
Election Infographic: Compare Your Income Tax Burden under Romney & Obama - mcarvin
http://www.smartasset.com/infographic/election
======
Steko
Infographic 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/>

~~~
ktsmith
I 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
Repeated 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
He'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
Understood. 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).

~~~
ktsmith
Unfortunately the $2.85 trillion shortfall is mentioned near the very end of
the infographic and so a significant number of people are never going to see
it and will just go "oh, the Romney plan would save me $X" without ever
understanding the bigger picture.

------
bluedevil2k
Interesting. 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
Romney'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.

------
rio517
This seems to be inaccurate compared to the version on obama's site.
<http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/>

~~~
grandalf
Does 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
Yes. 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.

------
engtech
The 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.

------
gte910h
Can we keep american politics off HN when not related to tech? Flagging.

~~~
mcarvin
Our 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
As 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)

~~~
mcarvin
Our 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.

------
padobson
I 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
Hi, 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.

------
gte910h
This is just income taxes, not Medicare and FICA and Unemployment.

With Ryan on the ticket, the rest are important to look at too.

~~~
bluedevil2k
That's because both candidates won't change Medicare or FICA in any way.
Wouldn't be a useful comparison.

~~~
gte910h
Have 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
Care to lay odds that Ryan will distance himself from his medicare proposal?

~~~
ktsmith
I think that's pretty much impossible the news and Congress haven't been able
to shut up about "The Ryan Plan"

------
jrobbins
I would gladly pay more tax, it just has to be fair (meaning that people
earning more then me also pay more).

~~~
bluedevil2k
How 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.

~~~
glesica
You're comparing numbers that can't be reasonably compared. Yes, one is small
and one is large, but that's meaningless. To illustrate why, let's make things
simple.

Assume a society with two people. One person, Adam, has income of $100 and the
other, Beth, has income of $10. Set the tax rate (flat tax here, libertarian
wet dream) to be %10.

So, Adam pays $10 and Beth pays $1. Adam is 50% of the population, but pays
almost 91% of the taxes! That is literally the comparison you made in your
comment, percentage of the population versus percentage of the taxes.

The comparison that would actually mean something would be percentage of the
_income_ versus percentage of the taxes. For this, we can get numbers from a
variety of places, I grabbed the 2003 income inequality data from Wikipedia.
Turns out, that top 4% of the country that you're talking about (at least in
2003) earned 55-60% of the income (the data I used don't allow an exact figure
for the 4% number).

Now those numbers are a little closer together, not so likely to cause
outrage, wouldn't you say? That group paid 50% of the taxes and earned about
55% of the income.

~~~
gyardley
Let's say you make twice as much as me. Would it be fair to charge you twice
as much for a restaurant meal or a gallon of gas or a haircut, just because
you make twice as much? Of course not - for any other good or service, your
income is irrelevant. So why are payments based on income 'fair' when it comes
to government services?

I'm not saying a progressive income tax isn't _necessary_ , but calling it
fair is laughable. For once it'd be nice to hear a politician say "we realize
that whether your tax rate goes up a few percent or down a few percent, you're
still going to be paying a whole lot of money for the same government services
a good portion of our nation gets without paying a dime - and we appreciate
that."

~~~
glesica
What you just cited isn't a progressive income tax, it's a flat tax. Twice as
much income -> twice as much tax. So we both pay, say 0.01% of our income for
the haircut. So are you saying that even a flat tax is unacceptable?

As to your point about people getting government services without paying, the
chief reason for that is that if we demanded that everyone pay we'd either end
up giving their money back to them or letting them starve in the street. So
they just get to keep it, which is easier to administer.

And no, no one owes you a big "thank you so much" for paying taxes. Your
"thank you" comes in the form of that big paycheck you got thanks, in part, to
the government and the society creating an atmosphere in which success can be
rewarded.

It has been pointed out before that if you are truly looking for a libertarian
country, you should move to Somalia. How much money do you think you could may
there?

~~~
gyardley
Read my comment again, where I said "I'm not saying a progressive income tax
isn't _necessary_..."

How do you get "are you saying that even a flat tax is unacceptable?" out of
that, given that I said exactly the opposite?

The issue is entirely with the word 'fair' and the rhetoric around 'fair
share'. Progressive income taxes are not remotely fair by any sane definition
of the word, whether they're necessary or not.

------
PaulHoule
it'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

~~~
grandalf
Taxes 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
Doing "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
I 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.

------
bryanlarsen
Is this the plan that cuts 90% of budget from everything except for defense by
2050? [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-
wors...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-
of-paul-ryans-budget/254845)

------
sosuke
Slick design, I like the fixed headers and sidebars.

~~~
michaelcalleia
Many thanks from the design team.

------
antidaily
Very different numbers than a similar calculator the Obama campaign emailed me
a month ago or so. Go figure.

~~~
harshpotatoes
It'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.

