It may not have been George W. Bush’s supermarket-scanner moment, but it was remarkable: Near the end of Thursday’s news conference, the president reacted to a question about soaring pump prices with apparent cluelessness:
“Wait, what did you just say?†Bush interrupted. “You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?â€
“A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline,†responded CBS New Radio’s Peter Maer.
“Oh, yeah?†Bush said. “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.†(Never mind that the forecast had been all over the media in recent days and his press secretary had been questioned about it a week earlier.)
He added: “You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon — or some expert told you that. That creates a lot of uncertainty.†At least Bush recovered quickly, seizing the opportunity to call for his tax cuts to be made permanent and for more oil drilling.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
148 Comments
President Worthless: “let them eat cake.”
Is anybody surprised?
Some would say Bush is clueless and uninformed, I say he’s just representing the people who voted for him.
Hehehe, good one, Doug. Good one.
“They call you the ‘haves’ and the ‘have mores.’ I call you ‘my base.’”
The Cadillac CONs aren’t sweating gas prices. They’re profiting from them.
Entry #415,709 in the directory of bush doltisms.
It’s funny how clueless some people can be. I was talking to my dad, who is retired and well-off, about the taxes I paid. He actually sputtered. Being a single person, I pay 21% in taxes. That is money I DO NOT GET BACK. I’m not saying I pay and then get a big check in April, nope, that’s not how it works. Kinda like ole Bushie not realizing the cost of gas, and how it truly effects those of us who are struggling already with gas prices and taxes as they are. Oh, and BTW, when I said 21% taxes, I of course was not talking about sales tax, property tax, or the other taxes that are hidden that you don’t even realize you pay.
All I can say is that we had better for an intelligent president next november. I think most of the candidates are qualified. I’m not certain if John McCain is intelligent enough…
You are president, Mr. Bush. Therefore, you must know all things, at all times, including all forecasts of the future by so-called experts. Or if you don’t know, you must fake it.
The savior Obama would know that. He knows all things.
Could I get an amen?
I can’t figure out if he is truly dumb, or if he just plays it really well. Probably a bit of both in my opinion.
If he were just trying to play it off, he failed. If he really didn’t know, where the heck has he been and why have we let ourselves get into a situation where we have such an uninformed idiot representing us?
Glad elections are coming soon. Not that I’m all that happy about the choices…
Outlander,
I’d lay odds Bush doesn’t have a clue what the current gas price is in his area, in his “home” state of tx, or anywhere else in the U.S. As long as his base is happy that he’s helping them make more money, why should he care? After all, he isn’t up for re-election.
As JR said on another thread the other day, George W. Bush is nothing more than a cardboard cutout, used to distract and as a sorry excuse.
Jeb, on the other hand, seems to have a lick of sense and probably didn’t want the opportunity to be led around by the nose…or other parts of the anatomy. Is it any wonder he wasn’t jumping at the chance to take the nomination? Didn’t someone mention he was Daddy’s favorite?
After George the First took office, the Bush Dynasty has expected to run this country by their own rules. Dubya is nothing more than a place holder, while the real business is run behind the eyes and backs of everyone.
All of the above is my opinion only, so feel free to slam me against a wall over it. :)
“Never mind that the forecast had been all over the media in recent days”
Well that explains it. What the heck does the media know? They are the ones creating panic. I hope to heck our POTUS is not listening to the media.
Foreign governments are upset with America.
Specifically, the Minister of Finance, in Canada, is upset with Obama and Hillary for the idea that we should “re-open NAFTA”.
Canada would like to wiggle out of a provision, in NAFTA, that says that exports of oil, to the United States, can not be “rationed” or cut back, in any way, unless Canada rations oil, in the same way, to the Canadian market.
In other words, Obama AND Hillary are causing international friction, and are, themselves, causing some uncertainty in the energy markets.
To those of you who do not know this: We import more oil from Canada and from Mexico than we import from anywhere else!
—-
Personally, I think the $4.00 gas prediction is a bit over the top. Possible, but not likely.
Presidents can not concern themselves with such wild speculation.
Bush is CORRECT on policy: Drill for more domestic oil. Do not mess with treaties, like NAFTA, that help keep our fuel prices lower. Oppose new taxes on fuel!
Amway,
He’s the President of the fricking United States. Don’t you think he should be aware of something as he scribbles sigining statements to bills?
Econ,
Let’s take a look at the price of gas over the past couple of weeks.
It was $2.79 or less before the 30 cent hike to $3.09, due to one of the refineries being down. I’ve been watching closely as that $3+ price went slowly down, almost day by day, to $2.97. It’s now back up to $3.09. The jump up is much higher than the slide down, so each time the price goes up, it goes up to the last high or a little higher. I predict $3.50 by Memorial weekend. After that? We shall see.
And, BTW, that $3.09 here is lower than many other places in the U.S.
His tax cuts for the richest are a big part of the problems we’re having now. DOW(n),down almost 300 pts. today.
I’m beginning to think the Shrub is aware of only as much as his handlers allow, otherwise his head is up and safely locked! No sense in needlessly confusin’ the guy!
Paul – I have to disagree, I think this summer we will definitely see $4 gas. During the winter, the prices are supposed to go down, and then they go back up in the summer. Well if $3.09 is down, then we are really screwed come the summer.
He might know the price per barrel of oil.
phantom
Stock market prices are a prediction of future profits.
Stock market prices are a prediction of future dividends.
Today’s stock market prices have little to do, directly, with individual income tax rates.
Yes, more disposable income means more purchases which can increase profits which would increase stock prices.
However, the idea that the market is “down” due to individual tax rate cuts is absolutely absurd.
