internet comparison. Note that this comparison considers adjusted gross income and does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax. Taxpayers in these examples are assumed to have taken the standard deduction and do not have children.

Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law

Taxpayer
Single, income of $30,000
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $3,157.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $4,000.51
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $2,756.25

Assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $38,000. You are now in a different tax bracket. Welcome to the demographic group liberals call wealthy Americans. You have just experienced "bracket creep," a phenomenon in which you are making no more money (no greater purchasing power than in 1999), but your taxes have increased.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 28%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 25% - 3% less.

------------------

Single, income of $50,000
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $7,262.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $9,201.49
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $6,606.25

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $63,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would now have been 31%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 25% - 6% less.

-----------------

Married, income of $50,000
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $5,085.00
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $6,442.63
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $4,012.50

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $63,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 28%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 15%

-----------------

Single, income of $75,000
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $14,262.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $18,070.40
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $12,856.25

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $95,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 31%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 28%

-------------------

Married, income of $75,000
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $9,426.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $11,943.25
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $7,762.50

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $95,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 28%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 25%

------------------

Single, income of $125,000*
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $29,378.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $37,222.17
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $26,472.25

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $158,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 36%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 28%

----------------------

Married, income of $125,000*
Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law - $23,426.50
If you were paying the same amount today as in 1999, in constant dollars, your tax bill would be $29,681.07
Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law - $19,462.50

However, assume you are one of the chosen few whose income has kept pace with inflation since 1999. Your income in 2008 would be over $158,000. Your tax bracket may have changed.
Your marginal tax rate under Clinton, 1999 tax law, would have been 31%.
Your marginal tax rate under Bush, 2008 tax law, is 28%

-------------------

*These figures do not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax - which Congress refuses to eliminate.

Additionally, many Congressmen and women, including current presidential candidates, want to abolish the Bush Administration tax cuts. Look at the graph above. Study it. Is that what you want? What will huge tax increases do to your standard of living? What will it do to the United States economy? If you are so fortunate as to be one of those paying income taxes, do not harbor the naive thought that your taxes will in some way benefit you personally.

As a matter of observation, have you noticed that the only people in the entire world not enjoying the benefits provided by United States taxpayers are those citizens actually paying the taxes?

And you're going to vote for whom? Don't even think about voting to raise my taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Hat tip:
Richard D., Scottsdale, AZ
-------------------------

Response from Tom W.:

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, 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. Obama and Clinton say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts. A good portion of the people who fall into the categories above can't wait for that 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.

I remember when Bill Clinton whipped up this class envy thing during one of his administrations. He said he was going to tax the rich and use the money to fund entitlement programs for the poor. The masses fell for it hook, line & sinker. They couldn't wait to stick it to the rich. They loved Clinton for being the "Champion of the Poor". Imagine their surprise when the tax increase went through and these people suddenly discovered that being "rich" applied to anybody making $35,000 a year or more! The worst part is, the tax was approved in October and the bastard made it retro-active to January 1st of that year. ( I talked to the owner of a small manufacturing firm last July who said he was STILL paying off the IRS from that tax increase!)

I had this discussion with Grant the other night. I told him that all these class envy tactics the Democrats are using now had been done before, the "Lets go after Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart for making too much profit", the notion that somehow corporate America's profits are the reason YOU aren't rich, those are windfall profits and they didn't earn them and don't deserve them. These same things were done 30 and 40 years ago. But the problem we have now is there are millions of young people of voting age in this country who weren't born yet the first time this BS was going around, so it's all new to them. And since very few of them care to study history and learn from it, we are destined to re-live it.

These young people are being seduced by the empty rhetoric of an inexperienced, unqualified candidate who happens to have an appealing oratory style in the person of Barrack Obama. They don't care WHAT he says, they just love the WAY way he says it! This guy knows as much about the economy, global politics, and the war on terror as your 9 month old grandson, Max. Come to think of it, I apologize. That's an insult to Max; he probably knows more!

All I know is, with the Socialist leanings of the Liberal Left, if people like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy were spouting this bilge back in the 50's, Joe McCarthy would have nailed their asses for being part of the Communist Party. Today, stupid-ass Americans can't wait to vote them into office so they can take even more of our paychecks to support Washington's spending addiction. With this economy on the brink of recession, all we need is a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress who will eliminate tax cuts, bring back the old Alternative Minimum Tax, raise Capital Gains taxes, and reinstate the death tax.

Their next move will be to establish Universal Health Care, and that's it for Capitalism, "game, set, and match."

