PDA

View Full Version : New Report Proves Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy



Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 12:11 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 11:13 AM EDT
Who benefits from Bush’s tax cuts?
A new report breaks down how extending the Bush tax cuts will help the 1 percent in swing states.
By Alex Seitz-Wald
</span>

One of the key policy issues Congress will have to deal with in this election year is how to head off the looming “fiscal cliff” — the expiration of a number of key economic policies in January, including the Bush tax cuts. President Obama and congressional Democrats wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for just middle- and working-class Americans, and let the breaks for the wealthy expire (though there’s some disagreement about where to draw that line). Congressional Republicans want to keep the whole lot.

So how many people would actually benefit from preserving the top-tier cuts? Just 1.9 percent of Americans, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Center for Tax Justice, which also broke down the impact of the policy on a state-by-state basis. In 22 states, even fewer people, just 1.5 percent — would lose some tax benefits. Under the Republican approach, about 32 percent of the overall tax benefits would go to the top 1 percent of Americans, and nearly half would go to the top five percent. Under Obama’s approach, which would preserve the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year, those numbers are just 11.4 percent and 30.8 percent, respectively. And despite their talk of deficit control, the Republicans’ plan would cost almost $1 trillion more than Obama’s over ten years.

Given that this is an election year, how might these different policies play out in key swing states? In Ohio, under the GOP plan, the rich would get a bigger tax break and the poor would get a smaller one than under Obama’s approach. Taxes for the top 1 percent of Ohioans would be cut by $49,550 on average per year under the GOP plan, and by just $19,870 on average under Obama’s approach — a difference of almost $30,000. But the reverse is true for lower-income brackets. The poorest fifth of Ohio residents would see just $70 in savings under the GOP plan, but $210 in savings under Obama’s plan.

The effect is even bigger in Florida, where the richest 1 percent would save an additional $78,800 a year on average under the GOP plan, while, the poorest fifth of the state’s residents would pay $210 more than under Obama’s plan. In Virginia, the top 1 percent would save an extra $52,720 a year on average under the GOP plan, while the bottom fifth would pay a $120 more than under Obama’s plan. In Colorado, the ` percent would save $67,080 and the poor would pay $160 more. In North Carolina, those figures would be $32,060 and $180. And in Pennsylvania, $47,630 and $100. The pattern holds true in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Missouri and every other state.

The results are perhaps not too surprising for anyone who has been following the Bush tax debate, but they underscore the parties’ competing visions for the economy. And the numbers could be fodder for Democrats who have been trying to paint the GOP and its presumed presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as out of touch and only interested in helping the wealthy. (Romney has called for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and his own tax plan would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, including himself.)

Yesterday, Senate Democrats released a report showing that the House Republican budget authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would slash taxes on the wealthy and raise rates on the middle-class. The findings were confirmed by outside analysts. Ryan’s budget probably has little hope of becoming law as long as Democrats control the Senate and White House. On the other hand, it’s very possible that all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest Americans, will be extended before they expire at the end of the year.


http://www.salon.com/2012/06/21/who_benefits_from_bushs_tax_cuts/

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 04:25 AM
Bringing this back up after reading Mitch the crook's totally bull**** claims about the Bush Tax Cuts.

G.

hondo
06-24-2012, 10:47 PM
The silence from the right is deafening!
Come on, Larry Wilson. Surely you can spin this?

Qtec
06-25-2012, 01:11 AM
No kidding! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
06-25-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who benefits from Bush’s tax cuts?
A new report breaks down how extending the Bush tax cuts will help the 1 percent in swing states. </div></div>In the short term, I don't disagree. It is hard to benefit a non-taxpayer with a tax cut. The 1% pay the most so it makes sense they will see a benefit. It is what they do with that money which will decide whether anyone else benefits. If they use it to increase their business, spend it, etc then those benefits flow down hill. If all they do is hoard it and send it overseas (and I would not doubt some will) then the benefit downhill stops.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who benefits from Bush’s tax cuts?
A new report breaks down how extending the Bush tax cuts will help the 1 percent in swing states. </div></div>In the short term, I don't disagree. It is hard to benefit a non-taxpayer with a tax cut. The 1% pay the most so it makes sense they will see a benefit. It is what they do with that money which will decide whether anyone else benefits. If they use it to increase their business, spend it, etc then those benefits flow down hill. If all they do is hoard it and send it overseas (and I would not doubt some will) then the benefit downhill stops.

eg8r </div></div>

Everyone pays taxes. Bush, and the Republicans tax policies most benefit the wealthiest.

Clearly, it has not benefitted the econnomy, on the broad scale, in the short, nor in the long range.

