Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden"
Who, exactly, hit the middle class with a larger tax burden? NOT BUSH, because afetr his tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid a HIGHER share of the total tax burden. That reduces the tax burden on the middle class.
|
You're ignoring the context for that remark in which Justplugit asserted the bottom 51% should be paying more taxes.
Quote:
Spence, please, get some facts. I could post a thousand links supporting my position...here is one...
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA"
Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts. It is irrefutable fact that wealthy Americans paid a HIGHER percentage of the tax burden, after the Bush cuts. Bush also lowered your tax rate, and mine, by the way...
|
The Wiki presents two sides to the argument, you pick one and then claim it's fact?
I'd like to see a thousand links. So far all I can find is a WSJ article that you have to have a subscription to read, a Heritage piece from 2007 with no supporting information and a lot of links to Rushlimbaugh.com.
All that being said, it's quite possible that the wealthy did increase their share of the burden in that time period. With wages stagnant for most Americans, but the rich continuing to get richer, it would make sense that the receipts show they were paying more as a %.
But to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me.
-spence
Threaded Mode