That financial burden will be so huge we will have to resort to becoming a Socialist State in order to pay for it. The budget for the Democratic version of Universal Health Care will make the Defense Budget look like chump change. And the quality of healthcare will decline like most Americans could never imagine. Bill and Hillary want to emulate the Canadian healthcare system. Well, I've talked to several Canadians who tell horror stories about waiting years for surgeries, triage systems where patients die waiting to be seen by specialists, and those who had to come to American doctors in order to be seen in time to save their lives. And the Clintons want us to adopt that?! You first, Bill!

McCain wasn't my first choice, but right now he looks like the only choice. He's the only hope we have to fend off this push toward Socialism by the Liberals. Hell, if you listen to Hillary's proposals for government programs, it sounds like it came right out of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. This broad is a Marxist!

OK, that's my rant for today. I guess I've turned into one of those "Angry White Males"!! I'd like to form a whole damned FRATERNITY of them!

Tom W.

« Close It

Washington Politicians Mortgage Our Future for Their Benefit
By Congressman John Shadegg

As they left town for Christmas, Congress passed an unprecedented end-of-the-year appropriations bill with billions in wasteful spending designed principally to benefit incumbent Members of Congress. This bill includes thousands of self-serving Member-directed spending projects and displays total disregard for both legislative process and the Constitution. Though civics teaches that both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before it can be presented to the President for his signature to become law, this did not happen. Instead the House, fearful of political fallout, used trickery so Members could avoid voting on the actual bill as it passed the Senate. A dangerous precedent.

The 3,417 page bill (34 pounds) was dropped barely 20 hours before final consideration by the House. It included 9,170 Member-directed spending projects. Over 300 of these had never been made public, seen by rank-and-file Members, or passed by either House. Combined with the 2,161 passed earlier, Members gave themselves a total of 11,331 self-serving projects, costing Americans over $20 billion this year. During this season of goodwill, this bill, and those who crammed it through Congress, showed none toward American taxpayers, their children, or grandchildren.

This legislation continues an embarrassing trend in government pork-barrel spending, funneling untold billions into pet projects designed to re-elect incumbents. Most such projects are not requested, or even supported, by the Departments obligated to deliver them. Many are outright corrupt - directing funds to Members' contributors, former staffers, and even family members. The Democrat leadership promised to "make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history," yet under their guidance Members of both parties continue brazenly using tax dollars to benefit themselves.

Senator Ted Stevens matched his "Bridge to Nowhere" with $20 million for a "Ferry to Nowhere" that appears to benefit his brother-in-law and former staffers Congressman Jim Clyburn, the Democrat Whip, obtained $229,000 for the Drew Wellness Center, a physical fitness center where his daughter works. In 2003, Clyburn obtained the $900,000 to construct the center. Clyburn also obtained $3 million for a private charity associated with the "James Clyburn Golf Center" he established at taxpayer expense in 2002. Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee obtained $1.95 million for a center bearing his name and bragged on the House Floor that he deserved it. The bill even restored the now infamous Hillary Clinton-Chuck Schumer Woodstock museum.

Members devote huge amounts of time to these projects and openly acknowledge the funds are being used - not for the larger public good - but to ensure incumbents' reelection. In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, the leader of a prominent Congressional Member caucus complained that caucus Members weren't receiving enough projects to ensure the reelection of its incumbents in "highly contested races." At this rate, Members will soon complain they aren't receiving sufficient bribes to maintain their lifestyle.

While the short-term ramifications of Washington's corruption and fiscal promiscuity are disturbing, the long-term consequences for our children and grandchildren should give every American cause for serious concern. Because Congress chooses to spend far more than is collected in current taxes, the government must borrow money to fund our largess.

And borrow we have, to the point where our current national debt is a whopping $9.2 trillion dollars - or more accurately $9,193,315,468, 899.43 as of December 21, 2007. That translates to $30,323.94 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America.

Who, exactly, is lending us all this money? Well, Japan has lent us $586 billion. We owe communist China $400 billion. Our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations have lent us $123 billion. And here is the really bad news: they expect us to pay them back - with interest. In fact, we paid $430 billion in interest on our debt last year alone.

Of course, current taxpayers are not going to pay anywhere close to all of that debt - we can't possibly. So who will be stuck paying for our wasteful and irresponsible spending? Today's wasteful and corrupt spending will be tomorrow's obligation. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to repay today's wasteful spending. Anyone who truly cares about the future of their children and grandchildren must demand that Washington put an end to this corrupt and economically disastrous practice.

