Truth About Bush Tax Cuts

The chart came from the Federal Accounting Office and was on the published at Heritage. The other things I wrote were not copied, but from me. The figures on the graph can be obtained directly from the FOA, that's where Heritage got it.

 

How are coming to the conclusion from that first table that the wealthy have been hit the hardest?

.

 

I thought more jobs were created under the Clinton policy than the Bush policy ?

The tax rates of the 90's did not seem to discourage investment and growth. Wasn't the 90's the longest and largest economic expansion in history ?

So if you can only have one, which do you prefer ?

 

Because the top 5% pay 60% of ALL federal income tax. The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all federal tax. The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of ALL federal income tax collected. Thus means the bottom half of wage earners in the US pay only 3% of the federal income tax collected.

Then we look at the tax brackets:
Up to $7,550 - 10%
Up to $31,000 - 15%
Up to $74,000 - 25%
Up to $154,000 - 28%
Up to $336,000 - 33%
Over $336,000 - 35%

According to the 2006 US Census, the median family income is the US is $48,201.00, so the majority of Amercan's are in the 25% bracket. Those making over $74,000 pay 28% all the way up to 35% for the highest earners. This is what is inherently wrong with the tax code, it punishes success. I'm sure you've heard people say "What's the point doing more overtime, I'll just get hit harder in taxes."

 

Actually unemployment was as it lowest levels ever under Bush, especially black unemployment. Only recently has it gone over 5%.

The period of growth you speak of started with the Reagan tax cuts and continued through the 1st Clinton administration. The economy had already started to falter before 9/11 during the last years of Clinton and 9/11 pushed it over the edge.

I would rather have the tax cuts. The the amt. of revenue collected by the government will not stop them from spending whether they have the money or not, that's why we have the huge deficit. Only legislated fiscal responsibility will reduce spending. They think they have a no-limit credit card. However, as I illustrated, the tax cuts will and do help the middle class working American for the reasons I pointed out.

 

The problem with the unemployment number is that it can easily be redefined. What I was talking about pure numbers, Correct me if I am wrong but weren't 23 million jobs produced under the Clinton policy, although I don't know the exact number, isn't it true the Bush policy has produced very disappointing numbers ? Isn't it also true the types of jobs being produced were lower paying jobs than the ones lost ?

I Thought Reagan raised taxes later in his 2nd term ? Didn't Bush Senior raise taxes as well ?

But doesn't deficit spending merely put off paying for government for a couple of decades and ultimately make government more expensive due to interest ?

 

what gives you the right to say how much they should be paying?

 

I respect all those stats, Paul, but I have to ask: Do you think the current tax code, which I interpret as, for the most part, benefitting the wealthy (you have to admit this in light of the growing income gap) is the right direction?

You say the tax cuts help the middle class working american. Perhaps. But at what cost? Is it just enough to assuage them, keep them from raising hell, so the super-rich can accumulate more wealth without much political resistance?

It just seems to me that we are creating a permanent underclass. Didn't Bush the First say "there is no class in America"? I don't see this as the right direction if we are really striving for a society that heralds true democracy.

Would love to hear your personal thoughts ...

 

Here's what i know:

It's immoral and counter-productive to punish financial success.

That and paying more in taxes doesn't get you more in services, the police and the firetrucks don't arrive faster and the roads are not smoother because you pay more in taxes. If you are getting the same service as everyone else you shouldn't have to pay more than everyone else for that service.

 

You need to at least look at the trends in income over those years for various groups. For example, if the income of wealthy people over the past ten years has increased more than those of other groups, the taxes from their income is going to represent a larger percentage of the total taxes that are collected, even if the tax rates stayed the same for everyone. That scenario doesn't mean that the wealthy are getting hit the hardest. They would actually be doing better financially in a scenario such as that.

Disposable income would be a better way of determining who is getting hit the hardest.

.

 

So the financial successes during the Clinton administration were the result of Reagan. And the failures during the Bush Jr. administration were the result of Clinton. Sounds like the Heritage Foundation.

.

 

The national debt increased the most under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. compared with other administrations. There was a budget surplus the last two years of the Clinton administration as a result of some fiscal responsibility between the Republican Congress and the White House during the Clinton years.

.

 

I would argue that the wealthy benefit way more from the government then I do. For instance, I have been to court only a handful of times in my life and that includes jury duty. Wealthy people and corporations tend to have armies of lawyers in court everyday protecting their assets. I can call my Senators office or my Congressional Rep and get a 15 minute appointment assuming I either travel to Washington or catch them while they are in their local office. Wealthy people and corporations often have direct and unlimited access to politicians, many are personal friends, but also through PACs and lobbyists. I generally only use the highways intermittently, for recreation, but various corporations have hundreds of thousands of trucks on the highways everyday. The wealthy benefit from government, consume more resources and have greater access to politicians than I do, I don't see why they shouldn't pay their fair share.

 

Then let's not tax anyone for any reason.

 

The only truly sane and reasoned voice in this discussion. If you are taxing income and a certain group makes an obscene amount more than another group of course their contribution is going to be more. And just like the wealthy only pay Social Security taxes on a portion of their income, so the poor should be allowed a minimum to survive on.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/wealth/saving/msw126.htm

We could fix Social Security if the big guys paid their fair share.

 

I personally am an advocate of eliminating all income taxes on the first $90,000 everyone earns. Basically, when you stop paying Social Security, you start paying income taxes.

 

Why aren't any of the current candidates for president promoting this? I like it.

It makes sense if you no longer need the safety net of Social Security, then you have disposable income.

 

I agree you don't see the FED bailing out individual mortgage holders in default. I've seen my right to file bankruptcy eroded, but not the rights of large businesses. I've seen my right to litigate limited, but not those of large monied interests. I've seen my right to organize as a member of the labor pool limited but not the right of corporations to consolidate and monopolize. In fact they have more freedoms today than the individual, and they are protected by the government. And most of them are multinational, and a large percent of their income is not even reportable.

Most of the legislation passed today is to limit the recourse of individuals while deregulating and protecting big business. Who pays for that legislation?

 

By services I didn't mean government services. I meant private sector services such as restaurants, waiters, vacation services providers, etc.

 

Well, if you want the "rich" to pay more towards social security after the cap, should those who do then be entitiled to larger payments than the rest when the reach 62?

Fact of the matter is that they do pay their fair share just like everyone else, up to the income cap. You cannot ask selected people to pay more without then giving them a bigger piece when they reach 62.