The Worst President Ever

[Stephen Eisel]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201b.htm


Single - 0 Children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 2843 New tax: $ 2542 Savings: $ 301
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 4758 New tax: $ 4362 Savings: $ 396
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 8678 New tax: $ 7862 Savings: $ 816
$ 76,000 Current tax: $16153 New tax: $ 14363 Savings: $ 1791
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 23593 New tax: $ 20362 Savings: $ 3231

Single - 1 Child
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1623 New tax: $ 622 Savings: $ 1001
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3123 New tax: $ 2122 Savings: $ 1001
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5690 New tax: $ 4582 Savings: $ 1108
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 13020 New tax: $ 11082 Savings: $ 1938
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 20190 New tax: $ 17082 Savings: $ 3108

Single - 2 children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 710 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 710
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 2210 New tax: $ 710 Savings: $ 1500
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 4420 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 1525
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 11750 New tax: $ 9395 Savings: $ 2355
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 19420 New tax: $ 15395 Savings: $ 4025

Married Filers - 0 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1995 New tax: $ 1395 Savings: $ 600
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3495 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5595 New tax: $ 4995 Savings: $ 600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 12127 New tax: $ 10920 Savings: $ 1207
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 18847 New tax: $ 16920 Savings: $ 1927

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 70 Savings: $ 1600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 2170 Savings: $ 1600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 7545 Savings: $ 2042
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 13545 Savings: $ 2762

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 50%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 1670
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 1795 Savings: $ 1975
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 6795 Savings: $ 2792
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 12795 Savings: $ 3512

PS Do the math and you will see that taxpayers with an annual income of less than $50k saw on average a 47% reduction on their tax bill.

[ryan costa]

how much were FICA and Medicare taxes raised during this period? They are essentially regressive income taxes.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Stephen, my namesake, you amaze me.

You still haven't bothered to retrieve the actual NYT article and read it.

Moreover, you initiate a claim based in 'doing the math' and yet soon enough it becomes clear you haven't done the math yourself.

The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief.

DOES NOT APPEAR in the NYT article.

Okay? In fact, the number "47" appears nowhere in the article YOU refer to by way of the White House's own misattribution.

In other words, you have trotted out misinformation and rooted it to the web site of the White House, thus to proven masters of misinformation.

As for math, not wishing to do it yourself, you have cut-and-paste a slew of data points that cannot in any mathematical sense back up your point. I chalk this up to your math skills, or lack thereof.

Why? Because the data set is by definition incomplete. It stops at 2 children. The set of all taxpayers making less than $50,000 will include all actual configurations. Since all configurations aren't present in your data set, it would waste my time to use the same.

Straw? Flashlight? I think I should gift you with a snorkel.

This all noted, I can derive a 47% figure easily in a revealing thought problem.

Taxpayer A: $15,000, old tax liability 10%, taxes paid $1,500
Taxpayer B: $50,000, old tax liability 25%, taxes paid $12,500

New tax liability

Taxpayer A: 0%, reduction = %100
Taxpayer B: 23.75, reduction = %5

Average of reduction = 47.% in terms of % of liability
Average of reduction = 16% in terms of $ amount of reduction

Because I know my own tax bill hasn't gone down 47%, and I know a lot of low income earners have been removed from the tax roles, (as you mention in your straw man point,) it's easy enough to recognize that whatever the White House is on about, it probably has to do with the most favorable way of combining 100% drops with all other reductions marked to the arbitrary (and deceptive,) $50,000 cut off. Thus: the Bill Gates argument. Probably the numbers can be crunched to derive your 47% figure, yet the same numbers derive other more useful figures. Those other methods would reveal why so many people are feeling pinched while a very few others are laughing all the way to the bank.

I also noted that the $50,000 figure is itself arbitrary, not that this matters to you given how you've brought the statistical manipulation to bear upon your own "I don't do math" pseudo-mathematical argument. Also, if I were to remove taxpayers who ended paying zero taxes, the number would dramatically drop.

This begs the questions about what tax cuts Mr. Bush wishes to make permanent. Hmmm, wonder if you know the answer!

Anyway, you've really waded into your own irrational muck here, and you are in way over your head. Snorkel?

And, I note that the tax cuts may have allowed a tiny slice of Americans to do very well during the Bush boom, but that they haven't served most others very well, and, duh, the economy is in the supply-side toilet.

