Posted on 10/26/2008 10:18:22 AM PDT by pleikumud
DALLAS (January 21, 2008) – As Congress debates whether to renew tax cuts enacted early in the George W. Bush presidency, as well as various economic stimulus plans, critics often label the measures as "tax cuts for the rich." Yet a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, no matter how progressivity is measured. In fact, the report concludes that every major tax change (Republican or Democrat) over the past two decades has increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncpa.org ...
They favored taxpayers.
Of course not! This is getting old about "only the rich got tax cuts!" Sheeze... are we really living in a nation of morons who cannot even figure out if the government is taxing more, or less, of your paycheck? The 2003 tax cuts lowered the ENTIRE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES! And when the 2003 tax cuts expire via Obama & Dems, we all go back to the higher federal income tax rates of the year 2000!
*sigh* This is not rocket science!
1) The entire federal income tax rates were reduced across the board for ALL incomes. When the 2003 tax cuts expire we all go back to the higher income tax rates of the year 2000. EVERYONE'S take home pay will decrease: low and middle income included. My household brings in about $90K/yr. The tax cuts allow me to keep $3800 more cash of my money per year. When the tax cuts expire, it will cost me $3800 per year. I cannot afford it! A household bringing in about $50K per year will lose $2500 - $3000 per year.
2) The earned income tax credit (EITC) was increased in both credit amounts and the yearly income up to $39K/yr. When Obama and the Dems expire the 2003 tax cuts, the EITC credit amount will shrink and only for those making in the high $20K/yr. These affects low income households severely. EITC http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=36
3) The child credit of $1000/child will go back to $500/child when Obama and the Dems allow the 2003 tax cuts to expire. This affects all incomes: low, middle, high.
4) The marriage penalty was eliminated with the 2003 tax cuts. When Obama and the Dems go back to the year 2000 tax codes, married couples will be paying higher taxes for being married. This affects all incomes: low, middle, high.
bfltr
http://www.nysun.com/national/senate-democrats-reject-bush-tax-cut-extension/72898/
From March 13, 2008:
“Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton both promise to reverse Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”
A yes, the National Center for Policy Analysis, “A Leader in Promoting Alternatives to Government” www.ncpa.org
By its own admission, hardly an impartial organization, but rather one with a very clear and overt agenda.
Not exactly someplace I’d turn to get objective information on tax plans, unless, that is, I were afraid of the truth and instead wished to have my own preconceived notions and ideological slant confirmed.
The Democrats see the accumulation of wealth as a vulgar extravagance, maybe because that’s how they use it. Bill Gates, with his vulgar wealth, has created more prosperity for more people that the entire War on Poverty.
The Democrats see the accumulation of wealth as a vulgar extravagance, maybe because that’s how they use it. Bill Gates, with his vulgar wealth, has created more prosperity for more people that the entire War on Poverty.
From March 13, 2008:
“Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton both promise to reverse Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”
questions:
by what code of ethics, by what right, by what process, does a liberal demagogue indict someone for lowering taxes on the “rich”?
is lowering taxes a crime?
who the %^&* do these liberal/communist/socialist punks think they are?
IMHO
Here’s a real life example thanks to the tax tables available at www.moneychimp.com. A married couple with $75,000 of taxable income in 2004 paid $2700 less than they did in 2002 with the same income. If their income has remained the same they have saved $13,500 since the tax cuts took effect in June 2003.$225 per month is a car payment on a Chevy Mailbu with a resonable down payment. But no one, not McCain, not the RNCC, not the RNSC has even mentioned these facts in response to the Dems false claims.
Obama is a Marxist - a socialist intent on destroying capitalism, freedom, and the U.S. Constitution (property rights and every other right we still have).
If what you say in this post is true, and I believe it is, why haven’t the Rpublicans, and McCain in particular, made this perfectly clear to the American People during the campaign?
Bush tax cuts benefited me and I am NOT wealthy by any standards.
Welcome, troll. Things a little slow over at DU?
It’s not a question of who they favored. Let stolen property be returned to their rightful owners.
It's true because that is what the IRS demands to be taken from everyone's paycheck. Tax rates were lowerd for all income levels in 2003. When the 2003 tax cuts expire, we all go back to the higher tax rates of 2000.
As for why McCain's camp doesn't exploit this? I have no clue. I write them every week asking them the same thing. I get no response. I even gave Tom DeLay a piece of my mind at dinner one night about letting the Dems get away with this "only the rich go tax cuts" nonsense. He simply said we give out press releases and if the media doesn't print it there is nothing we can do. I was not impressed with his answer.
Go here at look at the new tax rates vs. each year sine 2000. Also scroll to the middle of the page and you can imput your income for all years from 2000 - 2008.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
I am looking at $4K less cash per year under Obama and the Dems just from the 2003 tax cuts expiring and going back to a higher federal income tax rate.
IBTZ !
1) The entire federal income tax rates were reduced across the board for ALL incomes. When the 2003 tax cuts expire we all go back to the higher income tax rates of the year 2000. EVERYONE'S take home pay will decrease: low and middle income included. My household brings in about $90K/yr. The tax cuts allow me to keep $3800 more cash of my money per year. When the tax cuts expire, it will cost me $3800 per year. I cannot afford it! A household bringing in about $50K per year will lose $2500 - $3000 per year.