One recent survey put Congress's approval rating at eleven percent. Given the self-serving, wasteful conduct Congress continues to engage in, it is shocking the number is not lower.

There will be much celebration and back slapping in Washington this Christmas as Members congratulate themselves for a job well done. But I suspect, as Americans learn once again that Members of Congress devote more energy to looking out for themselves than the nation's and our children's well-being, Congressional approval ratings will sink ever further, and deservedly so.

For more on Member-directed spending projects, see the Congress Daily article at:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002596442

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

A portion is extracted from businesses of all shapes and sizes in the form of a corporate income tax. Individual income taxes provide five times the amount of corporate taxes. Employment taxes contribute another portion, roughly two thirds of the individual income taxes. Add to that gift, estate and excise taxes. In 2003, tax revenues were somewhere close to $2 trillion. For FY2007, beginning October 1st, 2006, Congress authorized a $2.8 trillion budget, an increase by 40% since President Bush first took office in 2001. President Clinton’s last budget was $1.8 trillion.

We give the President credit for the budget because he signed it into law. However, never forget for a minute that it was Congressmen, our Senators and district Representative, who inserted the spending provisions into the budget and it was Congress that passed it.

What effect is this spending having on the national economy? We are told almost daily there is no demand-driven inflation. Demand is determined by the magnitude of public consumption expenditures and government consumption expenditures, plus investment expenditures and net exports/imports. You know that both public and government consumption expenditures (spending) have been huge. Over the last two years alone, $1.352 trillion of equity has been extracted from real estate - an amount equal to about 10% of annual GDP - and spent without saving hardly a dime. During the same period, net imports/exports has been hugely negative. One only needs to look at product labels in any retail establishment to know that most of what we purchase today was manufactured in foreign countries. Price inflation from government and public consumption expenditures demand is running wild and unchecked, and in several asset classes as a result of speculation, inflation has become “pure.”

Congress could just as easily have shown a pretense of fiscal responsibility and reduced this year’s budget instead of raising it. While Congressmen and the media are quick to tell us the President’s words are all sound – all sound, it is Congress that is blindly proceeding to do just exactly what it wants to do, spending what it collectively wants to spend. It is Congress, aided and abetted by the media, that blames this President (and past presidents) for Congress’ ill-advised decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to entitlement spending and earmarks. Even votes are becoming expensive to purchase. Ask any Congressman.

When anyone overspends their income, they must go into debt if they continue to make purchases, which we know to as “deficit spending.” When tax revenues are inadequate to pay the bills, additional revenue has to come from somewhere. This additonal revenue iis obtained from the sale of United States assets, in the form of government debt instruments (Treasury securities). Treasury securities are issued by the United States Department of the Treasury through the Bureau of the Public Debt – notice in the name the words ‘Public Debt.' Debt financing instruments are referred to simply as "Treasuries." Foreign governments and banks purchase our Treasuries with U.S. dollars which they acquired from selling us consumer goods or petroleum products.

There are four types of Treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Savings bonds. Treasury securities (except savings bonds) are very liquid forms of national debt and heavily traded by international entities on the secondary market.

A national debt is created when a lending foreign government or bank (such as the Federal Reserve) agrees to loan a sum of assets (U.S. dollars) to a debtor nation, in this case the United States. As you would expect, these loans are made with an expectation of repayment, plus interest. The choices are few – repay, reschedule or default. Historically, individual debt was always responsible for the creation of indentured servants. Remember this detail, because national debt is no different, only on a larger scale. National debt is definitely not charity. Charity is best exemplified by the United States’ internal income redistribution programs (entitlement programs) which are a give-away of tax dollars with no expectation of receiving anything in return, not even nationalism. Entitlement programs are a subsidy by Congress of ethically, morally, educationally and culturally challenged Americans and illegal aliens in return for Congressional self interest, votes and power. Any organization or special interest group granted a tax exempt status – whether religious, political or charitable - for any reason - is similarly enjoying a pernicious form of entitlement program – receiving citizenship benefits paid for by other taxpayers including protection of the law, but indignantly contributing nothing – nothing at all.

To anyone who would read this article voluntarily, you probably already know that China has become the world’s biggest foreign exchange holder of U.S. Treasuries. Chinese holdings of United States foreign exchange (debt) reached $853.7 billion as of February 28, 2006. Japanese holdings of U.S. foreign exchange were $852 billion as of March 31, 2006.

For comparison in a global sense, the U.S. current account deficit in 2005 was $791.5 billion. The world’s next largest current account deficit in 2005 was Spain’s $86 billion.

