Burnt Orange Report

Remember also that 50 million families saw no tax cut at all

Talk about disingenous! There was no "tax cut". There was a "tax refund". That's why rich people got more. Because rich people, bless 'em, pay an overwhelming majority of the income tax in this country. You can't get taxes back if you never paid them in the first place.

Okay, so why can't Bush just nut up and say that? He has to play it off as some kind of middle and working class salvation rather than a giveaway to the wealthy. I follow your logic, though I disagree with it, but Bush doesn't say "Hey, rich folks pay lots of taxes, middle class folks don't so I'm giving money back to rich folks and nothing to the middle class." he says "Lookie Here! We got a $1,900 tax cut for the average American family!" That's disingenuous.

Andrew D,

It is kind of hard to fault someone for not giving a tax cut to people who don't pay any taxes, and the majority of those 50 million you cite got no tax cut for just that reason.

Sherk

I think that we've ignored the point here guys- whether or not those 50 million people deserved tax cuts, next to no middle or working class families got anywhere near $1,900 from the Bush Tax Cut. The typical American family recieved about $18 a month, hardly enough to put even a dent in most people's financial needs. A majority of Americans recieved less than $8 a month. When Republicans and the Club for Growth say that Howard Dean is raising the average family's taxes by $1,900 they are misleading people- the average family will pay almost no more taxes and with the relief to states we could see actually lower taxes in a Dean administration.

I am amazed by the constant tax cut references. GET REAL! You didn't get a tax cut from Bush you just got a loan with interest. You get to pay it back with an enormous interest rate when the deficit gets paid down in the future. Let's just call it the current administration's big credit card where they buy things for the special interests and you get to pay it off.

Andrew D, et. al,

Well, first it was pretty clearly a tax cut. Whether or not it gets paid back in some other form, tax rates are still lower, so semantically, that's not an issue. Also, that critique assumes huge deficits have no effect at all on restraining spending, which Bush appears to be trying to prove, but is not necessarily true for all time.

Now, Andrew, lets review the actually fairly substantial tax cuts that lower and middle income American's recieved. The $1900 figure isn't a statistical construct here, as you suggest.

1) The tax rate on the first $12K of taxable income went from 15% to 10%. That is $600 a year in savings for everyone with $12K of taxable income. Like I said before, not everyone has $12K in taxable income, but every poor/middle class American who does gets a big boost here.

2) Doubling the child tax credit to $1000. Thanks to Bush, you now save another $500 in taxes for each kid. I actually don't get the economics of why you want this tax cut as oppossed to others, the growth effect for the economy is small, but this benefits lower and middle income Americans. Actually, it is phased out, so the financially successful don't get the credit at all. So every poor/middle class family with a tax liability and kids benefits. If you have two to three kids, and enough liability, you save $1000 to $1500 more, thanks to W. Not exactly small potatoes.

3) Marriage Penalty Repeal. Are both parents working in a family? If so, they probably save money by filing separately on their tax returns, and this Bush tax cut goes straight to them. Single income families, ie. tradtional, stay at home Moms, don't benefit at all from this reform, either, by the way.

4) Capital gains: Large numbers of Americans, even the poor, now own stocks. Granted, the financially successful own a lot more than the poor do, but the poor/middle class still benefit from cutting the capital gains tax to 15%. Actually, their tax rate fell to 5%, I believe.

Now, Andrew, not everyone gets these tax cuts. Like I said, if you owe no taxes, you recieve no benefit from a tax cut. Also, the child tax credit and the marriage penalty repeal are focused on parents/families, so singles without dependents (like myself, for example) get nothing from them. The point, however, is that lower and middle income Americans have recieved substantial savings from the Bush tax cuts, not just those who have earned a six or seven figure salary. The $1,900 figure isn't far off the mark for many "average" families, particularly those with children. It isn't just the $18 a month you claim.

Sherk

Sherk, not only is your logic flawed, you don't even get your facts right!

It is kind of hard to fault someone for not giving a tax cut to people who don't pay any taxes, and the majority of those 50 million you cite got no tax cut for just that reason.

You are saying that the majority of 50 million (i.e., at least 25 million) people in this country pay no taxes at all. That's ridiculous. Even if the pay no Federal income tax, they still pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare if they work for wages, they pay sales taxes if they buy things, they pay property taxes if they own real estate, and so forth. And they pay a higher percentage of their income for these taxes than those of us further up the income ladder, so it's kind of hard to argue that these people don't deserve anything back.

1) The tax rate on the first $12K of taxable income went from 15% to 10%. That is $600 a year in savings for everyone with $12K of taxable income.

That $12K is per couple, not per individual; the maximum tax cut under this provision is $300 per person, not $600. Come on, it isn't that hard to get these things right.

Oh, and just to give credit where it's due, that provision was a Democratic idea from the House Progressive Caucus. It wasn't in Bush's original tax cut plan.

Thanks to Bush, you now save another $500 in taxes for each kid.

Except you don't, unless you'd otherwise owe at least $1000 tax for each child! And if you'd owe less than $500 per child without the credit, this change doesn't help you at all. This is a "non-refundable" credit, which means it can only be applied against your Federal income tax, not your Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc. Like the previous provision, this cut directs the least help to the people who need it most.

Large numbers of Americans, even the poor, now own stocks. Granted, the financially successful own a lot more than the poor do, but the poor/middle class still benefit from cutting the capital gains tax to 15%.

Wrong again. Capital gains cuts only help people who hold stocks outside of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The few stocks owned by the poor and middle class are almost entirely held in IRAs and 401(k)'s, which are taxed at full value, at the full income tax rate, on withdrawal. The capital gains cut and the dividends tax repeal don't affect these accounts at all.

Once you look at the facts, it's obvious that $1,900 cut for the "average" family is nothing more than another Repug fantasy.

Mathwiz,

You da bomb!

http://www.bildmitteilung.us bildmitteilung