The Bush tax cuts, as I understand it, reduced the tax rate applied to long-term capital gains and (qualifying) dividends. Anyone living in the real world understands that this makes it, by definition, a tax cut for the wealthy. The middle-class and certainly the poor, have little or no long-term capital gains or dividend income to be taxed. As a reduction in tax burden, it's only really meaningful for the wealthy. It would be interesting to see real statistics correlating the application of these tax advantages with the gross income of those using them. I doubt the Bush Administration would ever allow that information to become public, because most of those people are friends of his.
I'm no fan of high income taxes, and you are right that rates were higher under Clinton than Bush, but at first blush some these numbers seem off. I could be wrong, but I looked at the instructions for a 1999 1040 and at 30K income, a single would have a standard deduction and exemption totalling: $7,050. Worse case scenario, assuming no other reductions in income, taxes on 22,950 was only $3,446 not $8,400. Didn't look any further than the first comparison, but in any case tax rates are lower under Bush than Clinton as you are noting.
Apparently you (along with the majority of Americans) have yet to realize that the rich are NOT so because of "tax breaks" they get, but rather IN SPITE OF THEIR TAX BURDEN. A small percentage of Americans pay waayyy more taxes than are fair so that the majority can pay less than are fair. How does one give a "tax break" to someone who pays no income tax? Or how does one give a "meaningful" tax break to one who pays little?
Sale of the meager, middle class home? When's the last time you saw the "middle class or poor" as you refer to them, venture any capital or risk their ass? I guess it all depends on what you see is an effective "stimulation".
Come on gnome. You know that the money is not yours it says so right on it. It is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA's. Therefore the government allows you to keep just enough so that you don't revolt and gives just as much as it can to lessers so they won't revolt. Ahhh bless'm they do so love to GIVE to the people for their votes! JIM
Yeah, but... Bush is stupid! Haliburton! Oil buddies... Bush lied people died... He's stealing the world's oil supply as we speak and storing it on his ranch in Crawford, while listening to our private conversations on our phone. (Did I leave out something)?
Actually I think the income tax code is unconstitional because it makes the top 1% pay 40% of the tax. Never was it considered that a small group of people would pay 40 times their weight. I think that is tyranny of the minority and someone needs to get it to the supreme court. This may be our only hope to get accountablity by making EVERYONE pay tax and no SS is not a fed income tax. Once everyone gets stiffed then we will be able to get rid of government because once everyone sees what it really cost they will vote to change. John
Rich are big winners under Bush tax cuts During last week's debate on whether to restore limits on the alternative minimum tax or make permanent the cuts in investment income taxes, House leaders chose as their spokesman Representative Dave Camp, a Republican from Michigan. He said Republicans favor continuing investment tax cuts because that will help more people and will especially benefit those making less than $100,000. "Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends," he said on the House floor. But IRS data show that among the 90 percent of all U.S. taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20. ----------- One in 20 is 60%? Its that Republican math. Tax schedule since 1913: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 You'll notice it was Kennedy who got the ball rolling on cutting taxes and over time taxes have come down. Of course its harder to balance budgets when the pro-lifers are starting wars to enrich their interests at the expense of the taxpayer.