Another mark in favor of Bush being the most godawful President in our history, this despite the natterings of his inexpert apologists such as yourself.

***

I was quoting President Bill Clinton. He also had an assertion about Iraq

.

So what? You change the subject. Two wrongs make a right? Clinton is responsible for Bush's war crimes?

***

Boxing. Okay mano y mano as a challenge. You don't dance and you have huge cajones.

I'm happy for you.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen, my namesake, you amaze me.

You still haven't bothered to retrieve the actual NYT article and read it.

Moreover, you initiate a claim based in 'doing the math' and yet soon enough it becomes clear you haven't done the math yourself.

LOL... I did read the NYT article and I did plug the posted rate reductions into an Excel spread sheet. The average reduction was 50%.

[Stephen Eisel]

As for math, not wishing to do it yourself, you have cut-and-paste a slew of data points that cannot in any mathematical sense back up your point. I chalk this up to your math skills, or lack thereof.

Nope.. I copied and pasted the data to an Excel spread sheet and calculated the reduction. It was actually quite simple. Steve, take the savings and divide by the current tax for the percentage of change.

[Stephen Eisel]

Boxing. Okay mano y mano as a challenge. You don't dance and you have huge cajones.

I'm happy for you.

I take it that is a no on the boxing lessons. It is very difficult for people like you to man up in reality but you are definitely a man in cyber space.

[Stephen Eisel]

Why? Because the data set is by definition incomplete. It stops at 2 children The set of all taxpayers making less than $50,000 will include all actual configurations. Since all configurations aren't present in your data set, it would waste my time to use the same.

LOL.. Wrong again! The list is correct and complete. There is not a rate for 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 children but there are deductions.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Incredible.

Now you've done the math and come up with a bigger figure than the White House. As the saying goes: somebody's not telling the truth!

As I pointed out before, figuring the rate decrease based on an arbitrary cut off is the basis of the statistical manipulation in the first place. But, that you don't think deductions for dependents over the number of 2 figure into the bottom line actual tax differential is a math problem even Excel can't help you with.

***

I rest my case against your dance work. To summarize:

You provided a data point 47% found at a White House web page. At that page its writers reference a NYT article from April 5, 2006 that does not contain the data so referenced.

I didn't know this until I looked up the article and read it.

However, when I read your post extolling the merits of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, it didn't pass the smell test simply because I could infer that the 47% figure was an average of nominal rates rather than an average of tax revenues divided by gross income marked to the cut off. And, figuring that out allowed me to jump to the most cogent means of manipulating the data, to whit:

1. to establish a cut-off point that maximizes the merit
2. to utilize an average of nominal rates rather than the real world bottom line percentage of income paid out as taxes
3. to count the nominal rates for taxpayers with zero liability

I might add that the percentage of income paid out as taxes will very with the number of dependents claimed, and so there is--by definition--a difference between actual tax liability and the nominal bracketed income tax rate.

***

Called on this, you scrambled mightily to right your canoe. I was greatly amused by this furious effort on my end.

But, having gone around like this before on other matters, what seems obvious via repeated instances, is that you specialize in trying to use misinformation and badly referenced hooey to pull one over the eyes of people here, your readers.

I note: straw men, red herrings, changes of the subject, bad math, and credulous sources, are your principal stock in the argumentative trade.

Yet, it's so entertaining I hope you keep up your efforts to sling propaganda our way on the deck.

After all, if all Bush has to show is his tax cuts in the context of all the spilt blood and an economic downturn and stagnant wages and the use of asian credit cards, then you've latched onto a very modest accomplishment. "Bush cut taxes (a lot!!!) and yet his ideological fixations sent the economy into the dumper."

[Stephen Eisel]

As I pointed out before, figuring the rate decrease based on an arbitrary cut off is the basis of the statistical manipulation in the first place. But, that you don't think deductions for dependents over the number of 2 figure into the bottom line actual tax differential is a math problem even Excel can't help you with.

