Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Report

[Sojc]

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said.

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.

The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5966706

The question is, for the middle class does the $1000 saved in taxes cover for the rising costs of health insurace, college education, gas, etc. How much more could the middle class save if the rich only recieved a $40,000 tax cut instead of a $80,000 tax cut.

PS, just because I may critisize this administration does not mean I am pro-Kerry. It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man (Bush and Kerry) to enter the kindom heaven.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Sojc

[Shelby]

I think when it comes to money, no one is going to be unscathed. There will always be someone not getting a good enough deal. Bush does not create these things out of thin air. He has wise counsel and I am sure prayerfully considers all those who will be affected. Since Sept. 11 this economy has been so unstable, no one should be held accountable for the finances of our country. We will bounce back, we always do.

[Guest yod]

the first thing I see in this report is that it is the Congressional budget office and it's being released in time to effect the election.

The only bad thing in the report is that (supposedly) those who make between 56k and 75 are paying more taxes? My guess is that they make that up in what they have to spend on an accountant. Not to mention the time and hassle of collecting documents.

ANYTHING we can do to get rid of the present system is a positive. The system we have now is soooo confusing that even the IRS can't understand it.

I don't care how much a rich person pays as long as we are all paying the same share. THAT is fair....and I wouldn't mind being rich someday.

To complain because someone else isn't paying "enough" though they are paying way more than anyone else seems covetous to me.

Under the current system of confusing reductions and deductions, those with the money to afford tax lawyers and CPAs will always find a legal loophole and pay practically nothing. They find a way to put their tax "debt" into investments which make them more money and goes into new investments next year.

The sales tax idea is the best one I've heard yet. There is no getting around it for anyone and it doesn't take an accountant/CPA to figure it out.

What I resented the most as an employer was collecting taxes from my employees for the IRS. If ALL Americans had to send a check to the IRS everyweek instead of having it deducted before they see their money, there WOULD be a revolution.

:x:

[Sojc]

Cutting taxes is good, but there are tax gets that help the economy(any tax cut), and there are tax cuts that help the economy and greatly directly benefits the majority of people (tax cuts for the middle and lower class). Many people here think socialism is evil. Did not Jesus and the early church preach socialism and had christians living in a very socialist way? Getting only the church to help the poor is inherently unfair since church distribution is never equal across all areas.

What also is needed is a reduction of government spending. Bush is decieving people when he says he stands for a smaller government. Even without defense spending government spending has boomed under Bush. Budget deficits should never be tolerated and the current administration always seems to dodge the issue of the deficit because it hurts their re-election hopes. Ignorance is not bliss. All these americans who boast of a growing economy are ignoring that deficits counters a good economy. How is the deficit going to factor in the future? The children will have to pay for it. Near end times global chaos ensues and America's economy will most likely be weakened, how much will future americans curse at current government spending when future americans will have to pay for it? Be prepared for the prospect of being bankrupt when you are retired.

What is more justified? Cutting taxes of the top 1 percent so they can afford another Porsche?, or cutting taxes of the middle and lower class so they can afford good Healthcare and send their children to good universities? I say healthier and more educated people will help more in the long term than more Porsches on the road.

I have conservatve moral values but centrist economic values (it's interesting that the original chirstians were christian communists). I would have voted for Nixon, probably for Reagan, maybe for Bush Sr., definitely not for Bush Jr.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Sojc

[One Way]

Let me ask you this. If 5% of the people in the nation pay upwards of 50% of the taxes, don't you think a tax-cut would "disproportionately help the rich?" I mean, they are paying all the taxes!

[Sojc]

Let me ask you this. If 5% of the people in the nation pay upwards of 50% of the taxes, don't you think a tax-cut would "disproportionately help the rich?" I mean, they are paying all the taxes!

Its not as if the top 5% control 5% of america's wealth!

The reason they pay all the taxes is that they have all the money!

First, in the 1970's the top 1% of American households controlled 20% of the nation's wealth. In the late 1990's, the top 1% of American households controls over 40% of the nation's wealth.

Conversely, the wealthiest 1% now owns more wealth than the entire bottom 95% combined.

So that means the bottom 95% should not pay for more than 50% of the taxes. The top 5% should pay for at least 50% of the taxes. Thats is justice!

Edited August 13, 2004 by Sojc

[Guest yod]

Did not Jesus and the early church preach socialism and had christians living in a very socialist way?

Jesus did NOT preach socialism.

The early church did become a commune after His ascension....and it was an utter disaster!!!

That is exactly why the Apostle Paul had to take up a collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem in Romans 16.

btw...the rich can have another Porsche. The only effect it has on me is GOOD

This is money that goes back into our economy and keeps the folks at the Porsche dealership employed and off of Welfare.

Why are you so concerned about what someone else haves or gets? The word is "covetous"

I never got a job from a poor man.

[One Way]

Its not as if the top 5% control 5% of america's wealth!

The reason they pay all the taxes is that they have all the money!

That's because they earned it! Novel concept, I know.

Conversely, the wealthiest 1% now owns more wealth than the entire bottom 95% combined.

Sounds like we have a whole generation of slackers!

So that means the bottom 95% should only pay for 50% of the taxes. The top 5% should pay for 50% of the taxes. Thats is justice!

Ummm, no. That's called "wealth redistribution" as is according to Karl Marx's ideology.

"From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." That's called socialism/communism.

Let me ask you this. Is it justice to those who are actually out there being diligent and earning the money? No, it isn't. It's only "justice" to those in the welfare lines and on the Wal-Mart payrolls.

[One Way]

I never got a job from a poor man.

Great point!

Maybe he'd cut his welfare check with you if you waited in line for him.

[Guest yod]

So that means the bottom 95% should not pay for more than 50% of the taxes. The top 5% should pay for at least 50% of the taxes. Thats is justice!

justice would be an equal tax paid on all transactions.

But I can see how that ultimately brings a "mark" whereby all goods bought and sold have to be accounted for. It's coming either way....