It will take decades for our children and grandchildren to repay our government-incurred national debt, with interest. It is important to emphasize that the national debt is not the responsibility of everyone - only those individuals and corporations who do pay taxes (since the bottom 50% of wage earners and illegal aliens pay no taxes at all).

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Over one-half billion federal tax dollars have already been spent in Mississippi restoring damaged state schools. While counterintuitive, these federal funds dispensed to the State of Mississippi were not loans for the purpose of rebuilding the state’s schools, but Washington, D.C. exercising a federal ownership interest, authority over, and responsibility for what have become U.S. government schools (indoctrination centers) in Mississippi. Pause and reflect on the socialist implications of the federal government's ownership and control of state schools.

Senator Ted Kennedy is a staunch proponent of such spending. Consider the “Big Dig” in Massachusetts. The Big Dig is the unofficial name of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T), a mega-project to reroute Interstate 93, the controlled-access highway through the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, into a 3.5 mile (5.6km) tunnel under the city. The Big Dig is the most expensive highway project in America. Planning for the Big Dig officially began in 1982.

Environmental impact studies started in 1983. After years of extensive lobbying for federal dollars, a 1987 public works bill appropriating funding for the Big Dig was passed by U.S. Congress, and quickly vetoed by President Ronald Reagan as being too expensive. Congress overrode his veto and in 1991, the Big Dig began in earnest.

The project was estimated at $2.5 billion in 1985. Over $14.6 billion has been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006, with Congress adding more money (your tax dollars) every year to Senator Ted Kennedy’s marquis project every time an appropriations bill presented itself. The project has been plagued with delays, escalating costs, leaks, shoddy workmanship, intentional use of substandard materials and even arrests. The Massachusetts Attorney General is demanding that contractors refund MA taxpayers $108 million for "shoddy work." Taxpayers across the rest of the nation are unlikely to benefit from any recovery – the money is gone. The final ramp of the Big Dig opened after 15 years of construction on what was supposed to be less than a ten-year project on January 13, 2006. Six months later, the tunnel segment under South Boston which connects the mainline of I-90 to the newly-constructed Ted Williams Tunnel, was closed indefinitely to the public because the tunnel ceiling collapsed on July 10, 2006 killing a female passenger riding in a vehicle.

Returning to New Orleans, there were 484,674 permanent residents of New Orleans when Katrina struck. For each one of those 484,674 inhabitants, $250 billion would provide over one-half million dollars to each person, $516,528 to be exact – for every man, woman and child. For every family of four, that’s over 2 million dollars of our tax money - $2,066,112. Or, if you happened to own one or more of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, and homes were your focus, each and every home would be entitled to $1,329,787. One year later, and billions of dollars spent to repair the partial destruction (less than 5%) of the New Orleans levee system by Hurricane Katrina, the head of the Army corps of Engineers conceded on August 26th that it wasn’t clear if the levee system (read: luck will be needed) will ever be able to withstand a heavy storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, let alone Category 4 or 5. A new hurricane season has just begun. Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) or her successor will soon be asking for another 250 billion tax dollars. Instead of opening education accounts for our children, maybe we should be opening levee accounts for Louisiana.

Why doesn’t Louisiana sell state bonds to fund their own levee repairs, particularly in those areas unrelated to national commerce on the Mississippi River? Most states and many cities sell “capital improvement” bonds to fund everything from football stadiums to water treatment facilities to transportation systems and state schools. The answer is self evident. No one would invest in the efficiency of the LA state government or risk calamitous acts of nature that will reoccur along the Gulf Coast. No insurance company would touch it. Neither should the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers.

Today, we find ourselves confined in the same room with an elephant named FEMA, the antithesis of individual responsibility and another failed product of Congress. FEMA is so fat it can’t turn around in its own confines without doing more harm than good. The corruption is staggering, mostly ignored, and far beyond the control of FEMA administrators. Congress feeds incredible sums of tax money to FEMA. Citizens, churches and charitable organizations spend most of their time with shovels cleaning up after the “benefits” FEMA provides to us – same as families must do with the Education Department, the results of which are evident in everyday life. Speaking of education, Congress and the NEA have proudly refined and reformed education in America to the point that only a few high school graduates can figure it out. The vernacular expression, “duh,” may finally have achieved some social and fiscal relevance.

Red State Patriot

A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it, and Congress is spending almost a billion (one thousand million dollars) tax dollars every 8 hours - most unconstitutionally if anyone still cares. Have you had a talk with your Senators and Representative lately? Are you going to vote?

« Close It