The fact is, the “rich” pay a higher percentage of the total tax revenue, today, than EVER before!
Liberals: “If you can’t blame a problem on “global warming” then blame the problem on “tax cuts for the rich” lol.
News flash: THE POOR DO NOT PAY ANY INCOME TAX!
All economics are inter-related.
Econ101,
And the rich aren’t rich unless lots of poor people are working for them.
Rhonda, it is you, and the rest of the media, that really looks stupd, this time:
“While analysts said record crude oil prices will create record gasoline prices this summer driving season, some cast doubt on the ability of crude oil prices to stay at these high levels much longer.
“One-hundred-dollar oil is going to be difficult to sustain going forward,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch & Associates in Galena, Illinois.
“As we become more and more detached from underlying fundamentals, it just increases the possibility of a sharp price downdraft, down to at least $85 a barrel in crude oil,” Ritterbusch said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN2864534320080229?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true
Read the ENTIRE story.
Even those who say gasoline “could” hit $4.00, say that would only happen in some parts of the country, and then only briefly. Even the person who says this, hedges.
And, as with all things economic, there are bulls and there are bears. There is always a pro and a con.
“On the other hand” as Truman said about economists?
Again: You can not fault President Bush for ignoring this wild prediction.
It was just that, one very lonely wild prediction!
CF
When was the last time a poor person offerend anyone a job?
—-
By the way folks:
If we really do have a recession, the fuel prices will never even hit $3.50.
Recessions always curb price increases.
Recessions curb demand.
It is hilarious to see Bush at a press conference. For one, he seems to think that he is a stand up comedian, playing a president, except that his jokes are NOT funny. He seems to have little or no concern for the average working person in the United States, unless that person happens to be a Republican.
And he seems incapable of using actual FACTS to support his positions.
That is what Bush has been all about since he was installed a president – he is the president for less than half of the country.
The “Uniter, not a Divider” has proven to be the most divisive president in history.
Go knows what we would have gotten had he said
that he was a “Divider, not a Uniter.”
Another cheap slam on Bush. How would Bush getting out and driving more allow him (or anyone) to know that gas was “predicted” to go to $4?
Who listens to the predictors? What is the penalty if the prediction is wrong? Nothing.
“And he seems incapable of using actual FACTS to support his positions.”
Kinda like you people. Unless you count name calling as facts.
In the summer when you fill up the gas station will overcharge you due to expansion caused by the heat. So even if gas prices are $3.00 in the winter and remain the same price in the summer you’ll be paying a higher price since you’ll be pumping less gas into your tank.
Econ – You’re right, the poor does not pay income tax, but to be considered poor, you have to make less than $12,000/year. Who in their right mind would think of taking more taxes (other than FICA and Medicare and sales tax and property tax) from someone making that small of an amount? Really, I want to know who that person is!!
Econ101: The energy concessions would surely be one of the items that Canada would strike from opening up the NAFTA agreement, for it is a bigger concern now than it was in the 90’s as would minerals/natural resources. Quebec hydro powers the New England States and Alberta/Saskatchewan gas the American western States. What bugs me is the implication of unfair trade being imposed on a “helpless” US by a “predatory” country with 1/10th your population. Our minimum wage is higher, livestyle just as good and we need no lessons on the enviornment from the US. This “being at a disadvantage” stuff annoys and amuses me no end. I noted Obama would “go to the mat” with the Presidents of Mexico and Canada to renegotiate NAFTA. He said that in Ohio, which has a trade SURPLUS with Canada, exporting machined/manufactured goods of $6.2 billion and importing $4.2 billion, mostly energy. He might have a problem anyway for we don’t have a President, we have a Prime Minister. If he wants to wrestle with our Chief of State he’d have to go after our Governor General who is quite striking…….hmmmmm maybe he does know what he’s saying. The original trade agreement between the US and Canada was of benefit to both countries, the addition a few years later of Mexico is when we both started to suffer from the less than acceptable standards granted.
TDT
Married joint filers pay no taxes on taxable income under $15,650.00.
The “Standard Deduction” for such filers, is $10,700 for those under age 65.
The “exemption” for such people would be $3,400.00 each, or $6,800.00
This would mean that a married couple could make $33,150, at the very least, and not pay income tax on that income.
They would also have additional deductions, and credits, for any dependents or children.
The same couple could, very likely, qualify for the “Earned Income Credit” which would refund part or all of their Social Security Tax.
Again, the poor do not pay very much at all, in the way of income taxes.
Catch-22 for the Fed as we see stagflation returning. Lower interest rates in an attempt to stimulate the economy and risk devaluing the dollar – resulting in higher prices for imports. As oil producing countries move to the Euro to price their commodity that will translate in higher oil prices – and thus higher gasoline prices.
Even with ANWAR and other sources we will still be importing over half of our oil. The decision to not attempt to reduce consumption is now coming to haunt us.
$3.50 my Memorial Day. $4 by Labor Day unless we have an even deeper recession. STAGFLATION as the yield curve steepens due to the combination of loose monetary policy (low Fed rates) and extremelt profligate fiscal policy (record deficits)
“This would mean that a married couple could make $33,150, at the very least, and not pay income tax on that income.”
I call BULL Paul. MFJ, standard deduction, AGI $33150:
Income Tax: $1569
SS Tax: $2536
If Kansas – state tax $794
Go ask your accountant.
Wasn’t it supposed to be $4.00/gallon last year and the year before that Ben?
By the way Paul – that tax return I just prepared did sho a TAXABLE income of $15,650. It is called a TAXABLE income because it is TAXABLE. The std ded (10700) and exemptions (6800) are subtracted from the 33150 to yield 15650.