If Trickle down economics worked, we wouldn't have seen this Depression Era like, vast and growing inequality, between the top one percent, and the rest.

The top one percent are not Job Creators.

A society where more and more wealth, is hoarded by only those at the top of the scale, cannot survive economically.

We have to have enough consumers to have a health, vibrant economy.

Most of the top one percent, are not job creators.

They don't spend enough money, to keep our country thriving.

They are not Job producers, they are money hoarders.

The Bush Tax cuts have played a huge role in our economic inequality, and our suffering economy, and have very negatively impacted the Middle Class, which have been sold out by unpatriotic Corporations, who don't give a damn about what they have done to their own country.

People just like Mitt Romney, who outsource American Jobs, buying up companies, only to drain them financially, fire American workers, bankrupting their companies, dropping them from their health care plans, doing away with their retirement packages, which they worked for, and paid into, all in order to fill up his own pockets, are the kind of people who helped to destroy the Middle Class in this country, and the entire industrial base.

After doing that, they certainly do not deserve more tax cuts, and more subsidies.

G.

eg8r
06-25-2012, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone pays taxes. Bush, and the Republicans tax policies most benefit the wealthiest.</div></div>This half truth is only proposed when a lefty is backed into a corner knowing full well these types of discussions surround income tax and not normal sales tax or the occasional property tax, etc.

As far as your comment about jobs producers, it is absolutely impossible to have a tax cut benefit any group of taxpayers below the top 1%. The top 1% have income taxed at the lower levels and will take advantage of any tax cut proposed. The only way to impact them is to "dumb" down the tax code. Remove loop hole that allow them to get away with hoarding the money. I have never had a problem with this route because it also eliminates waste and inefficiencies that government employees can hide behind to keep their jobs and cost us more money than is needed.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 05:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone pays taxes. Bush, and the Republicans tax policies most benefit the wealthiest.</div></div>This half truth is only proposed when a lefty is backed into a corner knowing full well these types of discussions surround income tax and not normal sales tax or the occasional property tax, etc.

As far as your comment about jobs producers, it is absolutely impossible to have a tax cut benefit any group of taxpayers below the top 1%. The top 1% have income taxed at the lower levels and will take advantage of any tax cut proposed. The only way to impact them is to "dumb" down the tax code. Remove loop hole that allow them to get away with hoarding the money. I have never had a problem with this route because it also eliminates waste and inefficiencies that government employees can hide behind to keep their jobs and cost us more money than is needed.

eg8r </div></div>

Everyone who works, pays payroll taxes, and pays into Social Security and Medicare.

My reading tells me that the DOD, and the Pentagon, absorb and waste more money than all of the social insurance programs, combined.

As far as Government employees go, the first thing we should do is cut defense spending.

We need to throw all of the war profiteering defense contractors out of work, not teachers, policemen and firemen, who actually do protect our citizens, answer our calls when emergencies arise, and educate our children.

Defense spending is where all of the corruption, cronyism and waste is exhorbitant.

Eisenhower figured it out long ago.

G.

eg8r
06-26-2012, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone who works, pays payroll taxes, and pays into Social Security and Medicare.</div></div>LOL and all those payroll taxes get sent back to them when they do their taxes. They don't pay any. I personally do not include SS or medicare because we all pay the same rate. Don't you think payroll taxes should be paid at the same rate across Americans since you want to lump them in together with SS and medicare?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 10:05 AM
I personally do not include SS or medicare because we all pay the same rate. Don't you think payroll taxes should be paid at the same rate across Americans since you want to lump them in together with SS and medicare?

The Medicare part of the payroll tax at 1.45% is paid at the same rate for all earned income in recent years, after its cap was removed.

But the SS part at a nominal 6.2% (12.4% considering the employer match, or individually, for self-employed filers) is capped off to apply only to the first $100,000 (roughly).

So the effective rate at a $200,000 earned income rate is only 3.1% (as it does not apply at all to the second $100,000). It continues to decline as an effective rate on earned income as that income total increases.

If you advocate that all earned income should be taxed at the same rate for all the payroll tax, I suggest you first realize it is not done that way now. It would be a good idea, either to tax all of it that way, or at least to substantially increase the cap number. It's always mentioned as one of the ways to improve the actuarial balance of the SS system.

The original cap level was set to apply to approx. 90% of earned income. Even as it's been increased over time from the Greenspan/Reagan payroll tax deal, it now applies to only about 70% of earned income. Returning its reach to apply to at least 90% of earned income as was the case originally would be a welcome reform, if not applying it to all earned income.

eg8r
06-26-2012, 12:50 PM
I have no problem applying to all earned income. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r