Concerning Bush's tax cuts, who out there realizes that they're just designed for the wealthy...no one else?

Question

Concerning Bush's tax cuts, who out there realizes that they're just designed for the wealthy...no one else?

Answer 1

Before making a statement like that, you should get your facts straight and start by staying off the liberal and far left websites and try some non-partisan sources. Here are the facts:

The Bush tax relief that played such an integral role in our emergence from the last recession and in our admirable growth for over six years will expire at the end of 2010. That event, if allowed to occur, will represent the largest tax increase in American history — as much as $2 trillion over 10 years by some estimates. This compares with the Clinton tax increase that was scored at $240 billion over five years.

But first, any honest discussion on taxes must begin with an honest examination of who pays. For 2005, the most recent year for which information is available, IRS data indicate that taxpayers with an adjusted gross income in the top 25 percent of the population bore 86 percent of the federal income tax burden. If you expand it to the top 50 percent, the number jumps to 97 percent. In other words, the bottom half of the country pays a paltry 3 percent of the country's taxes. This proves, in part, the steep progressivity of the income tax system.

But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, let’s go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden

The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: “A four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.”

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

The last thing an uncertain U.S. economy needs is a large tax increase. For businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, a tax increase during a soft economy could push many companies into bankruptcy. Don’t take our word for it. On May 1, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) asked Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), on the House floor, for the rationale behind forgoing House pay-go rules for the stimulus package. In his response Rep. Hoyer said: “ … we felt, in terms of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same time.”

The U.S. Chamber believes that it is never a good time to depress the economy. America needs pro-growth tax policies that provide fairness in the global marketplace for our businesses, workers and families. The Chamber opposes tax increases that take money away from consumers and businesses that could have been invested in new products, equipment, and jobs.

America faces many challenges, and the Chamber understands that solutions can cost money. Giving Congress a blank check drawn from your bank account is not the answer. The answer is to have a broader discussion about fundamental tax reform, entitlement reform, health care reform, increasingly urgent infrastructure needs and energy policy. Before adding further tax burdens, Congress has a duty to spend the money already collected wisely.

Answer 2

How many poor people have ever hired you to work for them?

When the wealthy make more money they expand their businesses and provide more jobs to the rest of us.

Answer 3

Everybody got the tax break. Just like the rich pay more taxes when taxes go up they got the biggest break when they went down. What's more fair?

Are you saying poor people deserve not to pay taxes because they're poor?

Answer 4

No, you are incorrect. Tax cuts are good for everyone including the poor.

Did John F. Kennedy only cut taxes for the rich?

Answer 5

I realize it - Bush disproportionately reduced taxes on the rich, so that they now pay less of the total. With all the facts and opinions given in the answers above, they conveniently leave out that simple truth. The rich now pay less of the total, and when you look at the increases in our national debt and trade deficit, it has obviously been at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

Answer 6

That couldn't be further from the truth. WHOEVER has money in the stock market is benefiting from the bush tax cuts. The capital gains rate before the tax cuts was at 29% i believe. Currently it's at 15%. By letting the capital gains rate go back to it's previous point, it will have a very damaging effect on an already shaky economy.