1
   

Report: 1/3 of tax cuts benefit top 1% of Americans...

 
 
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 02:01 pm
Surprise, surprise...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) wrote:

One-third of President Bush's tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, shifting more burden to middle-income taxpayers, congressional analysts said on Friday.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and calculations by congressional Democrats based on the CBO findings fueled the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, Sen. John Kerry.

Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.

In contrast, the report showed that households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090 while their share of the tax burden would move to 10.5 percent from 10.4 percent.

The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People with earnings in the lowest 20 percent, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, the CBO said. But Democrats said that meant their average tax cut was only $250.

Democrats said the CBO calculations, which they requested, confirm the view of independent tax analysts that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers.

"It is bad enough that George Bush has no plan to help middle-class families squeezed by declining wages and skyrocketing costs for healthcare, energy and college tuition," Kerry said in a statement.

"Now we find that he is deliberately stacking the deck against them. This is the straw that will break the back of middle-class families."

But Republicans said the CBO numbers showed Bush has provided tax relief for people of all income levels.

Rep. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, said the report showed Bush's tax cuts "have made the tax code more progressive and taxpayers across the income spectrum will be saddled with higher tax burdens if the tax cuts are not made permanent."

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 a year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.


Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,892 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 02:58 pm
This hardly qualifies as "man bites dog."

File it under "Painfully Obvious."
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:32 pm
Call Bush's tax cut what it is "a middle class squeeze"

Kerry is correct the law must be revisited and the tax cuts for the wealthy should be recinded. Put the money where it is most needed and will do the most good. Feeding the bank accounts of the rich will not help the economy.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:43 pm
How could any fair tax cut not benefit people who pay more in taxes more than people who pay less? If I cut taxes by 5% for everyone, then someone who pays a million dollars in taxes every year will save more than someone who pays five thousand in taxes, and someone who pays no taxes won't benefit at all. This is a tax cut, not income redistribution. How could it be otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:49 pm
au1929 wrote:
Call Bush's tax cut what it is "a middle class squeeze"

Kerry is correct the law must be revisited and the tax cuts for the wealthy should be recinded. Put the money where it is most needed and will do the most good. Feeding the bank accounts of the rich will not help the economy.


Why should people's money be taken from them for being wealthy? They pay more taxes so they should get more money back. I don't see an issue here. I don't think I should get more back then I pay. I'm in the lower middle class but aspire to be in the upper middle class if not higher. I don't want more of my money taken from me then is nessary. I say give the rich their money, after all they earned it didn't they?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
How could any fair tax cut not benefit people who pay more in taxes more than people who pay less? If I cut taxes by 5% for everyone, then someone who pays a million dollars in taxes every year will save more than someone who pays five thousand in taxes, and someone who pays no taxes won't benefit at all. This is a tax cut, not income redistribution. How could it be otherwise?

Looks more like redistribution to me.
Quote:
Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:02 pm
Aside from the fact that the basis of the graduated income tax was to have those who earn the most pay the most. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to help buoy the economy by giving people more money to spend. Money from tax cuts in the middle and lower classes hands does just that. Whereas tax cuts for the rich just fattens their bank account. After all how many yachts can you buy.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:06 pm
It doesn't matter how many you buy or if you buy one at all, it is their money and they earned it. Why should it be taken from them? Another thing, it doesn't matter how much of a tax break they get, they are still going to pay more in taxes then someone who makes less then them.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:11 pm
I'm still for the 'solidarity with your people' thing, meaning that people who have so much money they can swim in it can as well give it to those who go to bed hungry, who can not afford good education etc. Just call me Commie ( Rolling Eyes )
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:20 pm
Sorry to tell you but this isn't a communist govt. It isn't the job of the govt to provide for the people. If people want more then they have to get a different job and earn better money, they have to get an education sometimes to make more money. I want a better life for my family so I'm working at it by going to school and also trying to become a police officer.

