06-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Re: Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha
This is somewhat of an off-topic bump, but I thought I'd dispell the notion that the Bush tax cuts are regressive.
Here's an excerpt from a politico op-ed
. But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, letís go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: ďA four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.Ē More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.
So when Obama talks about repealing the Bush tax cuts, he's actually proposing to make the tax system less progressive.