I sure hope you are not giving your clients any tax advice!
Actually, a good chunk of the “food inflation” is due to the increased cost of corn —
Due to Ethanol!
Conservation is fine, but conservation, alone, will not meet our future energy needs.
Alternatives are fine, but alternatives, alone, will not meet our future energy needs.
What irritates me the most, whenever energy prices increase, is that many who complain the loudest, about MARKET increases in price, have no problem at all with tax increases, on the SAME products!
We all know that higher prices will reduce demand.
Of course, this is one of the motives behind the whole “carbon tax” idea.
Shouldn’t liberals be happy about energy price increases? Demand will be reduced, when the price goes up, regardless of WHY the price went up.
—-
By the way, one bright side to the “weak dollar” — Exports are going up!
Regular – NO.
Econ asks–
When was the last time a poor person offerend anyone a job?
Gee, Econ, when was the last time a poor person forclosed on somebody’s house? Or figured out a way for gov’t to make them rich, like George W. Bush and his eminant domain arena?
Or started a trillion-dollar war?
Good points, Ben.
And not only that, the reich-wing always choose to ignore that when SS tax is included, the poor and middle class (those below about 200,000K in income for a married couple) pay a higher rate of taxation than the rich.
Ben
Please scroll upwards, will you?
Efficiency dictates that we all use no more words than necessary, to make a point.
You are MISSING the point that I was responding to:
TDT
Posted February 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
Econ – You’re right, the poor does not pay income tax, but to be considered poor, you have to make less than $12,000/year. Who in their right mind would think of taking more taxes (other than FICA and Medicare and sales tax and property tax) from someone making that small of an amount? Really, I want to know who that person is!!
—————–
Ben, I was responding to TDT.
Just because the IRS allows a standard deduction and just because the IRS allows a dependent deduction, does not mean that income evaporates!
It exists!
Adjusted Gross Income and Taxable Income are TWO different things.
TDT has a point, but I modified that point. TDT said, clearly, “make less than $12,000.00 per year —” TDT did not refer to Taxable Income, did he? Only YOU did that.
And, Econ, if your hypothetical couple had no qualifying children, they would not be entitled to the EIC at the income figure you provide (not to mention your assertion that they would not owe any income tax, which is erroneous, BTW, as Ben has pointed out). If you want to revise the AGI to $17,500, I’d agree that no Federal income taxes were payable (again, though, from my memory without children, the couple would not qualify for EIC).
Capn
The “Earned Income Credit” REFUNDS Social Security Taxes paid by the working poor.
“Kinda like you people. Unless you count name calling as facts.”
Are you talking about the way “Regular” responded yesterday to the facts concerning Saddam Hussein and the Bush War of Choice on Iraq?
That those names that he called?
Like those facts that he ignored?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………………..
Interesting.
“And not only that, the reich-wing always choose to ignore that when SS tax is included,…”
Uh, isn’t that the tax you people love so bad?
Howza ’bout we get rid of it? At least that would stop what you are crying about.
BDP Fleettwood–
How about we just tax the rich more since they make more?
Duh.
“Howza ’bout we get rid of it? At least that would stop what you are crying about.”
Fine, give me back the $75 K that I have contributed and the matching funds from my employers.
And do it without borrowing the money from the Chinese.
And do it for every American below the retirement age.
And do it without borrowing the money from the Chinese.
Dumbass.
VT – you are correct – no EIC. Like I said, I sure hope Paul is not giving tax advice. It only took be about 60 seconds to enter the data into my tax software and generate a skeleton return with the numbers I mentioned.
And yes, Paul, I definitely know the difference between AGI and TI. And you mis-stated badly when you claimed that “Married joint filers pay no taxes on taxable income under $15,650.00″ That statement is a LIE and your accountant knows it even if you don’t.
And, even at an AGI of 15650 no EIC without kids.
“Fine, give me back the $75 K that I have contributed and the matching funds from my employers.”
Dear Mr Gimme:
Not the matching funds. Not yours. Theirs.
VT
I did not do a specific persons taxes, anywhere on this Blog.
However, TDT gave me his figure, and did not say if this was AGI or Taxable Income.
For the 2007 tax year, these are the figures I am using:
Married Filing Jointly
0 – $15,650.00 Tax is ZERO
Standard Deduction (under 65)
$10,700
Personal Exemptions
$3,400 (x2 for married couple) or $6,800.00
Now, lines 23 through 37 contain an number of other adjustments or reductions in income, I have skipped all of those, but most people would qualify for something in that list, even if they do not “itemize” on Schedule A.
Therefore:
$15,650
+10,700
+ 6,800
——-
33,150.00 Federal(Thread about Bush, not Kathleen)
Where am I wrong, VT?
Once the married couple gets BELOW $15,650, they owe no income tax.
The Standard Deduction and the Personal Exemptions would get his couple down, below that level, right?
When applying for a loan, this hypothetical couple could use the $33,150.00 figure, or their Adjusted GROSS Income.
When calculating FEDERAL Income Tax, this couple could use the $15,650.00 figure, or their TAXABLE income.
Again, TDT makes a point, but I wanted some further definition here.
Saying someone can “make” a certain about does not tell the whole story.
The numbers on your W-2 forms and your 1099’s are one thing. What you are taxed upon is something else.
“Dear Mr Gimme:
Not the matching funds. Not yours. Theirs.”
English translation please…………..
And
My numbers are conservative, in the bottom range, as my Hypothetical Couple have no children.
If they do have children, then the child exemptions and credits come into play.
If they do have children, the EIC might also come into play.