Coming from some one who thought that the below tax table was incomplete lol...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201b.htm


Single - 0 Children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 2843 New tax: $ 2542 Savings: $ 301
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 4758 New tax: $ 4362 Savings: $ 396
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 8678 New tax: $ 7862 Savings: $ 816
$ 76,000 Current tax: $16153 New tax: $ 14363 Savings: $ 1791
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 23593 New tax: $ 20362 Savings: $ 3231

Single - 1 Child
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1623 New tax: $ 622 Savings: $ 1001
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3123 New tax: $ 2122 Savings: $ 1001
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5690 New tax: $ 4582 Savings: $ 1108
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 13020 New tax: $ 11082 Savings: $ 1938
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 20190 New tax: $ 17082 Savings: $ 3108

Single - 2 children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 710 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 710
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 2210 New tax: $ 710 Savings: $ 1500
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 4420 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 1525
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 11750 New tax: $ 9395 Savings: $ 2355
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 19420 New tax: $ 15395 Savings: $ 4025

Married Filers - 0 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1995 New tax: $ 1395 Savings: $ 600
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3495 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5595 New tax: $ 4995 Savings: $ 600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 12127 New tax: $ 10920 Savings: $ 1207
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 18847 New tax: $ 16920 Savings: $ 1927

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 70 Savings: $ 1600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 2170 Savings: $ 1600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 7545 Savings: $ 2042
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 13545 Savings: $ 2762

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 50%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 1670
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 1795 Savings: $ 1975
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 6795 Savings: $ 2792
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 12795 Savings: $ 3512

[Stephen Eisel]

But, that you don't think deductions for dependents over the number of 2 figure into the bottom line actual tax differential is a math problem even Excel can't help you with.

You missed the point..

[Stephen Eisel]

I might add that the percentage of income paid out as taxes will very with the number of dependents claimed, and so there is--by definition--a difference between actual tax liability and the nominal bracketed income tax rate.

In most cases, the families with dependents greater than 2 experienced a lower tax rate and a lower tax liability.

[Stephen Eisel]

I also noted that the $50,000 figure is itself arbitrary,

The annual median household income in the US is $48,201.00. The majority of Americans make $50k or less...

[Stephen Eisel]

Okay? In fact, the number "47" appears nowhere in the article YOU refer to by way of the White House's own misattribution.

In other words, you have trotted out misinformation and rooted it to the web site of the White House, thus to proven masters of misinformation.

As for math, not wishing to do it yourself, you have cut-and-paste a slew of data points that cannot in any mathematical sense back up your point. I chalk this up to your math skills, or lack thereof.

Why? Because the data set is by definition incomplete. It stops at 2 children. The set of all taxpayers making less than $50,000 will include all actual configurations. Since all configurations aren't present in your data set, it would waste my time to use the same.

You obviously did not read the entire article.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/ ... chart.html

[Stephen Eisel]

Why? Because the data set is by definition incomplete. It stops at 2 children. The set of all taxpayers making less than $50,000 will include all actual configurations. Since all configurations aren't present in your data set, it would waste my time to use the same.

Again, all configurations were present. There is not a rate for 3 children or 4 children or 5 children and etc..

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201b.htm

[Stephen Eisel]

As for math, not wishing to do it yourself, you have cut-and-paste a slew of data points that cannot in any mathematical sense back up your point. I chalk this up to your math skills, or lack thereof.

I apologize for the poor quality of the below chart. (Cutting and pasting an Excel spread sheet does not come out pretty here) I simply took the savings and divided by the current tax for the percentage of change.


Single - 0 Children
Income % of change
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 2843 New tax: $ 2542 Savings: $ 301 -10.59%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 4758 New tax: $ 4362 Savings: $ 396 -8.32%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 8678 New tax: $ 7862 Savings: $ 816 -9.40%



Single - 1 Child
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1623 New tax: $ 622 Savings: $ 1001 -61.68%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3123 New tax: $ 2122 Savings: $ 1001 -32.05%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5690 New tax: $ 4582 Savings: $ 1108 -19.47%



Single - 2 children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 710 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 710 -100.00%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 2210 New tax: $ 710 Savings: $ 1500 -67.87%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 4420 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 1525 -34.50%



Married Filers - 0 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1995 New tax: $ 1395 Savings: $ 600 -30.08%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3495 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 600 -17.17%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5595 New tax: $ 4995 Savings: $ 600 -10.72%



Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170 -100.00%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 70 Savings: $ 1600 -95.81%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 2170 Savings: $ 1600 -42.44%



Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 50%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170 -100.00%
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 1670 -100.00%
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 1795 Savings: $ 1975 -52.39%


Average % Change -49.58%