2) The earned income tax credit (EITC) was increased in both credit amounts and the yearly income up to $39K/yr. When Obama and the Dems expire the 2003 tax cuts, the EITC credit amount will shrink and only for those making in the high $20K/yr. These affects low income households severely. EITC http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=36
3) The child credit of $1000/child will go back to $500/child when Obama and the Dems allow the 2003 tax cuts to expire. This affects all incomes: low, middle, high.
4) The marriage penalty was eliminated with the 2003 tax cuts. When Obama and the Dems go back to the year 2000 tax codes, married couples will be paying higher taxes for being married. This affects all incomes: low, middle, high.
EXACTLY!
I agree with you.
McCain should announce support of the Fair Tax - the elimination of ALL federal income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. But I doubt he will do anything so bold. The entire federal income tax structure is a drain on productivity and kills incentive. A national sales tax would be fair and progressive, since those who have more income and more assets purchase more, and therefore would pay more sales taxes. It would provide everyone with an incentive to save and invest. The IRS as it now exists could be dismantled.
It seems to me that 99% of the public would like to be rid of federal income taxes.
Obama, of course, would never favor a national sales tax, because it would eliminate the opportunity for socialist tinkering, punishing “the rich” and playing Uncle Joe Stalin for the “poor”.
I occasionally get into a discussion on this, normally with a dimlib who says he’s tired of the “trickle-down hype,” and that he’s been trickled on enough. What I try to make them understand is that employers won’t do anything for you out of the goodness of their hearts; your part of the bargain is that you have to be an effective employee and worth your pay.
In the case of an employer who is unfair to you, however, it’s incumbent upon you to solve the problem, even if you have to find a better employer.
on a lighter noter: I enjoyed this:
This is how to understand how all sorts of economic systems work.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows; you give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRACY: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘cowkimon’ and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and execute the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have one. No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy....
WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.
AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate
A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The Government says you have to buy a licence to milk them, but first you have to do a risk assessment, which only the government Quango is allowed to carry out.
They charge you 5 times the cost of doing it. They find that the three legged stool is a risk under health and safety. You have to buy the EC approved 5 legged stool that is designed to support a milk maid of up to 250 kilos. It is too heavy to carry. The stool exceeds EC weight lifting limits for workers by 4 kilos, which just happens
to be the weight of the fifth leg. To shift the stool from one cow to the other you therefore need a special (EC approved) trolley. The new stool and trolley are so expensive that you have to mortgage one of the cows to pay for them and pay for the mandatory training course you must take to get your licence to milk the cows. You sell your
milk to the supermarket chain that pays you next to nothing for it, and then they sell it to their customers for four times what they paid you. Then they release a press statement about how wonderful they are to support British Cows. The rest of the world thinks your cows are mad but you and your cows know that it is not true and Anyway the rest of the world, have no intention of identifying and counting their mad cows so people in other countries don’t know their
cows are really, really barmy do they. You sell your cows to a Polish Migrant worker and your farm to a Russian ‘investment bank’ and then you leave to buy a villa by the sea in a country where it is sunny and the cost of milk is a tenth the cost of milk at home. They don’t have a National Health Service.......but you are so happy and relaxed
your health improves and you live to be a hundred.
There were a couple that I thought was in poor taste, but it was part of the whole link.
Obamaism: only the rich have cows so we take them away and cook them into beef pot pies and share them with everyone that doesn’t have pies then wonder where all the cows went.
well said USMC!
ping
The cows are all gone, because the Republicans were just not socialist enough this time around. Time for more partisanship.
LOL!
OBAMANOMICS: You have 2 cows. You are inspired by The Greatest Inaugural Address EVER. So you voluntarily give the first to The One so that He can spread the wealth to less fortunate Americans. You give the second to The One so that He can spread the wealth around the world. Because you are no longer guilt-ridden about using up more than their fair share of global resources, you feel proud to be an American again. Bereft of cows or milk, you die in The Greatest Depression that is ignited by the Obamessiah’s First 100 Days of higher taxes, overregulation and massive trade barriers. But you die with a smile on your face. In the aftermath of U.S. withdrawal of forces from Iraq and elsewhere throughout the globe, Islamofascism sweeps the planet. But global warming is averted as the abandonment of technology and return to simple agrarian economies quickly trims the planet’s population to under 1 billion. Al Gore dies with a smile on his face.
BINGO! The REAL taxpayers saw some relief. And as incomes increased, and profits, the lower tax rates actually resulted in HIGHER tax receipts by the Federal Government. While liberals just don’t understand that concept, some of us do “get it”.
Let see- let folks keep more of their money, it will get spent - in the case of the “wealthy” business owner - more money means more investment in the business including creation of new jobs. In theory, this leads to a more successful business - which means more income, which means more taxes paid and more jobs, etc.
For the “average consumer”, more money in our pockets means more money being spent (more sales taxes collected), and higher demand for products, which means increased need for production, which also feeds the businesses...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.