Econ, where you are making your error is as follows: the standard deduction and personal exemption allowances are subtracted from AGI to arrive at Taxable Income. Gross Income could, of course, be larger due to the adjustments allowed in arriving at AGI.
And Ben
Just to be clear, a self employed person WOULD pay self employment or SS Tax, even on earnings of only $15,650.00
If that person had children, that person would get some of that back, in the form of EIC.
Only the money you put in do you deserve back, Mooch.
And, just to be clear, SS Tax is not something that a W-2 simple tax return tax payer needs to worry about.
That tax has already been calculated.
The Social Security Tas is a FLAT TAX and is not nearly so complicated. It is already figured on your W-2.
“Only the money you put in do you deserve back, Mooch.”
Duh, I put in $75 K. As part of my agreement with my employers (like everyone else) they matched those funds on my behalf – that was part of my benefit package which included health insurance and paid vacations.
Therefore, I am entitled to $150 K.
Write me a check.
Just don’t sign it Dumbass.
Oh, and I want INTEREST on that money, as well.
VT
I think that some of the other posters are going in the “wrong direction” here.
I chose to take a “Gross” or AGI figure, and reduce that figure with the Standard Deduction and the Standard Exemptions.
My figures are correct.
Total Income
-Adustments (IRA, HSA, Moving Exp, Student Ln ect)
————
Adjusted Gross Income
Adusted Gross Income
-Standard Deduction (Or Itemized Deduction)
-Itemized Deduction(s)
————-
Taxable Income
Taxable Incomes of ZERO to $15,650?
————-
Zero Federal Income Tax due!
(I am not talking about Social Security or Kansas Income Taxes, here.)
WS
Actually, George W. Bush wanted to give us some control over our SS money.
The Democrats in Congress shot down that idea.
Whoops, I did make one typo:
Adjusted Gross Income
Adusted Gross Income
-Standard Deduction (Or Itemized Deduction)
-Itemized Deduction(s)
——-
Should say
Adjusted Gross Income
-Standard Deduction (or Itemized)
-Exemption(s)
———-
TAXABLE INCOME
“Bush needs to get out and drive more”
Let me know so I can get off the sidewalk!
“Actually, George W. Bush wanted to give us some control over our SS money.”
Without any means or program to pay for it – like most Republican proposals.
OK, Econ, I’m now confused by your example. Looking at the tax tables for 2007, as contained in the instructions to Form 1040, a married couple with taxable income greater than $5 but less than or equal to $10 “owe” $1 in federal income tax (as would be expected, given that the couple would be in the 10% marginal rate bracket).
Trying it from another approach: the sum of the Standard Deduction for a married couple filing jointly, both under 65 years of age, and the personal exemptions to which this couple is entitled with no children is equal to $17, 500. Thus, if AGI is less than or equal to $17,500, there would be no taxable income, and no income taxes owed. In fact, given those figures and assuming the Gross Income is equal to AGI, the couple would not need to file a return (see page 6, Instructions to Form 1040, 2007). They would, however, file a return to either: 1) claim a refund; 2) report self employment income and pay the self employment tax thereon; or 3) (for this year only) to establish their eligibility for the rebate.
WS
WRONG
George W. Bush proposed that a portion of what we are already paying, into the system, be set aside in REAL “private accounts” —
No President, and No Congress, has ever given us any real OWNERSHIP of our SS Accounts.
Social Security is, and always has been, a huge accounting gimmick.
“When applying for a loan, this hypothetical couple could use the $33,150.00 figure, or their Adjusted GROSS Income.”
“When applying for a loan, this hypothetical couple could use the $33,150.00 figure, or their Adjusted GROSS Income.”
“When applying for a loan, this hypothetical couple could use the $33,150.00 figure, or their Adjusted GROSS Income.”
“When applying for a loan, this hypothetical couple could use the $33,150.00 figure, or their Adjusted GROSS Income.”
It’s why I use H&R Block to do my taxes, so I don’t have to go blind finding out what/how to file. :D
Econ – I did mean income tax. And I’m still not following your couple example. It looks to me after deductions they would owe taxes on about 15,000. Their would still be some taxes paid on that. And I’m not talking about dependents, because I don’t have any. I’m talking about a single person. And the point that EIC can be claimed for a single person is about 12,000 or less. But it isn’t much without a dependent. My point was that someone making that little of an amount really shouldn’t be expected to pay the same percentage of income tax as higher wage earners. And it’s not like they don’t pay any taxes, because they still get to pay property tax, sales tax, sin tax, medicare and FICA. The EIC doesn’t come close to getting that back in their pockets.
Econ, while I won’t go so far as to call Social Security an accounting gimmick, I will agree that the same was and is not actuarially based; that it began as a “pay as you go” system, that is the current year’s receipts are used to pay the current year’s benefits, with any surplus to be accumulated and used in the future, thus the (to me) misleading “Insurance” label that is the I in FICA (as I recall, FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contribution Act). This, of course, leads to the problems looming in the future. Not that Social Security will not be able to pay some benefits; just that at some point, the current benefit level is not sustainable based upon a rational estimate of future receipts.
TOTALLY BOGUS PAUL. If their Adjusted GROSS Income is 33150 their TAXABLE is 15650 and their TAX is 1569. Learn how to do a simple 1040 before you pontificate about them!
As for applying for a loan they can claim anything they like – that is why they call them LIAR’s loans!
VT is absolutely correct.
SE Tax on that 33150 would be $4684. Then Income Tax of 1333 for a total Fed Tax 4684.
The income tax is a bit less than before since half the SE tax is deductable.
Paul – have your accountant explain all this to you.
