Please explain the justification for the Bush tax cuts

The person making $25K has it hard, no doubt. Taxes are least of that persons problem and many who make that much pay no income tax. Self employed people making that much, or should I say little, get screwed.

The solution isn't "tax the rich more", they can almost always find a strategy to minimize their taxes. The problem isn't that we are over or under-taxed it's that our local, State and Federal Governments spend and waste far too much of OUR MONEY. You say the person who doesn't have that extra 3-4% more won't buy that new carpet or clothes or some other non-essential. What do you think happens to the carpet factory and it's employees that doesn't have the orders?? The top 25% (people making $75,000 or more) of wage earners in the U.S. paid 85% of the income taxes.......how much more do you want them to pay?

If you think the rich are getting rich due to the tax code, then you are clueless. They get rich inspite of the tax code.

reply to post by pavil


Good estimate but we have a handicapped child and a few other deductions............I paid less in taxes than my cleaning lady. We compared notes.

reply to post by ofhumandescent



You did not. You paid more in taxes and THEN got much more back in deductions resulting a larger refund than your housekeeper. Like I said, you get to use the tax system more to your advantage than her, but the major difference is in the deductions and credits, not the Bush Tax cuts. Your situation is unique with your kid, you might have other deductions and credits that you are unaware of.

Not to open a can of worms, but probably you should have been paying payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) for your housekeeper if you paid her more than $1,700 and dictated when she did the work. I know, you will probably say she is an independent contractor, but in many situations the IRS will not side with you on that.
Did you file a Schedule H?

IM me if you want a further explanation.

reply to post by pavil


Then we need a percentage tax system based solely on what you earn with NO LOOP HOLES.

Democrats are warning that if the GOP uses a scheduled September vote in the Senate to try to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich that are set to expire, it will pay the consequences in the elections.

"If you can't get it out of the Senate, then you take it to the election," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D., Md., told the Wall Street Journal today, July 26.

"You say to the American people that Republicans want to continue to hold middle-class tax relief hostage for an extension of tax breaks for the rich. That will be the debate."

Even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, not particularly known for taking an aggressive approach to eliminating the privileges of the well-to-do, is pushing for an end to the Bush tax cuts.

In two different TV news appearances this weekend, Geithner said that allowing tax cuts to expire for those who make $250,000 a year or more would affect only two to three percent of all Americans.

He dismissed concerns that such a move could push the economy back into deeper recession and argued that it would demonstrate America's commitment to addressing its trillion-dollar-budget deficit."

Progressives have attacked Republicans for holding up an extension of jobless benefits that costs $35 billion while supporting a tax cut for the rich that adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit each year.

The revenue from ending the Bush tax cuts could alleviate pressure the recession has put on the nation's municipalities. The New York Times reported this weekend that cities and towns, desperate for tax revenue, are resorting to extreme measures.

Source: www.peoplesworld.org...

In studying the Bush Tax Cuts they clearly favored the upper class and screwed the common man. And the average person isn't even aware they were mucked over.

Executive Summary
The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick and thin. In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes. When the economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated by tax cuts. Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget.

This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the Bush Administration’s tax cuts. It assesses their costs, benefits to different income groups, and economic effects to date, as well as down the road. It both synthesizes previous findings about the individual tax measures and includes new findings about their combined effects, using new distributional analyses by the UrbanI nstitute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and fresh cost estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The early returns on the effects of the tax cuts have not been good.

■The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
■The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
■The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
If the Administration’s latest tax proposals — which would make permanent most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and establish new tax cuts on top of that — are enacted, the long-term results are likely to be even more troubling. Over the next 10 years, total tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3.3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone. (These calculations include the effects of the higher interest payments caused by the tax cuts.) The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for responding to potential future crises — from security matters to natural or environmental disasters — the particulars of which are unknown today.

Pressure to reduce these deficits will mount. Because the tax cuts are so tilted toward the highest-income households — and become even more so over time, as some of the upper-income tax cuts phase-in — the burden of financing these lopsided tax cuts ultimately is likely to be borne disproportionately by households who gain only modestly from the tax cuts. This will be the case unless offsetting spending cuts or tax increases are enacted that reduce benefits or raise taxes primarily on high-income households. As a result, over the long term most Americans

Source: www.cbpp.org...

