6 ms·
Election Infographic: Compare Your Income Tax Burden under Romney & Obama
- PaulHoule 14y agoit's funny how any narrative about taxes comes down to self-centeredness and selfishness this is true of tax payers and it's true of governments who want the tax revenue i for one am happy to pay more taxes if it controls the deficit and means we get good public services
- craigsoules 14y agoI think it's because (as this kind of tool shows) you can easily quantify the direct effect on your pocket, but the loss to services and the effect of the public deficit is a vague, unknown, and unmeasurable thing. Because there's no way to see how your bus schedule will change due to the tax cuts, people can't relate to it.
- grandalf 14y agoTaxes empower governments to undertake grandiose things like wars and large scale programs, and to avoid taking responsibility for past spending mistakes. Consider how dishonest and corrupt our politicians are, and how apathetic and disempowered our electorate is... Most Americans pay very little in taxes and receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. These are the Americans who support the wars and the massive grandiose programs. The small percentage of Americans who actually pay taxes are accused of being greedy, etc... all so that we can have wars and spending without accountability. The entire system is set up to help powerful interests stay in power and to reduce voter empowerment. It's absurd that for something like healthcare so many people feel empowered by trusting a Federal/Corporate program to control the market. Maximum empowerment would result from things being handled at the local level, so that results and approaches could be compared across cities, states, etc.
- podperson 14y agoDoing "most" things at local level is actually as much of a problem as a solution. There are definitely cases where it helps, but there are plenty where it doesn't: Consider local school boards, etc. Finland is the current darling of education reformers who cheerfully cite all kinds of features of the Finnish school system while ignoring the fact that it's _centrally controlled_. Similarly, the world has tried lots of different healthcare systems and the one thing that seems to have been discovered is that having lots of different healthcare systems is a Bad Idea (don't do single payer AND private AND pay as you go ... pick one dammit). Then there's the 50,000 or so different law enforcement agencies in the US -- with overlapping jurisdictions, powers, responsibilities, and so forth. 9/11 occurred, in part, because the FBI didn't share information efficiently with the CIA, and the "solution" was to create several new organizations (Homeland Security, TSA, Office of Information Awareness, etc. etc.) Local governance isn't a silver bullet any more than central control. Horses for courses.
- grandalf 14y agoI think the things you're mentioning are generally all good things. Why? Because without different approaches there is not really any way to use the scientific method to improve upon things. Suppose we're baking a pie. With your preferred approach, the Federal government bakes one pie. Ingredients are added according to the corrupt interest of all the legislators, and eventually the pie is finished and served to everyone. Since the pie was such a massive Federal undertaking, supporters of the Government's approach are expected to blindly support the chosen recipe, claiming it's delicious and perfect as-is. Detractors, having also spent much political capital, are inclined to criticize every aspect of the pie, even the good parts. If on the other hand each state were baking a pie, we'd have 50 different recipes to explore. Maybe one state gets the crust just right, another the filling, and three others manage to increase the average portion size, etc. Now we have 50 different experiments that nobody has spent a lifetime of political capital building, which can all be improved. If one state serves its citizens lousy pie, they'll talk to their friends in other states and start demanding more from their elected officials. Notice how George W. Bush sold the war in Iraq. The US had to act fast, and had to make a big commitment to the cause, without worrying about evidence to the contrary. Notice how nearly everyone was "with us or against us", leaving no room for debate or reasoning. The same kind of grand approach must be used to do anything at the Federal level. By necessity it becomes 80% propaganda, smoke, and mirrors. Things like local school boards must cater to the people they serve. You can look at the thousands of different school boards and see something that appears messy in comparison to George W. Bush's oversimplified sales pitch for the Iraq war or Obama's oversimplified pitch for Federal health care, but you might consider looking at it more optimistically. School board members are directly accountable to the people who elect them.
- bluedevil2k 14y agoInteresting. What would be considered "middle-class" in America, about $50,000, would end up paying more under Romney than Obama (assuming married with 2 kids). Not what you'd expect from the party that claims lower taxes are better for the economy. On the other hand, a typical salary for people on this site, $100,000, would pay $1000 less under Romney.
- Variance 14y agoRomney's plan will result in far lower tax revenues, not accounting for indirect effects. It looks like the issue you're citing is a result of a lower dependent deduction allowance of some sort, and it generally means marginally higher taxes under Romney for people with moderate income with respect to the number of dependents they have. This doesn't mean that the plan isn't well suited to promoting low taxes to helping the economy. Also, that was a quite nicely designed site.