“George W. Bush proposed that a portion of what we are already paying, into the system, be set aside in REAL “private accounts””
Wrong, Rossell, like every president since SS began, “excess” revenue from SS contributions have been applied to the general fund to lower deficits. That number is budgeted every year.
If you “set aside” $500 billion per year, then the deficit will rise by $500 billion.
In other words, we would have to borrow to pay for the Bush “private accounts.”
Typical Republican double-speak – propose a program with no way to pay for it unless we borrow from the Chinese.
TDT, I understand your point. The only tax paying status in which to find oneself than “single” is “married filing separately” (for individuals, that is). Due to a bit of legal fiction underlying the standard deduction amount (which exists to help eliminate the “marriage penalty”), the married couple filing jointly is entitled to a standard deduction which is double that for a single taxpayer. All other things being equal, the taxpayer filing as “single” will pay a higher percentage of gross income in income taxes than a married couple filing jointly with the same gross income. If you are interested in the exercise, you can compute the income level where a married couple filing jointly pays the same percentage of their gross income in income taxes as you do. For simplicity in doing this, assume standard deduction, no children, no self-employment income. Needless to say, it will be higher than your gross income.
Ben, may I be “technically correct” and say that one half the SE tax represents an adjustment to gross income? :-)
BTW, for any of you who have never computed SE tax, you should note that the Schedule SE makes an actuarially based adjustment to the “Income from Self Employment” upon which the 15.3% is computed; it is not computed upon 100% of the same.
Sorry, in my post to TDT, the word “worse” was omitted from the first line, and should be inserted before “tax paying”.
VT
The entire purpose of my exercise was to “invent” a couple that found themselves, precisely, on the threshold of owing no Federal Income Tax.
My ficticious example had NO Taxable income.
The “threshold” for taxable income is $15,650.00. (This is for 2007, for 2008, it rises to $16,050.00) Taxable Income is the net, after subtracting the “Adjustments” and the “Standard Deduction” and the “Exemption(s)”
I am sure that you know all of this.
However, my entire point here was not a “blackboard math lesson” —
My point is that you could, very honestly, have made even $40,000.00 on your W-2 forms and paid NO Federal Income Tax:
$40,000.00 W-2 Federal Income Tax purposes
-2,000.00 HSA
-5,000.00 IRA (over age 50)
-5,000.00 IRA (spouse over age 50)
———-
$33,000.00
-10,700.00 Standard Deduction
- 3,400.00 Personal Exemption Husband
- 3,400.00 Personal Exemption Wife
———-
$15,500.00 Taxable Income
The Taxable Income Figure, above, is lower than the $15,650.00 Income Threshold for the 15% bracket to kick in.
———-
I am working off of tax chart “cheat sheets” provided to professionals, for quick reference, but I am sure they are accurate.
Besides, my point still stands:
You can make quite a bit of money, in this country, on your W-2 Forms, and STILL not owe any Federal Income Tax!
I am talking about ideas and policy here.
Some of you are acting like this is a Black Board Math Drill.
I left LOTS of stuff out of my illustrations. For instance, there is an ADDITIONAL credit for Retirement Savings, on top of the Deduction.
And, as stated before, my Hypothetical Couple did not claim any children.
Paul – BOGUS! AGAIN! BULL! AGAIN!
If you have $15,500 on line 43 TAXABLE INCOME you will have $1553 TAX. CALL YOUR ACCOUNTANT AND ASK HIM! BUT IN THE MEANWHILE QUIT LYING!
Again – about 1 minute to enter into my tax software.
Look it up Paul:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf
OK, Econ; you didn’t put the various adjustments to income for the HSA, IRA, etc., into your first post. I will remind you that for purposes of discussion, the amounts contributed to the various accounts you describe are subtracted before the couple has any “taxable income”. As I think I posted before, one may have a substantially higher Gross Income than AGI due to such adjustments. I now see where your initial figure of “taxable income” came from; basically, that would be otherwise taxable income if there was not advantage taken of the products you are promoting.
VT – absolutely correct. What I call an “above the line” deduction to arrive at AGI.
And, Econ, there is a 10% bracket (which, due to the rebate program for 2008, apparently does not apply in 2008).
Ben
Adjusted Gross Income (after many deductions)
- Deductions (Itemized or Standard)
- Exemptions
————
Taxable Income
TDT and Ben
Those who make between ZERO and $15,650.00 in TAXABLE Income owe NOTHING in Federal Income Tax.
Absolutely Nothing!
(This assumes W-2 Earnings, not Self Employment or 1099 Earnings, this assumes no Schedule C is involved.)
However, unless you get TAXABLE to zero you will calculate a TAX at line 44.
Sorry VT
There I did make a mistake
However, that mistake is not relevent to my example.
If you make between ZERO and $15,650 you do not hit the Threshold for the 10% Bracket (I said 15%, doesnt much matter, you didnt hit it anyway.)
In other words, you are still below the threshold and you owe ZERO in Federal Income Tax!
PAUL – YOU ARE LYING!
$33150 W-2 wages, MFJ, Standard. AGI 33150. TI 15650. TAX 1569.
ASK YOUR ACCOUNTANT. QUIT LYING! IF YOU LIKE I’LL PRINT OFF THE PREPARED 1040 AND GIVE IT TO YOU!
Ideology applied to tax tables; how silly, 101. You need to take the graduate course.
Line by line:
7. 33150 wages
37 33150 AGI
38 33150 AGI
40 10700 Std Ded
41 22450
42 6800 Exemptions
43 15650 Taxable Income
44 1569 Tax
45 0 AMT
63 1569 Total Tax
PaulTheCon – go get a 1040 and fill it out – if you know how.
Ben, I believe any more participation herein by me to be futile.