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by pavil

 

Then we need a percentage tax system with NO LOOP HOLES.

second line.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Good luck getting that one passed.

Just curious, what exactly would that tax rate be? Would it be the same for all?

reply to post by pavil


Yes a straight across the board percentage - the same for everyone WITH NO LOOP HOLES OR DEDUCTIONS.

None, nada.

hahahahaha.......and your are right.

Getting a just taxing system
A honest voting system
A honest justice system in America is next to impossible.

America has not been run for the people and by the people for a long time.

Our government is not run by the people. DC is run by Corporations.

reply to post by pavil


Right and I'm trying to tell people at my own expense how things really work.

I'm honest and trying to awaken the common man that he is getting screwed.

Yes, my husband makes over 100K a year and we have major deductions the way the system is now.

It's not fair.

But and this is really the issue, look at how many people on ATS that make under 45K still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge (because of pride) that the Bush Tax Cuts screwed over them.

"My haves and have mores"

reply to post by pavil


Our taxes were handled by a professional..........and yes we did everything within the letter of the law.

Again, the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the people who earned more and with the most deductions.



I don't like to see anyone taken advantage of and have been attacked multiple times because so many people out of pride refuse to see what a evil @sshole George W. Bush was in this respect.

The haves and the have mores
Robert RouseDecember 22, 2005George W. Bush once gave a speech before a group of extremely wealthy and influential Republicans and during his speech he said, "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

This was a defining moment for Bush. He was telling this group (and the rest of us) that they were his reason for running for office. They were now the group that he was going to do his best to protect. And while most politicians are either wealthy or on their way to wealthy, the Republicans seem more inclined to be malevolent and the Democrats more altruistic. I'm not very sure what causes these conditions, but as far as the Republicans go, it appears to mainly affect the politicians and the affluent right-wing. I know several Republicans who are extremely charitable, but they don't seem to make the connection that their GOP representatives are not of the same frame of mind.

Republicans claim to represent the religious right, yet soon after taking office Bush proposed that the more of the charitable work in this country be taken on by churches - his "faith based initiative". Ostensibly this was to lighten the load of the federal treasury and save money. Yet since the attacks of 9/11 he has done his best to make the stockholders of Halliburton extremely wealthy. With no bid contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's former company to rebuild Iraq and New Orleans. I'm not a Yale graduate, but it seems that a clear thinking man would have made sure that the citizens of both places were the ones who received the much needed jobs of rebuilding. In Iraq, there would be more people feeding their families by working to rebuild instead of taking money from the insurgency to plant bombs. Mississippi and Louisiana now have the highest unemployment statistics in the nation - but the jobs instead went to the sub contractors hired by Halliburton.

Source and rest of article www.americanchronicle.com...

By the way research Halliburton and The War in Iraq (Huge company making billions of dollars in profit and guess who has stock in Hallibuton? Cheney.............research.

Need proof

Cheney’s Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year (2006)

Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.

Source: www.projectcensored.org...

This is a really good site to see what is being censored by our media which is a mouth piece for Corporate America

www.projectcensored.org...

To give you an idea here are some headings of articles

■Bailed out Banks and America’s Wealthiest Cheat IRS Out of Billions
■Dollar Glut Finances US Military Expansion
■Secret Control of the Presidential Debates
■Bank Bailout Recipients Spent to Defeat Labor
■Household incomes drop for second straight year, census data show
■Congress Invested in Defense Contracts
■World Banks Carbon Trade Fiasco
■US Military Aid to Columbian increases Civilian Deaths
■Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Karl Rove’s Election Thief
■Private Corporations Profit from the Occupation of Palestine
■Lobbyists Buy Congress

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

But and this is really the issue, look at how many people on ATS that make under 45K still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge (because of pride) that the Bush Tax Cuts screwed over them.

Please elaborate how a person who received a tax cut somehow got screwed in the deal? They would have been better off with a higher tax rate? You can debate if the wealthy got too much of a tax cut, but you can't say lower and middle income earners didn't benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

Our taxes were handled by a professional..........and yes we did everything within the letter of the law.

