I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[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?