I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?
 

Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media, claim that "the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich". Now, I always knew that was a lie, because if you look at the tax tables on a before-and-after chart, you'd see that every single tax bracket, EVERY SINGLE ONE, got a big tax cut. The tax rates for the lowest bracket went from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's a 33 percent tax reduction for folks who ain't "rich".

But now, as those cuts are ready to expire, Dems are saying they want to extend those cuts "except for the wealthy". OK, so if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich, who do the Democrats want to extend the cuts for?

Zero intellectual honesty on that side. Zero.

even funnier the other day was listening to Obama try to explain that not raising the taxes of those that aren't rich was actually a "tax rebate" and that those people could use that money to buy a tv or do home improvements or buy a computer...if you remember...these same people mocked the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets as only being equal to something a pathetic as a muffler for your car, I think was the analogy...now he's trying to tell you, or those in the lower brackets, many of whom are struggling...to go out and take the money that you now magically have because you don't have pay higher taxes on the same income next year and use that additional tax bite that you now get to keep and buy a tv or do a home improvement???? huh??? I'm guessing most people will be thrilled that they will get to keep their current tax rate and not have to pay more in taxes...if you view that as a windfall and a reason to splurge on something...you are a friggin' idiot....or and Obama voter :uhuh:

I guess you have to give him a little credit for being so creatively dishonest

It's the new "Obama-math"

If Johnny paid 30% in taxes last year, his salary doesn't change this year because of a poor economy, and his taxes stay the same next year, how big of a plasma tv can he buy with his new-found wealth?

Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?

In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?

Funny, I thought I heard Obama hundreds of times say things to the effect of "we're going to let expire the Bush tax cuts except for families making less than $250K"

I'd like to see a link also - I hate for it to look like you have no credibility or perhaps your not a financial person and didn't understand finance (like my wife who is a creative person).

You can spin tax cuts and tax increases anyway you want. That is why we always have gridlock - spin doctors.

Fact: Unless there are zero taxes, the more you have the more you pay. Do the math, even a flat tax results in the wealthy paying more.

If someone has wealth, they feel taxes means they have to share with others.Anyone making <100K per year who sides with republicans' philosophy on this issue doesn't understand what it's about and anyone making > 200K per year who supports Democrats
philosophy doesn't understand what it's about either.

What the wealthy really want is no taxes, and no program spending because they have the means to take care of themselves.


I see it everyday and there will never be compromise or agreement on this issue.

I'm too lazy to provide a link to prove it so I may be wrong, but I thought I heard from some administration official, or other, that letting the tax break for rich people expire wouldn't hurt them, they have enough money, and the amount of extra tax they would have to pay would not affect them. So, I guess the tax break doesn't really benefit them. Even though the "monetary" amount saved is higher for rich folks than the "monetary" amount saved by those in lower tax brackets, the poorer folks "benefit" more.

33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

and the 'rich' don't spend as much of their income, so they don't need it

someone with 20k of taxable income is probably not paying federal tax and potentially getting a tax "bonus" back through the EITC...if for any reason they are not, we should just take some of the income that "the 'rich' don't spend" because they don't "spend as much of their income, so they don't need it"...and just give it to whoever needs it:uhuh:

The Tax Foundation - The Potential Impact of Expiring Tax Cuts on Low-Income Taxpayers

So are you saying that the person with taxable income of 250K should not only get no tax break, but should also pay more to pick up the loss of revenue from those with 20K taxable income? Do you give no credence to the idea that being exempt from taxation relieves you from caring about government spending or the burden it places on those that do pay? Do you really want a society where the vast majority do not have to pay for government "services" and have the power to vote for how much the small minority that drive the economy pay for those services. And do you want a government, empowered by the vast non-paying majority, that can decide what and how many freebies you get?

These taxes are so out of control, the more $$ they take, the more $$ they need. It's not about who it is benifiting it's about being fair. They penalize someone who works their a$$ off, takes risks and makes money to pay for free loaders who sit around all day and watch TV all day. Don't kid yourself about that.

How would you feel if you fished all day and caught 4 fish. The government comes in and says, these 3 guys didn't fish today because they don't have a rod and reel but since you have 4 fish, you HAVE to give 3 of them to these guys..................Obama thinks he's Robin Hood. He is a clown. Check out Goolge for links. Here are a few:

Dear 44: The case for reversing the Bush tax cuts - Michael Ettlinger - POLITICO.com

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich | NewsBusters.org

I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.

Certainly there's the well worn argument that tax cuts benefit "mostly" the rich, which may be interpreted as "tax cuts for the rich" in a class warfare context. I think we'd all agree that the top 10% pay a good share of the taxes already.

But, not the same thing.

The issue we should be discussing is this. As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending. Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?

Aside from some fantasy, I've yet to hear a real proposal that makes much sense.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:::rotf2: :rotf2::rotf2::

You post basically insano sites that are the left's version of the tea party batsh*t blogs that post about how Obama isn't a citizen and you expect to be taken seriously?

