Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts: Helping the Poor?

[Godwynn]

The economic chatter amongst the Democratic front runners all sound like the same drum being beat; helping the poor, decreasing the income gaps, protectionism, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

The purpose of this thread is to look at the last one, The Bush Tax Cuts.

I believe all three Democratic front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) have said that the Bush tax cut will sunset on their term (in the case of Obama, he would repeal Bill Clinton's tax cut). Let's reexamine the tax brackets under Bill Clinton (for single filers).

15% for income of $0 - $26,250
28% for income of $26,250 - $63,550
31% for income of $63,550 - $132,600
36% for income of $132,600 - $288,350
39.6% for income of $288,350+

Now for the year 2007 after the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

10% for income of $0 - $7,825
15% for income of $7,825 - $31,850
25% for income of $31,850 - $77,100
28% for income of $77,100 - $160,850
33% for income of $160,850 - $349,700
35% for income of $349,700+

At first glance it seems that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were geared towards high income earners, but were they really?

For those low income workers, students, and some elderly in the lowest tax bracket saw their federal income tax slashed by a third from 15% to 10%.

Those low to middle income earners making around $30,000 a year saw their tax bills cut by 13% from 28% to 15%.

The question must be asked, are the Democrats really look out for what is best for the poor? If they are going to raise taxes, the lowest bracket will see their tax payment rise by 50% (10% to 15%). Not much of a helping hand up.

 

[JohnRM]

The economic chatter amongst the Democratic front runners all sound like the same drum being beat; helping the poor, decreasing the income gaps, protectionism, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

The purpose of this thread is to look at the last one, The Bush Tax Cuts.

I believe all three Democratic front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) have said that the Bush tax cut will sunset on their term (in the case of Obama, he would repeal Bill Clinton's tax cut). Let's reexamine the tax brackets under Bill Clinton (for single filers).

15% for income of $0 - $26,250
28% for income of $26,250 - $63,550
31% for income of $63,550 - $132,600
36% for income of $132,600 - $288,350
39.6% for income of $288,350+

Now for the year 2007 after the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

10% for income of $0 - $7,825
15% for income of $7,825 - $31,850
25% for income of $31,850 - $77,100
28% for income of $77,100 - $160,850
33% for income of $160,850 - $349,700
35% for income of $349,700+

At first glance it seems that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were geared towards high income earners, but were they really?

For those low income workers, students, and some elderly in the lowest tax bracket saw their federal income tax slashed by a third from 15% to 10%.

Those low to middle income earners making around $30,000 a year saw their tax bills cut by 13% from 28% to 15%.

The question must be asked, are the Democrats really look out for what is best for the poor? If they are going to raise taxes, the lowest bracket will see their tax payment rise by 50% (10% to 15%). Not much of a helping hand up.

The problem is that if you take the total amount money that people saved due to the tax cuts, then you'll find that the rich saved a vastly higher percentage due to said tax cuts. However, since the rich pay vastly more in taxes, then it makes sense. Big government proponents would have you believe otherwise.


EDIT: By the way, please tell me that you didn't go Communist.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, please. The Democrats want nothing more than to permanently make the poor dependant upon the government teat for everything in their lives. "Vote for us and we'll take care of you for the rest of your life. Of course, you will have less and less freedom, but everything will be given to you, so who cares about freedom."

They want in no way to help the poor, they want to keep the poor down and under their control for political gain.

 

[Integral]

The problem is that if you take the total amount money that people saved due to the tax cuts, then you'll find that the rich saved a vastly higher percentage due to said tax cuts. However, since the rich pay vastly more in taxes, then it makes sense. Big government proponents would have you believe otherwise.

So true. The rich got a larger share of the total tax cut pie, but low-income earners got a better deal percentage-wise.

Also, there's the issue of what the Democrats plan to do with those tax cuts.

Okay, you want to raise taxes on the rich. I get that. But what do you want to do with the money?

At different times, it seems, you want to

1. Fund universal health care.
2. Give a tax cut to the middle class.
3. Reduce the long-term fiscal gap.

Which is it?

You can't do it all just by raising taxes on the rich.

