Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Kerry's 200K Tax Cutoff

Old 10-13-04, 10:43 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Jack Straw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 5,100
Kerry's 200K Tax Cutoff

I have a question which I not heard anyone else ask. When John Kerry states that he won't raise taxes on anyone earning under $200K per annum, does he mean filing as single, or joint? Can I as a single taxpayer declare $199,999 of AGI and not pay more tax? What would be the limit on a joint tax return where there could be two wage earners? Is it $200K or $400K?
Jack Straw is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:45 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
kerry is a northeastern democrat

what do you think?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:46 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,608
Kerry will end up raising taxes on the under 200K crowd, so you are probably screwed anyway.
tcoursen is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:48 PM
  #4  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Kerry's actually misplaced the decimal point and it isn't 200K but 20K. When you look at it that way, it hardly matters.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:50 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
I believe I heard on CNN or something, an economist talking about how the 200K doesn't take into account different filings. And as you consider joint, married, etc the tax increases filter down to 150K or lower.

birrman54
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:52 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Jack Straw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 5,100
Originally posted by Birrman54
I believe I heard on CNN or something, an economist talking about how the 200K doesn't take into account different filings. And as you consider joint, married, etc the tax increases filter down to 150K or lower.

birrman54
Hmm, yet another reason to stay single.
Jack Straw is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 10:53 PM
  #7  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Stay single?!!
And give up the chance of having someone else spend your money?
bhk is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 11:01 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
kerry has been against every tax cut of the last few years because he said that it will mean more money for rich people than the lower income people. yet his tax cut that he is pushing is the exact thing he has been against in the past.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 11:34 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by al_bundy
kerry has been against every tax cut of the last few years because he said that it will mean more money for rich people than the lower income people. yet his tax cut that he is pushing is the exact thing he has been against in the past.
Actually, I understand why he is against tax cuts. He and Teresa paid nearly 12% of their income in taxes last year. How can we cut it any lower than that?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 12:23 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
dolphinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,045
My wife and I both work (her, part time) and are VERY much in the middle class. We do ok, but not great and whether it's tax cuts FOR the rich or lowering taxes, I've never liked the 200K number.

Conservatives will probably kill me, because raising taxes on the rich, no matter how rich they are, seem like a bad idea to them, but I'd like the bump up to be at around 500k and a little higher after a million.

To plain old working folks like us, that makes more sense. And the estate tax should come back with up front exemptions for at least 10 million, so people wouldn't by the idea that people would be losing their family farms and all of the propaganda to keep that money in the hands of the very rich, so their kids won't have to work if they don't want to.

If we can ask our soldiers to make sacrifices, certainly we could ask the very wealthy to do the same. I know, I'm a "liberal".

Sorry.
dolphinboy is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 12:26 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
dolphinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,045
Originally posted by kvrdave
Actually, I understand why he is against tax cuts. He and Teresa paid nearly 12% of their income in taxes last year. How can we cut it any lower than that?
So, assuming your number is exactly right (and it probably isn't, but that's not even a big deal), wouldn't it be better to be the rich guy only paying 12% because of loopholes for the Very Rich saying that he wanted to pay more, rather than Cheney and Bush (and I know I've seen similar numbers on Cheney's taxes) saying that 12% was fair and good for America?
dolphinboy is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 12:28 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by dolphinboy
My wife and I both work (her, part time) and are VERY much in the middle class. We do ok, but not great and whether it's tax cuts FOR the rich or lowering taxes, I've never liked the 200K number.

Conservatives will probably kill me, because raising taxes on the rich, no matter how rich they are, seem like a bad idea to them, but I'd like the bump up to be at around 500k and a little higher after a million.

To plain old working folks like us, that makes more sense. And the estate tax should come back with up front exemptions for at least 10 million, so people wouldn't by the idea that people would be losing their family farms and all of the propaganda to keep that money in the hands of the very rich, so their kids won't have to work if they don't want to.

If we can ask our soldiers to make sacrifices, certainly we could ask the very wealthy to do the same. I know, I'm a "liberal".

Sorry.
Hell, if either party were serious about making the rich pay their fair share (whatever that is) they would talk about a wealth tax so that the uber rich Kerrys can't get away with paying 12% when most people who make $50k pay a higher percentage than that.

Anything from either party about wanting the rich to pay more is just crap.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 12:32 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by dolphinboy
So, assuming your number is exactly right (and it probably isn't, but that's not even a big deal), wouldn't it be better to be the rich guy only paying 12% because of loopholes for the Very Rich saying that he wanted to pay more, rather than Cheney and Bush (and I know I've seen similar numbers on Cheney's taxes) saying that 12% was fair and good for America?
It is correct. http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/200...xes-9-7-04.htm Google "Kerry income tax 12%" and you will get lots of sources.

I don't see anyone saying that 12% is fair and good for the richest to be paying. Most Americans probably don't believe that is "right". Especially when those making much less pay a higher percentage. But it goes to show that Kerry is full of shit when he claims to want rich people to pay more. He wants those who do not have good accountants to pay more.

Again, if Kerry really thought this, he'd talk about a wealth tax.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:12 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
All I know is that I expect a tax cut whomever is elected. And if they don't give it to me, well I'll... I'll... I guess I'll pay the higher taxes.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:15 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
Originally posted by kvrdave
It is correct. http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/200...xes-9-7-04.htm Google "Kerry income tax 12%" and you will get lots of sources.