- jrobbins 14y agoI would gladly pay more tax, it just has to be fair (meaning that people earning more then me also pay more).
- philipcamilleri 14y agoAgreed! But unfortunately it seems almost half the country disagrees with that :-(
- MordinSolus 14y agoTo me, this has nothing to with with how much anyone else is paying. If I pay 20%, and someone else who makes way more than me pays 15%, I don't care. I would prefer It's about what we're doing with the taxes. If the government could guarantee that all new revenue generated by tax increases would go directly to knocking down the deficit, I would be all for it. However, this would never happen. If taxes go up, then spending will probably go up, putting us (all taxpayers) further in debt. This is simply unsustainable and unfair to future citizens. I just don't trust the government to do good with more revenue.
- bluedevil2k 14y agoHow is it not fair? People who make more than $200,000 (about 4% of the country) pay 50% of the income tax collected in this country. 4% pay 50%! The other 96% pay 50%. That seems incredibly slanted towards the lower class to me.
- antidaily 14y agoNot in a historical context.
- bluedevil2k 14y agoExplain what you mean by that? The first income tax was on the top 1% of income earners and created in 1913. In the 60's and 70's, top tax rates of 60-70% weren't uncommon. The history of the income tax in America has always placed a heavier burden (some may argue much heavier burden) on the high-income earners.
- gte910h 14y agoThis is just income taxes, not Medicare and FICA and Unemployment. With Ryan on the ticket, the rest are important to look at too.
- bluedevil2k 14y agoThat's because both candidates won't change Medicare or FICA in any way. Wouldn't be a useful comparison.
- gte910h 14y agoHave you read Ryan's budget from last year? He totally wants to change Medicare, and now that he's on the ticket, he may get Romney to do it, especially if they don't look like they stand a chance at a 2016 re-election. Ryan's budget and then follow on inclusion on this ticket might permanently kill the ability of the Republican party to elect someone to the presidency, if seniors (who vote primarily Republican) cross to the Democratic side of the ticket for their votes to protect their medicare. (Once someone has voted for candidates in both parties, they are considerably more likely to cross over and do so again in future elections). Unemployment will most certainly be different between them.
- podperson 14y agoCare to lay odds that Ryan will distance himself from his medicare proposal?
- ktsmith 14y agoI think that's pretty much impossible the news and Congress haven't been able to shut up about "The Ryan Plan"
- joshuahedlund 14y agoRyan already tried to pass his budget in Congress. Why are you assuming that if he leaves Congress to become Vice President his budget will have more of a chance of passing?
- antidaily 14y agoVery different numbers than a similar calculator the Obama campaign emailed me a month ago or so. Go figure.
- harshpotatoes 14y agoIt's unclear to me how this was calculated. But the Obama campaign estimates were based on some assumptions: 1) That Romney's ultimate budget would not increase the deficit 2) That the base tax rate would not be raised under Romney 3) Finding the necessary cuts to tax deductions* to satisfy the previous two conditions. (basically, estimating the tax changes necessary to satisfy all campaign promises made by Romney). So it's unclear to me if the data being presented on this website is only comparing how the base rate would change without considering how the overall rate would change when including the various deductions. Secondly, another reason for this difference, is that the Obama campaign usually talks about the middle class (married family with income ~$50,000) while the default settings for this website are for a single person making $100,000 (i.e. typical young professional in computer science). *I don't know if this is the right word, but if you are married with children, or bought a home within a certain time frame you would normally get a small refund or deduction to your tax rate for having met these criteria. So cuts would be made to the various refunds/deductions, ultimately increasing your overall rate.
- muzz 14y agoThis one doesn't factor in the Romney's contradicting claim that his plan will be revenue-neutral. The Obama calculator does.
- rio517 14y agoThis seems to be inaccurate compared to the version on obama's site. http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/ http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/
- grandalf 14y agoDoes anyone have an explanation for this? Obviously all talk of future tax policy is partially smoke and mirrors, but mine shows a $4K reduction in favor of Obama on Obama's site and a $16K reduction in favor of Romney on Romney's site.
