Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And please notice the image I have attached, showing our deficit without the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Obviously, those who pay more in taxes get more back. But it still was tax cuts for those who pay taxes, therefore, it was not a "tax cut for the wealthy," meaning it was ONLY for the wealthy.
The deficit is not caused by tax cuts; it is caused by overspending.
And if Bush's two tax cuts were not passed, the wealthy would have been paying less in taxes like they were during the Clinton era...
Percent of taxes paid:
---------------- 1999--- 2006---- 2007
Top 1%--------- 36.18%- 39.89-- 40.42
Top 5%--------- 55.45--- 60.14-- 60.63
Top 10%-------- 66.45--- 70.79-- 71.22
Bottom 50%----- 4.00---- 2.99--- 2.89
Obviously, those who pay more in taxes get more back. But it still was tax cuts for those who pay taxes, therefore, it was not a "tax cut for the wealthy," meaning it was ONLY for the wealthy.
Fine, it was heavily weighted in favor of the wealthy.
But the middle class did get a tiny tax cut also.
Happy now?
Quote:
The deficit is not caused by tax cuts; it is caused by overspending.
You couldn't be more wrong.
We borrowed money to pay for those tax cuts.
As I said, the wealthy pay more in taxes so naturally, they get more back!
And the middle class got more than a "tiny tax cut."
I quoted some actual figures and provided a link a few posts back.
You may have missed it.
The top 0.2% got 15.8% of the tax cuts.
The middle class got 20 dollars.
Quote:
It appears you are the one who is wrong. The tax cuts increased government revenue.
Decreasing capital gains tax can do that, in the short term.
In the long term, we lose.
Now the right is complaining about the budget, not remembering that their tax cuts COST $1.3 TRILLION
MMA costs half a trillion, and big pharma has been the beneficiary.
Judge those two things by Bush vs these two things which will cost roughly the same.
Obama: Health Reform (roughly 900 billion) + the Stimulus (787 billion)
vs
Bush: Tax cuts for the wealthy (1,300 billion) + MMA (500 billion)
I quoted some actual figures and provided a link a few posts back.
You may have missed it.
The top 0.2% got 15.8% of the tax cuts.
The middle class got 20 dollars.
Decreasing capital gains tax can do that, in the short term.
In the long term, we lose.
Now the right is complaining about the budget, not remembering that their tax cuts COST $1.3 TRILLION
MMA costs half a trillion, and big pharma has been the beneficiary.
Judge those two things by Bush vs these two things which will cost roughly the same.
Obama: Health Reform (roughly 900 billion) + the Stimulus (787 billion)
vs
Bush: Tax cuts for the wealthy (1,300 billion) + MMA (500 billion)
Point #1: The Bush tax cuts caused the wealthy to pay more in taxes (by percent) so what are you complaining about?
Point #2. How could the tax cuts "cost" $1.3 billion when government revenue increased due to the tax cuts?
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Quote:
Decreasing capital gains tax can do that, in the short term.
In the long term, we lose.
Now the right is complaining about the budget, not remembering that their tax cuts COST $1.3 TRILLION
MMA costs half a trillion, and big pharma has been the beneficiary.
Judge those two things by Bush vs these two things which will cost roughly the same.
Obama: Health Reform (roughly 900 billion) + the Stimulus (787 billion)
vs
Bush: Tax cuts for the wealthy (1,300 billion) + MMA (500 billion)
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% to 15% and 5%. Rather than expand by 36% from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006, the capital gains revenue more than doubled to $103 billion.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% to 15% and 5%. Rather than expand by 36% from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006, the capital gains revenue more than doubled to $103 billion.
You are wrong all around, both posts.
I'll try to deal with this one piece before I pass out.
Point #1: The Bush tax cuts caused the wealthy to pay more in taxes (by percent) so what are you complaining about?
Read the stuff I've already posted.
Look at some links with specifics.
Ponder why the income gap is larger than its been in decades.
Quote:
Point #2. How could the tax cuts "cost" $1.3 billion when government revenue increased due to the tax cuts?
Because we were already deficit spending.
Bush borrowed money we didn't have to give tax cuts that we are continuing to pay for with interest on the debt.
Less tax revenue, but the same spending (plus wars and mma).
Go to google and search for "what caused the deficit"
Results will talk about Bush's policies (a big part is the tax cuts we borrowed money for, the wars and medicare modernization act), both recessions (2000, 2008) and Obama's policies (stimulus primarily).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