Again, the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the people who earned more and with the most deductions.

Letter of the law, eh????? hmmmm. Glad to hear you had them done by a professional, that helps me.


The Bush Tax cuts benefited everyone, otherwise why would the Democrats be on board for keeping them at all?

Again, Deductions have helped you far more than the tax cuts. Don't get me wrong the cuts are nice too, but without the deductions and credits your professional got you, you would be paying more than your housekeeper, irrespective of any tax cut.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


Halliburton is an equal opportunity political beast......... they prospered under Clinton as well....as you said, do the research. There are a handful of companies like that that get paid huge money for working in less than desirable places.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

Yes a straight across the board percentage - the same for everyone WITH NO LOOP HOLES OR DEDUCTIONS.

None, nada.

Would that be just on income? Sales? . Depending on what the flat tax is on, you might end up taxing the less wealthy even more.

Congress will never pass a flat tax....it's not in their interest to limit their purse strings.

reply to post by Curiousisall


actually, the tax cuts did create jobs. our economy is in the dumps right now because of the securitization of toxic housing assets. not too long ago the unemployment rate was down around 4.4 or so which is about as low as you can get without run away inflation.

so, to answer your question we didn't have to wait very long at all.

first of all, while consumption is one way to create jobs, that's actually a reason FOR giving tax cuts across the board. the rich consume too, and they consume greater amounts then the poor. second, the tax cuts to businesses spur investment in infrastructure and expansion which in turn creates jobs.

businesses don't sit on a giant pile of cash, laughing and smoking cigars. they're institutions. they spend their money investing which strengthens the economy.

this idea that rich people just keep a scrouge mcduck vault where they laugh about not paying their fair share is ridiculous. there are some very very greedy rich pepole and companies, but even these bastards generally spend beyond their means and invest in things that ultimately create jobs.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

Our taxes were handled by a professional..........and yes we did everything within the letter of the law.

Again, the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the people who earned more and with the most deductions.

Letter of the law, eh????? hmmmm. Glad to hear you had them done by a professional, that helps me.


The Bush Tax cuts benefited everyone, otherwise why would the Democrats be on board for keeping them at all?

Again, Deductions have helped you far more than the tax cuts. Don't get me wrong the cuts are nice too, but without the deductions and credits your professional got you, you would be paying more than your housekeeper, irrespective of any tax cut.

They "helped" everyone if you cling to the idea that giving big tax breaks to the rich, will trickle down to the middle class and poor. There is no statistical connection here.

While the bottom 90-95% may have benefited by paying slightly less in taxes over that time period the impact that these tax cuts had as a whole on the economy and the deficit only benefited the people wealthy enough to make it through these lean times.

The wars paid for on credit by Bush and these tax cuts that werent paid for, are two of the biggest contributors to this huge deficit that we sit on now. They are how Bush turned a huge surplus after Clinton into a giant deficit and this is way before any of the TARP money or any other stimulus that was offered.

Trickle down economics does not work as its intended. It greatly benefits the wealthy and fails to make it down to the middle class and poor in the manner that it is claimed.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

They "helped" everyone if you cling to the idea that giving big tax breaks to the rich, will trickle down to the middle class and poor. There is no statistical connection here.

While the bottom 90-95% may have benefited by paying slightly less in taxes over that time period the impact that these tax cuts had as a whole on the economy and the deficit only benefited the people wealthy enough to make it through these lean times.

The Tax cuts HAVE benefited all. Almost everybody pays less taxes to the Federal Government, that's a good thing. The Bad thing was Washington (both Democrats and Republicans) still kept on spending more than their budget allows. The problem isn't the tax cuts, its the lack of fiscal ability of our elected leaders. The more money that stays in the Private sector as opposed to the Public Sector is something that is good for all Americans.

I can't believe we are having a discussion and some here are saying the Government doesn't have enough money and that we all need to give them more!! They need to cut budgets when economic times are bad, not raise taxes. I blame both parties for their spending mentalities. Who here thinks if the tax cuts expire and we have our taxes raised, that Congress will somehow trim the budget by an equal amount? You will be just feeding more slop to the pigs, IMO.

Our elected governments need to go on a diet.