I hate to tell you but the govt doesn't have to provide me with food or a house or a telephone. That is my responsibility to provide my family with those things.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:20 pm
Again the tax cuts were touted as a way to stimulate the economy. Not to lessen the burden on the rich. As far as it being distribution of wealth, that is basically what a graduated tax rate does. By increasing the burden [cost of government] on those that can afford to pay it reduces the burden on those who are less able. And it does it in increments.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:28 pm
Baldimo, I'm not talking about people who have two cars, a big house and a swimming pool but who want to live in an even bigger house, with three cars and two swimming pools (...) I'm talking about those unfortunate people, who are really struggling to have food on the table tonight. It's very simple to believe that you can do better, can get a better job when you just believe in yourself. Face reality.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:32 pm
This is a fault in our tax system. If you look at it the pople who get the most use of of the govt are the ones who pay the least. We should have a flat tax so that everyone pays the same %. The rich wil still pay more and the poor will still pay less. Hell I would even support a tax system where if you make under 16 or 20 thousand that you don't pay taxes at all. I just don't like the idea of people who are wealthy paying a larger % when they have less use for the system its self.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:34 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Sorry to tell you but this isn't a communist govt. It isn't the job of the govt to provide for the people. If people want more then they have to get a different job and earn better money, they have to get an education sometimes to make more money. I want a better life for my family so I'm working at it by going to school and also trying to become a police officer.

I hate to tell you but the govt doesn't have to provide me with food or a house or a telephone. That is my responsibility to provide my family with those things.


Baldimo wrote:
That is why you make the choice that I did. I didn't join the Army till after the war in Iraq had started. I was asked by many why I did this and the only response I can make is this: I am putting my money where my mouth is! I have been in full support of this war from its beginnings and will support after it is said and done.


So which is it?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:35 pm
What do you mean which is it?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:40 pm
I'm confused, Baldimo. Are you going to school, trying to become a police officer, or serving in Iraq?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=839017&highlight=#839017
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:44 pm
Just the dem's making political hay and playing to the mathematically challenged vote.

What I'd like to know is how much money the .1% the middle class gained is compared to the 2% the so called "wealthy" got. I bet the numbers are startingly similar, if not favoring the middle class.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:48 pm
Baldimo wrote:
This is a fault in our tax system. If you look at it the pople who get the most use of of the govt are the ones who pay the least. We should have a flat tax so that everyone pays the same %. The rich wil still pay more and the poor will still pay less. Hell I would even support a tax system where if you make under 16 or 20 thousand that you don't pay taxes at all. I just don't like the idea of people who are wealthy paying a larger % when they have less use for the system its self.

"The rich will still pay more and the poor will still pay less". In absolute numbers: yes. However, considering the fact that (random number) 10% is 10%, whether you earn $2,000,000 and have to pay $200,000, or earn $50,000 and have to pay $5,000, it will both mean you pay equal to what you earn. From that point of view, the rich do not pay 'more' and the poor do not pay 'less'.

Now, I believe that the rich are already ahead of the game, because they can profit from aspects of society the poor can not profit from (by the ability to improve your life by purchasing things poor people can not purchase, whether it is a car or access to the internet). Don't think I'm talking about huge percentages here (50% or so) (EDIT: I'm talking about taxes for the rich now). I just believe that the really rich - I'm talking about the multiple millionaires / billionaires - will not 'suffer' from higher taxes, while it could have a beautiful effect on the living conditions of the country's poor.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 05:06 pm
In a fair tax cut, the same percentage would apply to everyone. Therefore, someone who would have otherwise have paid $1,000,000 will now pay $900,000, someone who would have paid $1,000 will now pay $900, and someone who would have paid nothing will still pay nothing.

I find efforts to tout this as unfair to be absurd. Bush never claimed that he would steal from the rich to give to the poor. He claimed that he would cut taxes.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 05:10 pm
You don't hear me saying Bush claimed that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Report: 1/3 of tax cuts benefit top 1% of Americans...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 04:54:22