I don't see anyone saying that 12% is fair and good for the richest to be paying. Most Americans probably don't believe that is "right". Especially when those making much less pay a higher percentage. But it goes to show that Kerry is full of shit when he claims to want rich people to pay more. He wants those who do not have good accountants to pay more.

Again, if Kerry really thought this, he'd talk about a wealth tax.
well, for some of the richest, there theoretically could be ZERO taxes. if they put all their money in municipal bonds (and likely enough in taxables that could be offset by deductions, etc.) and that isn't even complicated.
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:17 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
For marrieds filing separately Kerry's tax plan would hit a couple making only $80,000 per year.

He's lying. Flat out.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:28 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by matchpenalty
well, for some of the richest, there theoretically could be ZERO taxes. if they put all their money in municipal bonds (and likely enough in taxables that could be offset by deductions, etc.) and that isn't even complicated.
Nope, that is absolutely correct. Take your 100 million and put it all in tax free munis, etc. at 2% and you have $2,000,000 a year to live on tax free.

And that is why I say that if they really wanted to "stick it to the rich" (which they don't) they would go after a wealth tax. You could actually do that and get rid of the income tax. But don't expect that any time soon either.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:37 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally posted by natesfortune
For marrieds filing separately Kerry's tax plan would hit a couple making only $80,000 per year.

He's lying. Flat out.
I seem to remember hearing a similar number.

birrman54
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 01:51 AM
  #19  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30
quick take on tax free munis for the uber rich. IIRC they will eventually be subject to AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) when they receive enough income via "tax free" vehicles. They also have deductions phased out at a certain level. At 12% effective rate on that income you can bet they are playing all the angles and getting plenty of help thanks to the reduced tax on dividends W provided. damn accounting classes
jad.dvd is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 02:10 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by jad.dvd
quick take on tax free munis for the uber rich. IIRC they will eventually be subject to AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) when they receive enough income via "tax free" vehicles. They also have deductions phased out at a certain level. At 12% effective rate on that income you can bet they are playing all the angles and getting plenty of help thanks to the reduced tax on dividends W provided. damn accounting classes
I thinkt he AMT has not been fully kicked in yet. I could be wrong but I seem to remember Bush signing another 1 year extension of it or something. When it actually does hit (assuming it does) there will be a huge wake up call.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 07:37 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
Originally posted by jad.dvd
quick take on tax free munis for the uber rich. IIRC they will eventually be subject to AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) when they receive enough income via "tax free" vehicles. They also have deductions phased out at a certain level. At 12% effective rate on that income you can bet they are playing all the angles and getting plenty of help thanks to the reduced tax on dividends W provided. damn accounting classes
wrong.. there are two classes of munis.. amt bonds and non-amt bonds.. if they purchase non-amt ones, it isnt an issue..most munis issued are NON amt securities
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 07:39 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
Originally posted by kvrdave
I thinkt he AMT has not been fully kicked in yet. I could be wrong but I seem to remember Bush signing another 1 year extension of it or something. When it actually does hit (assuming it does) there will be a huge wake up call.
to the middle class.. where it will hit very very deep and it is already hitting hard. I didn't get anywhere near the tax cut i expected because of it. It could effectively make your state and local tax deductions almost worthless..
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 08:23 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Originally posted by kvrdave
I thinkt he AMT has not been fully kicked in yet. I could be wrong but I seem to remember Bush signing another 1 year extension of it or something. When it actually does hit (assuming it does) there will be a huge wake up call.
The AMT contains a "personal exemption" like the regular tax. Because AMT is quasi-flatrate (26 and 28%) the exemption is "tweaked" to keep it from impacting people in the 25% and 28% brackets if they don't have excessive deductions. (that automatically takes care of the 10% and 15% brackets too). The breakpoints in AMT rates are not inflation adjusted whereas the regular tax rates are, so there has been a huge "rate creep" problem where the creeps hope to tax everybody.

If your income is high enough, that personal exemption is phased out and you are paying a flat 28% AMT. I'm too lazy to look up figure, but it is fully phased out over $500K for sure, maybe $400K, so the uber-rich pay 26% to 150K, then 28% on the balance of income (except cap. gains and tax free)

Under AMT, dividends and capital gains are still taxed at 15% like regular taxes, so if your income is all investment, you may be able to lower tax rate to 15%. Certain classes of tax-free munis are taxed under AMT; it depends on what the money is used for and the bond prospectus is supposed to tell you. Most tax free munis remain tax free under AMT.
OldDude is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 11:48 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mordred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 12,214
Originally posted by natesfortune
For marrieds filing separately Kerry's tax plan would hit a couple making only $80,000 per year.

He's lying. Flat out.
I haven't heard this before. Could you or Birrman54 point me to a link please?
Mordred is offline  
Old 10-14-04, 12:32 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally posted by Mordred
I haven't heard this before. Could you or Birrman54 point me to a link please?
I was searching for a link last night, I had seen it originally on TV on one of the news networks. They had an economist talking about how the 200K number is misleading, since it's basically raising the rates of the top two brackets. According to this guy, raising the two brackets depending on how one was filing their taxes, could affect people earning much less than $200K/year.

natesfortune probably has a link somewhere. I'll keep looking.

birrman54
Birrman54 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.