For others who may be reading this and really confused, I can only ask you refer to any of the following sources: Pub. 17, “Your Federal Income Tax” (commonly referred to as the “Blue Book”), or the Instructions to Form 1040, 2007. You may access these by visiting http://www.irs.gov, or stopping by the IRS office here in town and picking up a copy of one or both.
“PAUL – YOU ARE LYING!”
If I had a nickel for every time…
VT – I agree. Pub 17 is even better than the 1040 instructions I posted. And Paul will just continue to lie regardless of the truth.
An even better resource is the 1040Express Answers book but it isn’t free. Pub 17 is and will serve most needs. I would add the “Red Book” Tax Guide for Small Business which is also free from the IRS.
VT and Ben
YES you are correct.
Long day
You do still pay 10% on the amounts under the $15,650 Threshold.
Or $1,565.00.
Long day.
Sorry
However, My point at the outset was that the poor do not pay much in taxes.
That is still true.
This will teach me not to talk on the phone while posting ;)
VT is correct, the Standard Deduction in my illustration would be $10,700 and the Exemptions would be $6,800 so the first $17,500 would be tax free, to every couple.
So, it TDT’s example, a person with $12,000 in TAXABLE income might actually have had:
$12,000
17,500
——-
29,500 in Adjusted Gross Income.
Again, very long day, at the end of a long week.
My apologies.
JR
I am human
I make mistakes.
I do not lie.
And, still, my point stands:
The Rich pay almost all of the taxes!
Yeah, wow, I’d love to be more exposed to the stock market for my retirement than I already am.
There’s nothing better than watching your investments go down in value about five times your monthly pay thanks to Worst. President. Ever’s stock market.
BTW, check today’s 300 point plunge.
Fortunately, I can ride out this RepubliCON mis-administration, but I pity the folks who planned on retiring this year.
And before I get blown a lot of crap about “that’s what happens when you invest in wind power,” I’d like to point out that my professionally managed funds are all picked by my rock-ribbed Republican portfolio manager.
And Ben
I like Turbotax myself!
Econ writes gleefully: “The Rich pay almost all of the taxes!”
Of course they do.
That’s because they make almost all the money.
Duh.
And that’s why you don’t see any rich people volunteering to trade places with the poor . . .
Duh.
Capn
“gleefull” — wow, not really.
Anyway, the point is that tax cuts will always help the “rich” — roads and higher education and many things the government does help the “rich” more than the “poor” — Tax cuts will also benefit the rich more than the poor.
We all know, at least I hope we all know, that tax cuts can help to boost the economy.
Should we NOT do things, just because those things might benefit the poor, more than the rich?
Turbotax is OK I guess as long as things are simple. I don’t know if it does business returns though. Since I run a couple of businesses I need more power than I would get with Turbotax.
Ben
There isnt a good computer program out there, at all for Limited Partnerships, or Working Interests, IMHO.
However, for Schedule C work, Turbotax does pretty well.
Actually Paul, there are some excellent programs out there – your accountant should have one of them.
“We all know, at least I hope we all know, that tax cuts can help to boost the economy.”
Tax cuts don’t help boost the economy. Bush has been cutting taxes for the rich since day one, and he’s created fewer jobs in seven years than Clinton did in two.
At some point, Paris Hilton just doesn’t need more Victoria Secret lingerie . . .
Clinton had the advantage of the Baby Boomers entering their peak earning and investment years.
Clinton had the advantage of a Republican Congress, for part of his time in the White House.
Clinton had the advantage of the Reagan era tax cuts.
Also, the “dot.com” bubble, under Clinton, was not that much different from the housing bubble, under Bush.
I repeat my frequent warning: Presidents have very little to do with the economy.
Yes, the President is a player, but you can have a good President with a bad economy and you can have a bad economy with a good President.
A Tax Cut that would simultaneously simplify tax prep and also reduce taxes more at the middle class and lower middle class (the so-called ‘working class’):
Raise the Standard Deduction to $10-15-20 K for S, HOH, and MFJ
Raise the Exemption to $5000.
Then Paul’s hypothetical couple WOULD have zero tax.
For less of a cut raise the AtdDed to $7.5 – 10 – 15K.
The reason this would simplify so much is the elimination of Sch A for so many people.
Econ101: your whole premise is a lie. While poor people may not pay federal income tax, they pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes than rich people do. When you factor in all the taxes on everything that you buy, of course!
“Moral values” economies are just great, aren’t they? And so family centered.
Ben
I agree with you on that one, to a point.
I think that people on the low end of the income scale need to be encouraged to work, rather than to go on welfare.
Good post, Dave.
Econ loves to trot this out: “Clinton had the advantage of the Baby Boomers entering their peak earning and investment years.”
Except, that should have caused less job growth because of the gridlock, especially of the very best jobs.
Instead, we got tremendous growth both in jobs and the economy. Boomers retiring should free up jobs, not stifle them.
Paul – my proposal would do just that.
daves
So, what is your point?
Are we to be in constant “grid-lock” on tax issues, and change nothing unless we can change everything?
Sales tax, Property tax, State Income Tax, Federal Income Tax — all with seperate governing regulations.
Also, business property pays higher property taxes than residential property.
In Kansas, the poor can get a refund of Sales Tax and Property Tax, throught the “Homestead Exemption” —
Again, it is not a “lie” to say that the “rich” pay the overwhelming majority of the Federal Income Tax.
Econ–
If work paid a living wage, more people could live on what they make.
Capn
By your logic, “jobs” just “exist” to be taken by someone.
No, not really, Jobs are created to fill needs.
There is an historical trend, that can be traced back over several generations.
Demographics have a great deal to do with the economy.
