I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[Jim in CT]

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

Look On a mathematical basis I didn't say your marginal % decrease was wrong. By using the % you are misleading most people.

Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago
coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end.

I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11)

I guess that is the same benefit huh?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

?

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

But then there is a drop off, right? Like the ubber rich (I forget the number, 100's of millions?) who make a majority of their money as hedge fund manager, who pay capital gains rather than income on a lot if it. I heard Robert Riech talking about the drop off.

Are we also still WELL below the % (I think, I'm not a CPA or Actuary) of tax from pre-Clinton? (including the Regan years that had a higher tax % even without the Bush tax 'cuts'?) I thought I remember hearing in the same piece that in the 50's the tax % was over 50% for upper income, so it seems we've come a long way to benefit everyone, including the upper 1% of the population, no?