Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analysis of Bush's tax cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analysis of Bush's tax cuts

    http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-pr.htm

    Among the study’s highlights:

    The average tax cut for the top one percent of households will be nearly $35,000 this year, 54 times the average tax cut of $647 that the middle fifth of households will receive. This finding is based on a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center that examines the effects of all components of the tax cuts and is the first comprehensive Tax Policy Center analysis to be based on a revised and improved Tax Policy Center model that fully incorporates the corporate and estate tax reductions.

    The tax cuts will bestow more than $30 billion in 2004 on the 257,000 households with incomes exceeding $1 million, with these households securing average tax cuts of $123,600 each. The $30+ billion in tax cuts that these “millionaires” will receive in 2004 far exceeds the total amount of tax cuts that the nearly 29 million households who comprise the middle fifth of the U.S. population will get.

    Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
    (reflects tax cuts enacted since 2001) Income Class
    Average tax cut
    % increase in after-tax income
    % share of tax cut

    Middle 20 percent
    $647
    2.3%
    8.9%

    Top one percent
    $34,992
    5.3%
    24.2%

    Over $1 million
    $123,592
    6.4%
    15.3%



    The tax cuts were not well designed to stimulate a weak economy. Only eight to 14 percent of the 2003 tax-cut package, which was promoted as being necessary to boost economic recovery, consists of high “bang-for-the-buck” tax cuts that will be provided by the end of fiscal year 2004. (A high bang-for-the-buck proposal is one that increases economic “demand” in the short term by more than one dollar for each dollar of lost tax revenue.) The tax cuts consequently have produced significantly less economic stimulus than could have been provided for the same (or less) budgetary cost. The failure of policymakers to design and enact more effective stimulus measures has likely contributed to job creation being more meager during this recovery than in other recoveries since the end of World War II.

    From 2005 through 2014, the increased interest payments on the debt that will result from the tax cuts will amount to approximately $1.1 trillion, if the tax cuts are made permanent and the other tax-cut proposals in the Administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget are enacted. The interest payments would reach $218 billion in 2014.

    Without the tax cuts, deficits would be modest over the next ten years and be below $100 billion in 2014. By contrast, with the Administration’s tax-cut policies, the deficit is likely to grow to approximately $677 billion by 2014.

    2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

  • #2
    Burn?

    Far?

    Phantom?
    Are you on the list?

    Comment


    • #3
      More tax cuts needed.
      Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

      Comment


      • #4
        Is this *actually* a suprise?
        Official sponsor of: Pepsi Zero Sugar and Jordan Almonds.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SLUBLUE@Apr 23 2004, 10:30 AM
          Burn?

          Far?

          Phantom?
          I'll save them time and answer for them:
          The rich pay more taxes, so why shouldn't they get a biggter tax cut? After all, it's not the government's money - it's OUR money and they should stop taking it from us. It's only fair! etc.
          2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trigfunctions+Apr 23 2004, 10:36 AM-->
            QUOTE (Trigfunctions @ Apr 23 2004, 10:36 AM)

          • #7
            TABLE 1. Income Tax Rates: New vs. Old

            Single
            Old Rates New Rates
            2003 Taxable Income Tax Rate 2003 Taxable Income Tax Rate
            $0 – $6,000 10% $0 – $7,000 10%
            $6,001 – $28,400 15% $7,001 – $28,400 15%
            $28,401 – $68,800 27% $28,401 – $68,800 25%
            $68,801 – $143,500 30% $68,801 – $143,500 28%
            $143,501 – $311,950 35% $143,501 – $311,950 33%
            Over $311,950 38.60% Over $311,950 35%

            Married Filing Joint
            2003 Taxable Income Tax Rate 2003 Taxable Income Tax Rate
            $0 – $12,000 10% $0 – $14,000 10%
            $12,001 – $47,450 15% $14,001 – $56,800 15%
            $47,451 – $114,650 27% $56,801 – $114,650 25%
            $114,651 – $174,700 30% $114,651 – $174,700 28%
            $174,701 – $311,950 35% $174,701 – $311,950 33%
            Over $311,950 38.6% Over $311,950 35%
            Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by SLUBLUE@Apr 23 2004, 10:30 AM
              Burn?

