Any clear minded individual looking at long term polling trends would not be so excited about the President's prospects in 2012.
I see that you didn't quite catch the part about the effective tax rates, and how the Bush tax cuts had a bigger impact on effective income tax rates for the rich. But your effort is noted.
33% is higher than 12%, no matter how many ways you you try to skew it in order to play class warfare.
I note your clutching at the numbers than support your claim, even though they may not be the effective numbers as applied in the real world, as determined by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. I couldn't have imagined it otherwise. As for the "class warfare" FOX sound bite, that must have been the third war started by Bush, judging by the numbers and the historically wide income disparity that he helped create during his administration.
Bloomberg House to Vote on $2.4 Trillion Debt Increase, Cuts By Julie Hirschfield Davis and Margaret Talev - Jul 15, 2011 9:20 AM CT . U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), right, listens as U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), center, answers questions during a press conference on a balanced budget amendment at the U.S. Capitol July 14, 2011 in Washington, DC. Photographer: Win McNamee/Getty Images . The U.S. House plans a vote next week on a measure that would raise the governmentâs debt limit by $2.4 trillion, cut spending, cap government expenditures and propose a balanced-budget constitutional amendment, Republican Representatives Sean Duffy and Billy Long said.
LOL, you are clutching to an article written by a liberal from the new york times, and his interpretation of the numbers from the CBO. I have a newsflah for you, during times of high asset inflation, the tax percent for the rich is always going to go down, and this is particularly true during a housing boom because they are the ones who own the houses. With or without the taxcuts the riches income tax percentage would have went down from 2000-2004, because housing prices, as well as other asset prices were going through the roof. Also the tax cuts cost us 3.2 trillion dollars over 10 years, but Obama has aid he wants to get rid of the tax cuts for the rich and that it would save about 80 billion a year. 80 billion times 10 = 800 billion, 800 billion divided by 3.2 trillion = 25%, the tax cuts for the rich were responsible for 25% of the total cost of the bush tax cuts, but the top 5% pay 40% of all income taxes, looks like the rich got screwed again.
Well, if you live in NYC and you are in the top tax bracket you are already paying 55% with state on city income taxes included. Apparently, that is not enough. Flat tax, no deductions. This entire tax facade is a giant red herring - the Dems can make the tax rate 75% if they wanted to and in the current system nobody would pay even half of that rate based upon the prowess of their CPAs and tax attorneys. Did the NYT author mention General Electric's tax prowess ? I mean, in the late 50's and early 60's the top tax rate was 90 % and nobody paid even half that rate after their CPA's finished with their returns. Flat tax, no deductions.
That was an excellent point brought up weeks ago by someone. The US may have an average effective rate of X, but if you live in NY or CA, you wish your tax rate was only X, and if you live in OK it's, "thank God we don't pay X".