BTW, Godwynn, I like the new look. Stick it to those capitalist bourgeoise pigs!

-Integral

 

[amadeus]

Facts! No! The goggles, they do nothing!

 

[Godwynn]

You can't do it all just by raising taxes on the rich.

BTW, Godwynn, I like the new look. Stick it to those capitalist bourgeoise pigs!

-Integral

The problem with giving a tax cut to the middle class is... they will raise taxes on them by rolling back the tax cuts! Isn't that neat how they do that? Next up on the magic show...

 

[Godwynn]

The problem is that if you take the total amount money that people saved due to the tax cuts, then you'll find that the rich saved a vastly higher percentage due to said tax cuts. However, since the rich pay vastly more in taxes, then it makes sense. Big government proponents would have you believe otherwise.

The point of the thread was not the rich, it was the poor. The same poor and middle class the Democrats pander to are the ones they will hurt the most.

EDIT: By the way, please tell me that you didn't go Communist.

No.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Godwyn, I love your new theme.

Simple two cents; the average person spends five months a year "working for the government;" i.e., from January to May, the equivilant of that pay goes to taxes. I don't know anyone poor or rich who woulnd't benefit from having that cut.

 

[JohnRM]

Facts! No! The goggles, they do nothing!

Great episode!

 

[History_Buff]

Wait, so Americans pay income taxes, even if they make something like $5,000? That's kind of rediculous.

 

[JohnRM]

Wait, so Americans pay income taxes, even if they make something like $5,000? That's kind of rediculous.

If your income amounts to anything less than about $7,500, then you get back all of what you paid to the federal government at the end of the year.

 

[Merkinball]

“We’re saying that for American to get back on track, we’re going to cut [the Bush tax cuts] short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” —Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco

“We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” —First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people" - Hillary Clinton

 

[Integral]

The problem with giving a tax cut to the middle class is... they will raise taxes on them by rolling back the tax cuts! Isn't that neat how they do that? Next up on the magic show...

Members of the middle class, we are going to lower your taxes right after we raise them by repealing the Bush tax cuts

 

[luiz]

Protectionism, rolling back tax cuts? The Democrats suck!

Looking at Godwyinns's rates, anyone who says that Bush's tax cuts "were for the rich" is mathematically illiterate. It is quite obvious that even if proportion-wise the rich get a tax cut one third of that of the poorest bracket, in absolute terms they will save more. But when analysing the benefit, it is equally obvious, we ought to look at the percentage of saved income.

Now considering Bush's extremely unhealthy spending habits, a tax raise might even be necessary. But it is pure demagogy to say that Bush's tax cuts were aimed at only benefiting the rich.

As for protectionism, I wouldn'y vote for anyone advocating that sort of crap. It's typical of populist morons with no concern for the long term good.

 

[LightFang]

So, nobody has disagreed so far. Maybe the bleeding heart liberals haven't woken up yet? They do tend to sleep late, those lazy oafs.

 

[downtown]

Now considering Bush's extremely unhealthy spending habits, a tax raise might even be necessary. But it is pure demagogy to say that Bush's tax cuts were aimed at only benefiting the rich.
.

Not if they were coupled with reduction of government programs aimed at helping lower class people. If I lower your taxes, saving you 1,000 a year, but cut programs that increase your medical costs and college tuition 3,000 bucks...have you helped the poor?

 

[luiz]

Not if they were coupled with reduction of government programs aimed at helping lower class people. If I lower your taxes, saving you 1,000 a year, but cut programs that increase your medical costs and college tuition 3,000 bucks...have you helped the poor?

Well in that case what is costing to the poor is not the tax cut but rather the cut in social programs.

 

[downtown]

...which had to be cut, because of the tax cut resulting in a loss of government revenue.

 

[JZ_UK]

But those taxes paid for those programmes... tis right circular is this government funding lark...

(The post above wasn't there when I posted this... -.-)

 

[skadistic]

...which had to be cut, because of the tax cut resulting in a loss of government revenue.

Except the lower taxes spurred spending and ended up bringing in more gross tax dollars not less. The could have lowered taxes and kept the socialist programs too.