              Far?

              Phantom?
              Slu,

              I'm really out of my element when it comes to tax issues -- which is why I usually ignore these type of threads.

              What is the problem that Trig is trying to expose?
              "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

              Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

              "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by FAR52@Apr 23 2004, 10:53 AM
                What is the problem that Trig is trying to expose?
                Well, this point stands out"
                The tax cuts were not well designed to stimulate a weak economy. Only eight to 14 percent of the 2003 tax-cut package, which was promoted as being necessary to boost economic recovery, consists of high “bang-for-the-buck” tax cuts that will be provided by the end of fiscal year 2004.
                If the tax cuts weren't well-designed to stimulate the economy, then why were they promoted as stimulating the economy? Was Bush's plan simply poorly designed or intentionally deceitful?

                And this one:
                The tax cuts will bestow more than $30 billion in 2004 on the 257,000 households with incomes exceeding $1 million, with these households securing average tax cuts of $123,600 each. The $30+ billion in tax cuts that these “millionaires” will receive in 2004 far exceeds the total amount of tax cuts that the nearly 29 million households who comprise the middle fifth of the U.S. population will get.
                So this tax cut gives more total money back to 257,000 households than it does to 29,000,000 households? I wonder how many of the 29,000,000 households realize this.
                2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                Comment


                • #10
                  t r i c k l e d o w n d o e s n ' t w o r k
                  Are you on the list?

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    So, if you make under 28K a year - those who NEED the tax cuts, you get nothing?

                    And the biggest percentage tax cut (not flat amount - percentage) goes to those making over $300K?

                    Yup. That's fair, allright.
                    Official sponsor of: Pepsi Zero Sugar and Jordan Almonds.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Trigfunctions+Apr 23 2004, 11:01 AM-->
                      QUOTE (Trigfunctions @ Apr 23 2004, 11:01 AM)

                    • #13
                      Originally posted by ChiTownBluesFan@Apr 23 2004, 11:07 AM
                      So, if you make under 28K a year - those who NEED the tax cuts, you get nothing?

                      And the biggest percentage tax cut (not flat amount - percentage) goes to those making over $300K?

                      Yup. That's fair, allright.
                      Are you aware of how little taxes people pay when they make less than $28K?

                      The goal should be equitable taxation. Looking at cuts without looking at rates prior to the cuts is only part of the story.
                      "Need some wood?" -- George W. Bush, October 8, 2004

                      "Historians will judge if this war is just, not your punk ass." -- Dave Glover, December 8, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by phantom@Apr 23 2004, 11:09 AM
                        your points are subjective -- matter of opinion I believe
                        As are yours, obviously. Mine, however are based on some research. Yours seem to be faith-based, like so much of the Bush policies.
                        2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          If the tax cuts weren't well-designed to stimulate the economy, then why were they promoted as stimulating the economy?
                          Because they still do. In addition, the senate cut more than half of the intitial proposal.

                          And this one:

                           
                          The tax cuts will bestow more than $30 billion in 2004 on the 257,000 households with incomes exceeding $1 million, with these households securing average tax cuts of $123,600 each. The $30+ billion in tax cuts that these “millionaires” will receive in 2004 far exceeds the total amount of tax cuts that the nearly 29 million households who comprise the middle fifth of the U.S. population will get. 


                          So this tax cut gives more total money back to 257,000 households than it does to 29,000,000 households?
                          Yes. It just doesn't seem to nauseate me as it does you.

                          It's not a check, it’s not a handout. You only get to keep more of what you earned. A tax cut can not create a deficit as there is no "cost". The only way to go into debt is overspending.


                          I wonder how many of the 29,000,000 households realize this.
                          I would hope all of them. I hope they were grateful for the $30 billion that was given all the previous years.
                          Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                          Comment

                          • Working...
                            X