- mcarvin 14y agoYes. The key assumption in Obama's infographic is that "Romney eliminates all tax benefits, except those for savings and investment". To the best of our knowledge, Romney has only indicated that he will cut the expanded refundability of the Child-Tax Credit, and the earned income tax credit (EITC) - which our analysis includes. Our analysis is based on the publicly available information on their respective plans. We make no 'assumptions' to fill in gaps. We note though that the Romney plan does not address how his proposal will be funded and reference the $2.8 Trillion revenue shortfall his plan creates.
- sosuke 14y agoSlick design, I like the fixed headers and sidebars.
- michaelcalleia 14y agoMany thanks from the design team.
- Steko 14y agoInfographic is a bit dodgy. Romney's claim is that his partially outlined tax plan is revenue neutral but this thing shows just about everyone paying the same or less. That's just silly. TPC's comparison which the Obama calculator[1] is based on clearly shows a huge increase in the middle class burden. [1] http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/ http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/
- ktsmith 14y agoI was wondering how these numbers were possibly calculated given how little the Romney campaign has actually detailed about any of his "plans" including those for taxes. Everything his campaign has talked about seems very ambiguous.
- mcarvin 14y agoRepeated from below: The key assumption in Obama's infographic is that "Romney eliminates all tax benefits, except those for savings and investment". To the best of our knowledge, Romney has only indicated that he will cut the expanded refundability of the Child-Tax Credit, and the earned income tax credit (EITC) - which our analysis includes. Our analysis is based on the publicly available information on their respective plans. We make no 'assumptions' to fill in gaps. We note though that the Romney plan does not address how his proposal will be funded and reference the $2.8 Trillion revenue shortfall his plan creates.
- Steko 14y agoHe's specifically said the shortfall will be made up with income taxes though. You're giving him a free pass by not building those dollars into the model somehow.
- mcarvin 14y agoUnderstood. As there is no reliable way to guess at who would be affected and how (ie what income levels, with dependents / or without) - we believe the most accurate way to portray the plan is with what Romney has stated publicly and the shortfall that he needs to account for (ie $2.8 trillion over 10 years).
- gte910h 14y agoCan we keep american politics off HN when not related to tech? Flagging.
- mcarvin 14y agoOur company's mission is to make more of the data you see helpful. This infographic is an expression of that mission. We are apolitical and simply want you to be able to interact with data that is otherwise available in a format that is easier to consume and, if we are successful, just makes sense.
- engtech 14y agoAs others have pointed out, your infographic is missing data (Rmoney hasn't released a detailed plan) and the design downplays this fact to hide that the numbers are likely not factual. That does not seem apolitical. (I'm not an American, so I am neither republican or democrate)
- ktsmith 14y agoI initially thought this was just shilling for the Romney campaign until I saw the action button at the bottom.
- mcarvin 14y agoOur infographic represents the universe of publicly available information, I sincerely do not believe a more factual account of what either candidate has said is possible. The only alternative would be take guesses as to how the candidates intend to augment or complete their plans. Noting that neither approach is perfect, when considering how to approach this problem we considered guessing to be inferior.
- bryanlarsen 14y agoIs this the plan that cuts 90% of budget from everything except for defense by 2050? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-of-paul-ryans-budget/254845 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-wors...
- padobson 14y agoI don't see how it could calculate what my tax burden would be based on my income alone. It's not asking me if I'm self employed or if I have dependents. Consultants like myself have to pay the payroll taxes (SSI, Medicare) for themselves as well as the employer contribution - which this doesn't mention. I suppose it's just looking at income tax? Who do I vote for if I want to torch the current federal tax system and replace it with a federal sales tax?
- mcarvin 14y agoHi, we do actually take into account dependents (towards the top right of the page). Mostly for ease of use, we do make some simplifying assumptions that are noted at the bottom of the page under "methodology". For a more detailed breakdown of your federal, state, local and medicare / social security payments you can try the smartasset decision engine.
- muzz 14y agoIt also doesn't ask you if you participate in a 401k, have a mortgage on a primary residence, etc. Everyone's income taxes are different. And even more than that, deductions, exemptions, and credits make the final income tax very different from simply applying the marginal rates to your salary. It's interesting comparing your actual tax paid last year to the "Current Structure" number-- it's likely significantly less.
- engtech 14y agoThe scariest thing about this infographic is that it made me realize that for the majority of people in any election, how it impacts their taxes is their only concern. I would guess that the soundest strategy for any party in any country would be to lie about lowering taxes by more than what your competitor is lying about lowering taxes.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]