There is some fear that the Boomers entering retirement will slow the economy. However, “todays 60 was yesterdays 50″ — People are working longer. Service sector jobs and professional workers stay on the job longer than factory workers or manual labor jobs.
Also, immigration will help fill some of the “gaps” caused by the “birth dearth” after the baby boomers.
Anyway, read Harry Dent, “The Great Boom Ahead” — Dent predicted the Clinton Economy, before Clinton was elected, but his book was published in 1993!
However, Dent did bomb in his more recent predictions.
The “Age Wave” is important. The extent of its importance is debateable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age-wave
Paul – by the time you consider ALL taxes – especially payroll and sales – I think you will find that the poor pay as large a % of their income in taxes as those on the upper end do. I think Warren Buffet noted that his secretary pais a higher % than he did.
“However, Dent did bomb in his more recent predictions.”
Must not have factored in the Bush effect!
:)
“If work paid a living wage, more people could live on what they make.’
I’m with ya Capn.
But you’re shouting down the wrong hole with paulie.
He’s just told us the other day that some jobs are not even worth the minimum wage.
Comes from handling other folks’s money.
I wonder how often Bush drives anything?
Big Wheel 1?
Reminder to all:
The top 10% of taxpayers pay 65% of total income tax revenues.
The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of total income tax revenues.
I think that is very fair.
Still waiting for Rossell to explain how Bush was going to pay for his “private account” Social Security system.
I guess I will be waiting for a long time……..
econ101 Posted February 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“Bush is CORRECT on policy: Drill for more domestic oil.”
The oil-friendly EIA says that “technically” (ignores cost) recoverable Refuge oil would at best only replace other declining Alaskan sources.
And they admit that OPEC controls world oil prices.
See graphs at,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
It’d take at least a decade to get the first drops from the Refuge — another few decades to peak production, and then it runs dry, like Prudhoe Bay.
‘Reducing America’s Energy Dependence
Breaking our addiction to oil is the real solution to high gas prices. ‘
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
It’s said that domestic oil production reduces imports on an equal barrel-to-barrel basis.
But each barrel of oil not needed due to higher mpg, alternatives, etc also eliminates the energy (oil, etc) needed to produce, transport, and refine that barrel, from anywhere.
Duh,cars run on gas, can’t wait for my rebate check since I owe 1811 in fed taxes and my rebate is 1800 can’t I just send in 11.00 and call it even.
Regardless of what this thread has turned into, the bottom line on oil prices, in this country, are based on production. The fire in Texas,(?) at the oil refinery, and the subsequent increase at the pumps, points out the fact there has not been a new refinery built in this country in over 25 years.
Why aren’t our elected representatives seeing to it the oil companies need to build new, modern refineries, if only for the fact this country does run on oil. National security should be raising its head and doing something about that.
There is an obvious need for new refineries for many other reasons: New technologies would, or should, make refineries way more productive; there is an obvious need for more gasoline, because if one down causes price increases, then do the math.
But with the oil companies having such close ties with this administration, sadly, that will never happen.
Bush needs to get out and drive more
(Thread title, in case anyone forgot)
Remove the last 3 words, and it’s 100% correct.
BTW, for any of you who have never computed SE tax, you should note that the Schedule SE makes an actuarially based adjustment to the “Income from Self Employment” upon which the 15.3% is computed; it is not computed upon 100% of the same.
92.35%
Hell, Bush was clueless about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why would you think he would know anything about gas prices in America. Remember, Dick Cheney was the creator of the top secret energy policy not Bush.
I have a real problem and need help with it. According to everything I have herd or read about the price of gas is there is a shortage due to the lack of refineries and the lag time when oil companies have to change from summer to winter blends and then back to winter. With that said, has anybody been unable to purchase or have their purchase limited because of lack of supply. What kind of shortage is that?
cosmos
Lets do BOTH!
Why not conserve AND produce more, domestically?
grayfox
Only price controls cause those kinds of shortages.
By letting the markets dictate price, we do not run out.
“Shortage” in the price calculation only means that projected demand is out-stripping projected supply. Price rises. Demand then decreases while supply increases, both as a direct result of the price increase.
“Demand then decreases while supply increases, both as a direct result of the price increase.”
So, dumbasses, according to Paulie the market-solves-everything-dunce, there is nothing to worry about. Don’t you feel a lot better knowing that. I know I do.
Bush is a buffoon and an embarrassment to this country. Oil just hit $103 this morning and $3.50 gasoline is already here; $4.00 is around the corner. How far does he have his head in the sand? On his watch, the US dollar is devalued to record low, inflation on commodities across the board; nation deficit ballooned to 9.5 trillion dollars, allowed cheap money to drive the housing market into a feeding frenzy and now the total collapse. This is from the GOP leadership, “the party of fiscal responsibility”. WTF? Instead of running our country like professionals, they handed us “Terry Schiavo”. And I love this one the most; the Russian flushed with oil money is buzzing our coasts with their long range bombers. I have to say, I’m more afraid of Russian bombers & nukes flying off our coasts than any terrorist outfits. But if you ask Bush how he feels about Russian bombers buzzing our territories, his respond would be “What Russian bombers? Russian has bombers.” This is from a man who “gazed into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and decided he knew the man’s soul, here was a man he could trust?” Bush is the definition of total incompetence. It’s like having clowns running the Whitehouse.
OK — What a I missing… Cause I dont see a ZERO Tax Bracket in the Tax Tables… When I look up 15,500 in the Tax Table, it shows somewhere around $1,500 taxes owed… Is my tax book printed wrong??
“It’s like having clowns running the Whitehouse.”
That is absolutely false, without a doubt.
