Tax Cuts Of The Wealthy, By The Wealthy, For The Wealthy

Bob Cesca cites the Wall Street Journal on letting the Bush tax cuts expire:

He writes:

It turns out that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will only hurt people earning more than $300,000 per year. And it appears as if keeping the Bush tax cuts in place would force people earning $60-150,000 to pay slightly more.

Oh those poor Tea Baggers. Pwned again by their corporate overlords. You silly, silly fools.

(h/t, Libby Spencer)


Filed under taxes

10 responses to “Tax Cuts Of The Wealthy, By The Wealthy, For The Wealthy

  1. >Even the Reaganites who foisted the BIG LIE of supply side economics have been speaking out against the abyssmal ignorance of tea baggers the flagrantly dishonest ass-hatery of current Repugnicants. for the chart. Very informative.Cheers!JzB

  2. Jim

    >Is this chart for letting all of the tax cuts expire or just the tax cuts for the "rich"? There are several provisions Bush passed that affected the lower income earners such as doubling the child tax credit which would expire if all of the tax cuts were gone.To me that this chart shows that about 50% of the public earners pay no federal income tax (median income in 2006 was just less than $50,000). Why should these people not pay their fair share of taxes?

  3. >Because one income earner with three dependents (spouse & 2 children) is considered poverty wages?Of course Jim is hating on the poor and wanting to know why they don't pay their "fair" share. I am more concerned with why a couple earning over $1 million a year shouldn't pay an extra $50G in taxes. I guess it depends on what you consider "fair."Jim needs to read that Financial Times piece on the folks who live paycheck to paycheck and nearly had their house repossessed, despite earning $70,000 a year. Some folks just have NO clue what people are dealing with these days.

  4. >ALSO to answer your first question the chart says "Bush era tax policies." So take that for what it says or put on your big boy pants and follow the linky-links to the Wall Street Journal and find out for yourself.:-)

  5. JB

    >The chart shows Bush tax policy and Obama's "Proposed" tax policy. If Bush's tax cuts just expired without any changes tax rates would rise accross all brackets.the 10% bracket goes away raising the lowest tax rate to 15%. 25% goes to 28%28% goes to 31%33% goes to 36%35% goes to 39.6%Under Obama's proposed policy only the top two brackets will go up ostensibly. But if the Bush tax cuts were to expire without any extensions on specifc rates, everyones who pays taxes would see a tax increase.

  6. Jim

    >Ok, the "Bush era tax policy" cut taxes for everyone. If you let them all expire than you are looking at raising taxes for everyone. That would be fine with me as everyone should pay more if you expect to raise taxes – that would be fair. The chart also shows "Obama proposed tax policies" but the article did not state what his proposed tax policies were and these are not in any laws passed to date. We do know that he has changed his tune on Obamacare and will legally defend it as a tax so that he can show the government has the authority to tax the people by making them purhase insurance. I think that breaks his promise of not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000.Lets say the couple making 1 million pays an extra $50,000 in taxes. That is money taken out of the economy. That is $50,000 that is not being invested in at least a bank that can be loaned out for other people or invested directly into a business to grow the economy. Government spending cannot go on forever to keep the economy running and growing. The more the government spends to stimulate the economy, the more it has to take out of the economy in the form of taxes. Taxes that people like you feel should be paid by the "rich" which are the same people we expect to grow their businesses and hire more people while you take more money away from them.

  7. > If you let them all expire than you are looking at raising taxes for everyone.Um, no. That's the point of the chart, hon. That's why they are called "tax cuts for the rich."Even my accountant told me the Bush tax cuts really only benefited the rich and he should know.

  8. >Southern Beale:Apparently Jim did not read or could not comprehend the last sentence of your post.

  9. Jim

    >Are you arguing that the Bush tax cuts did not include reductions in every tax bracket? If you let them all repeal, then everyone would pay higher taxes. The chart claim to compare Bush tax policy to Obama proposed tax policy yet Obama has not proposed any tax policy that I know of. There is no bill pending his signature that would incorporate his new tax policy and unless something is passed, his tax policy will be to increase taxes on everyone starting in 2011.

  10. >Obama's plan is to extend the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year, which is most everyone, and repeal those for people making more than that, which is the upper 2%.Bush signed the first round of tax cuts, $1.35 trillion worth, in June 2001. If tax cuts were such great job creators how come March 1 2001-Secember 2007 "registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. "Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty."If tax cuts and deregulation sprinkled magic fairy dust all over the economy how come we're in this mess?