Next you're gonna tell me that Fox News is a respectable news outlet because of its ratings.

Do your research dude. Politico is moderate to slightly right. No more right than NBC is Left.

Answer this question, All the liberals whine about the rich not paying their fair share, what's is the poor’s fair share? We as a country are enabling people to rely on the govenment and a small portion of the people to provide for them.

That scare tactic in MA about if the sales tax decreased fire, police and teachers would be cut, guess what, Fire Teacher and Police salaries are paid by our property tax not sales tax. People who are voting don't even know what;s going on and what they are voting for.

Not advocating a No Tax , No program system or a Big tax Big spend system. Why can't there be a common sense middle ground?

Precisely - why can't there be a middle ground :devil2: ;)

Maybe a flat tax, everyone pays. 'Cept all those CPAs will be out of work and the IRS employees let go. Or will they be needed for the Cap & Trade program :yak5:

Just wait until the feds institute a VAT on steroids.

Likwid -

"Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?"

Do it yourself if you'd like. I follow politics very closely, and I have heard that lie a million times.

"In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?"

So you're saying that absolute dollars, not percentages, are what matter? Please. If absolute dollars are what matters, who pays the most? The wealthy. If absolute dollars are what matter (and that's NOT what matters), the rich have an awful lot to complain about.

St Croixman...wow...I mean, wow.

"33% is a nice way to spin it"

It's not spin, it's math. the number 10 is precisely 33.33 percent less than the number 15. I'm sorry if that upsets you, or doesn't support your personal political agenda. But I didn't create that fact, it just is.

Let's walk through the math...

First, we'll look at the lowest bracket. Say my taxable income is $20,000. Still with me? Before the BUsh tax cuts, my tax rate was 15 percent, so I paid $3,000.

After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 10 percent, so I paid $2,000.

$2,000 is 33 percent less than $3,000, therefore my tax obligation decreased by 33 percent.

Now we'll go to the rich guy making $250,000. Before the Bush cuts, my rate was 39.6 percent, so I paid $99,000. After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 35 percent, so I paid $87,500.

87,500 is 11.6 percent less than 99,000, so my tax obligation decreased by 11.6 percent.

The guy making 20,000 got a bigger tax decrerase (33 percent) than the guy making 250,000 (11.6 percent).

In tennis, they call this game. set. match.

Stcroixman...

"Anyone making <100K per year who sides with republicans' philosophy on this issue doesn't understand what it's about"

When I graduated from college I made a lot less than $100,000, and I was a Republican. I knew what it was about. The Republican party isn'y about helping the rich and screwing the poor. In my opinion, it's the Democratic agenda that screws the poor. Liberals want to give poor people just enough welfare to survive, not nearly enough to get ahead. That addiction to welfare makes those folks unable to escape poverty. Conservatives want to give poor people good jobs so that can climb out of poverty.

"What the wealthy really want is no taxes"

Says who?

Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it.

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

you have successfully identified part of the problem :uhuh:

Here's a scenario:

Two guys at a company get raises. One gets a 20% raise, the other gets a 15% raise. Which would you rather be?

Using your out-of-context utilization of statistics, I'd much rather be the guy making $20,000/year and getting a 20% pay raise to $24,000/year; than the guy making $200,000/year and only getting a measly pay raise of 15% to $230,000/year.


Statistics without context are meaningless.

You're arguing that the person saving $1k made out far better than the person who saved $11.5k.

In reality, they call this nonsense.

The issue is, you just look at the tax rate itself, you're stuck in the box of "they pay this much".

Well, I can tell you, even over 6 figures, with a halfway decent CPA you WILL get back 3/4 of that or more depending on how good they are and what they tell you to do with your money.

There's so many loopholes in the system that allow you to pay virtually nothing that you can scream and hollar about how much the rate is, but is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

Quite possibly the MOST moronic statement I've seen. ever.
There is no spin, there are dollars. I dont make that much, but trust me, you'd puke if you saw how much my wife and I pay. If I was allowed to not pay just FED taxes in for 2 years. I'd pay both off my kids college expenses off in FULL. Never mind state taxes.
All of you clueless f;ers think you know so much. Research the Alternative Minimum Tax - there are no loopholes, no fancy deductions, no hiding, you get WHACKED regardless of your deductions. WHACKED. My dollars are real.

You want solutions to lowering the deficit. Here you go
- reduce ALL foreign aid (humanitarian and military) - 25%
That means we still give them 75% of our hard earned $
- eliminate all fed and state pensions - move to a 401k with a match
- Allow 529 contributions up to 3K a year to be PRE_TAX. That will push people to save for college and will pump more money into the stock market which will bump up the returns and thus cap gains tax to the govt.

theres a start.

Spence -

"I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich."

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.

"As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending."

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?

"Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?"

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.