14 August 2004
Doing the math
Inspired by Jay Tea's calculations, I'm looking at my own 2000 and 2003 numbers, and the figure that jumps out at me is this: in 2003, I paid $41 less federal income tax than I did in 2000, despite an increase in taxable income of $2279.
My effective tax rate, for this particular tax anyway: 2000 12.38%; 2003 10.69%. Not perphaps as inspiring as Jay's rate, which was sliced in half, but definitely an improvement. (Like Jay, I had no change in filing status or exemptions during the period, and both of us claimed the standard deduction.)
On the question of health insurance: for me, the employer picks up the entire premium (one advantage of tenure), though copays and deductibles are rising steadily.
What Jay thinks:
So, am I better off than I was four years ago? I'd have to say, in ways I can attribute to the government, not just "yes," but "HELL, YES!" The only area I'm doing worse in is in regards to my health insurance, and that I squarely blame on John Edwards and his ilk.
I know it sounds selfish, but there's an old saying that "all politics is personal." I have done better under the Bush administration, and Kerry has picked a running mate who exemplifies the one part of my personal finances where I'm getting screwed. And looking at how my employer is doing and extrapolating what I can from that, I hope for the general health of the economy that Bush is re-elected.
I have to demur to some extent there are many factors besides the hyperactivity of trial lawyers contributing to the rapid increase in health-care costs but my major worry here is that a Kerry administration would think I make too much money (ha!) to deserve any kind of tax relief and would promptly start turning the screws a little tighter.
And forget that business about selfishness. There is no reason on God's green earth why anyone should feel compelled to pay more tax.Posted at 10:27 AM to Political Science Fiction