Clowns would be MUCH funnier than the Bush/Cheney/Rove disaster.
Most likely, more competent as well.
Econ 101 Excuse the F__k out of me, but industries that have shortages don’t report history making record profits unless they are price gouging. Just for your information and according to the BUSH administration, the F_____g demand has not dropped.
That was one wild ride before we drove off that bridge.
Joanne had no clothes on whatsoever!
George you don’t know what you are missing!
Chas only made $15,500!!!!
What a loser!
And Chas is complaining that he has to pay $1,500!
Chas you need to pay your fair share. You use up way more then $1,500 in Government hand-outs in a year.
Shit Chas my cat pays more taxes then you do!
If you have enough money you can always purchase what you need, but then we already knew that! A president like Carter would ration, so everyone could purchase some, a pres. like bush could care less about the masses.
When I look up 15,500 in the Tax Table, it shows somewhere around $1,500 taxes owed… Is my tax book printed wrong??
No Chas. You are printed wrong.
Bring back rationing!
Chas
I was wrong on that one.
Already admitted it, up thread.
But, this thread has deteriorated, so I think we are done here.
James isn’t done here.
Bush knows the price of a barrel of oil, you can bet your life on that. It’s all about getting as high of a price for oil now before the presidential election. It’s all about greed as was the subprime mortgage loans.
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: January 16, 2008
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Bush on Tuesday urged Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC to consider the strain the high cost of oil was having on the American economy, addressing an issue that has begun to color the last year of his presidency and dominate the presidential election campaign.
Speaking to a group of Saudi entrepreneurs and later to reporters, Mr. Bush expressed concern about the economy in some of his starkest language yet, saying that rising oil costs and gasoline prices were causing hardship for American families. He vowed to raise the issue with the Saudi leader, King Abdullah, during a meeting and dinner at the king’s lush horse farm in the desert outside of Riyadh, the capital.
“My point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline — in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down,” the president said in an expansive interview summarizing his eight-day trip to the Middle East. “If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased.”
It was unclear whether Mr. Bush’s entreaties alone would have any significant effect on the price of oil, because, as the president acknowledged, demand continues to rise faster than supplies, especially in expanding markets in China and India, as well as the United States.
Neither King Abdullah nor Mr. Bush discussed the matter publicly as they met for dinner inside a tentlike hall on Tuesday night, chatting instead about the unusually cold weather. But Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, appeared to rebuff the president’s appeal earlier in the day.
Saudi Arabia, he said, shared the president’s concern that a downturn in the American economy could have profound effects around the world, including on the oil market. He even raised the prospect of “recession,” a word Mr. Bush studiously avoided in the interview, even when pressed about “the R-word.” But Mr. Naimi said Saudi Arabia would raise production only “when the market justifies it.”
“Presidents and kings have every right, every privilege, to comment or ask or say whatever they want,” Mr. Naimi said in a news conference after Mr. Bush’s remarks. “The concern for the U.S. economy is valid, but what affects the U.S. economy is more than the price of oil.”
Mr. Bush’s remarks on oil, made as voters went to the polls in Michigan, underscored a growing worry inside the White House that the economy could sour in his final year in office.
Mr. Bush has in general not weighed in so directly on economic matters. But with American consumers starting to feel the effects of rising energy costs, his administration is discussing ways to stimulate the economy. And he has raised the issue of oil’s impact in public and private meetings with the leaders of several Persian Gulf states, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and now Saudi Arabia.
The response has been muted, according to Ed Gillespie, the presidential counselor.
“They talked about the nature of the market and the vast demand that’s on the world market today for oil,” he told reporters late Monday, referring to the leaders Mr. Bush had met. “That was a point that was obviously made in the course of these conversations by our friends, and that’s a legitimate and accurate point.”
Mr. Bush last met King Abdullah in Crawford, Tex., in April 2005, before the Saudi leader’s half brother, King Fahd, died and he assumed the Saudi throne. Then, too, concern about rising oil prices prompted the Bush administration to prod Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer, to raise production to ease prices.
At the time, oil was selling for $54 a barrel; this year, futures have twice passed the $100-a-barrel mark, largely because of tensions between the United States and Iran.
Prices have fallen in recent days, though, as concerns grow that a possible recession in the United States might cut consumption, just as Mr. Bush warned King Abdullah.
Asked what specifically he wanted the Saudis and other OPEC producers to do, Mr. Bush said he hoped “that OPEC, if possible, understands that if they could put supply on the market, it would be helpful.” But he also said reducing prices would require new investments and exploration and a search for alternative fuels.
“You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon — or some expert told you that. That creates a lot of uncertainty.”
little george forgot to add his favorite dodge about how everything will be wonderful as long as y’all repeat… it’s ok, we be doin ok so far.
“Econ101
Posted February 29, 2008 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
Chas
I was wrong on that one.
Already admitted it, up thread.
But, this thread has deteriorated, so I think we are done here.”
Translation: I got caught repeatedly lying and couldn’t wiggle out of it.
Anyway, the point is that tax cuts will always help the “rich” — roads and higher education and many things the government does help the “rich” more than the “poor” — Tax cuts will also benefit the rich more than the poor.
Paul,
Please re-read what I put in bold (if it comes through correctly). Why should higher education be for the rich? Are only rich people smart? Do only rich people drive on roads, while poor people walk on dirt alleyways? WTF?
And if the rich are paying most of the taxes, why are you complaining about the “little” you must be paying? I seriously doubt that you’re even close to those “rich” who need help with higher education and roads.
econ 101, You are wrong about the gas prices. $4 is going to happen recession or not. It is already more than $3.50 in some parts of the us.