Surprise Surprise, Study: Bush tax cuts making rich richer

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Study: Bush tax cuts making rich richer
Report: The wealthiest Americans are reaping huge gains from reduced taxes on investment income.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - President Bush's tax cuts for investment income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

The Times analyzed IRS figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

According to the study, taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million reduced their investment tax bill by an average of about $500,000 in 2003, and their total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.

The newspaper's tax cut analysis showed that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

And the savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.
When will you be a millionaire? Click here ...

Congress is now debating whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.

Opponents told the newspaper the cuts are too generous to those who already have plenty. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when "we're in a war; we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare; we've got record deficits."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm



I dont think is really surprising to anyone, being that we have a war that is costing hundreds of billions, yet we let these rich folk get away with paying less every year. I know we will have the trickle down folk trying to blow smoke up our asses, but people like to hold on to money and not spend it on things that make money for the not as rich.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']As it should be.[/quote]

No, the government simply shouldn't be taxing be taxing people this much in the first place.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Sounds good to me. Any tax cut is a good tax cut.[/quote]
Not when we owe several trillion dollars it's not.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Sounds good to me. Any tax cut is a good tax cut.[/quote]

You need to step up your trolling game. Why don't you go back and read some of PAD's earlier posts to see some good trolls.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Sounds good to me. Any tax cut is a good tax cut.[/QUOTE]

Because it helps spurn growth, from which we gain greater tax revenue, right?



Link to source data: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

Pay attention to 1980 through today, and see how the mighty deficits change. Our per annum deficits are currently larger than the entirety of the national debt at the beginning of the 1970's.

We had five years of positive growth at the hands of Clinton; it's not his fault entirely, as I think that having a Republican congress easily prevented him from implementing measures that would have easily eradicated that surplus. Nevertheless, take one look at this table: I *dare* you to defend supply-side economics.

The revenues column, on the other hand, ought to make zionoverfire weep or punch a fuckin' wall. That our annual revenues are 200 times the size they were 40 years ago is truly absurd. The only thing more absurd than that? Blaming it exclusively on one political party. Sorry, kids, but "fiscal conservatism" is even more dead and buried than Goldwater.

EDIT: Actually, the "Debt Held by the Public" column is misleading, as it accounts for annual deficits *after* taking out annual surpluses from social security revenue. The "On Budget" column is more straightforward in regards to how much more we spend than we take in as a government. It also reduces Clinton's years of surplus to two, with one of them being a paltry sum (relatively speaking, of course).
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] I *dare* you to defend supply-side economics.[/QUOTE]

So 2005 revenues are higher than any point in hisotry but that means nothing. Including the Clinton "boom" years.

Spending is $700 billion higher in the last 5 years but that means nothing.

Looks to me like it works just like it's supposed to. As usual Congress can't help but outspend the money it takes in.

It's not the theory that's flawed. It's the spending that's flawed.

Remember kids, it's all about the entitlements.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Remember kids, it's all about the entitlements.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if you consider wars of aggression entitlements.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The revenues column, on the other hand, ought to make zionoverfire weep or punch a fuckin' wall. That our annual revenues are 200 times the size they were 40 years ago is truly absurd. The only thing more absurd than that? Blaming it exclusively on one political party. Sorry, kids, but "fiscal conservatism" is even more dead and buried than Goldwater.[/QUOTE]

Well said. How the hell can our revenues increase 200x in 40 years yet we have record deficits? I guess it's a one-word answer: Congress.
 
The capital gains tax cut has increased the revenue into the treasury.

It seems to me that encouraging investment adds value to the stockmarket by creating faith in the economy. Investors who have faith are more likely to invest. Business owners are more likely to take a risks and grow their businesses. Unemployment is at a 30 year low right now, but I guess focusing on hating rich people is more politically practical than having faith in the american investor and consumer.
 
Any tax cut is a good tax cut. The less of my money gov't house is stealing and misappropriating- the better.

And I believe it's quite clear that the real budget problem isn't the incoming money to the federal gov't. It's the outgoing expenses. Most of that is due to nearly every Americans' incessant efforts to get something for themselves at the cost of their fellow Americans. That's why they keep re-electing these irresponsible, unconstitutional thieves to office in Congress.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I hear a lot of wealth envy in here, is everyone okay?[/QUOTE]

Of course you do. If it wasn't for the politics of envy, the democrats would only have half a platform.
 
bread's done
Back
Top