Posted by Jen Psaki on August 12, 2010 at 01:33 PM EDT
Yesterday, the New York Times reported on a Joint Committee on Taxation study of “President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy but to extend them for everyone else.”
The study found that “taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300” from those in effect during the Clinton Administration, while those “with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700.”
You would think that rolling the Bush tax cuts back to these levels would be universally accepted, especially given the long term fiscal challenges our country is facing.
Not so fast
Republicans in Congress are arguing that we have no choice but to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, despite the fact that extension would cost upwards of $700 billion for ten years and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office makes clear that tax cuts for the wealthiest rank at the bottom of the list of best ways to stimulate the economy.
Let’s not forget that this same group of Republicans blocked the extension of unemployment insurance for Americans who needed it most and voted against the Making Work Pay tax cut—that gave a tax break to 95% of working Americans.
And just last week the same group blocked a bill that would provide essential assistance to small businesses, the drivers of Main Street economies across the country.
Let me get this straight
Republicans are arguing that for the wealthiest Americans—those making more than $250,000 per year— it is not enough that they receive a $6,300 tax cut relative to what they paid in the 1990s, they need to maintain the entire bush tax cut.
But at a pivotal time in economic recovery, they are refusing to provide necessary assistance to small businesses including zero capital gains, bonus depreciation and a small business lending facility that will help small businesses get the access to credit they need.
Talk about out of whack priorities!
Jen Psaki is Deputy Communications Director
After world War 2, the tax rate on the most affluent Americans was 90 per cent. This tax rate got the US through the Great Depression and World War 2, a very traumatic time for the US and it allies. It also stimulated the creation of a vast middle class after the war.
Since then the Republicans with the help of Democrats, reduced the tax on top earning Americans to 35 per cent.
When the Bush tax cuts expire in December 2010, the tax on these affluent Americans will be raised to about 40 per cent.
Obama also raised the tax on capital gains to 20 per cent form 15 per cent under Bush. The suspension of the Estate Tax, which only effects the top 5,000 American families will also expire.
The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government.
This right wing has mad e a big deal out of the fact that 40 per cent of income earners don't pay taxes. What they don't tell you is that most of these people live in the red states where there are few unions and labor laws are ignored.
Nor do they tell you that thee top one per cent of Americans now suck up 50 per cent of America's income, but only pay 36.7 per cent of the federal taxes.
When you look at wealth, the top one per cent of families, own 90 per cent of America's wealth.
Should you worry about tax increases on the affluent? Certainly not. these people can afford the best lawyers and accountants in the country to keep their taxes low.
Because most taxes in the US are regressive like sales tax and municipal tax, the affluent actually pay smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the middle calls does.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
The study found that “taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300” from those in effect during the Clinton Administration, while those “with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700.”
You would think that rolling the Bush tax cuts back to these levels would be universally accepted, especially given the long term fiscal challenges our country is facing.
Not so fast
Republicans in Congress are arguing that we have no choice but to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, despite the fact that extension would cost upwards of $700 billion for ten years and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office makes clear that tax cuts for the wealthiest rank at the bottom of the list of best ways to stimulate the economy.
Let’s not forget that this same group of Republicans blocked the extension of unemployment insurance for Americans who needed it most and voted against the Making Work Pay tax cut—that gave a tax break to 95% of working Americans.
And just last week the same group blocked a bill that would provide essential assistance to small businesses, the drivers of Main Street economies across the country.
Let me get this straight
Republicans are arguing that for the wealthiest Americans—those making more than $250,000 per year— it is not enough that they receive a $6,300 tax cut relative to what they paid in the 1990s, they need to maintain the entire bush tax cut.
But at a pivotal time in economic recovery, they are refusing to provide necessary assistance to small businesses including zero capital gains, bonus depreciation and a small business lending facility that will help small businesses get the access to credit they need.
Talk about out of whack priorities!
Jen Psaki is Deputy Communications Director
After world War 2, the tax rate on the most affluent Americans was 90 per cent. This tax rate got the US through the Great Depression and World War 2, a very traumatic time for the US and it allies. It also stimulated the creation of a vast middle class after the war.
Since then the Republicans with the help of Democrats, reduced the tax on top earning Americans to 35 per cent.
When the Bush tax cuts expire in December 2010, the tax on these affluent Americans will be raised to about 40 per cent.
Obama also raised the tax on capital gains to 20 per cent form 15 per cent under Bush. The suspension of the Estate Tax, which only effects the top 5,000 American families will also expire.
The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government.
This right wing has mad e a big deal out of the fact that 40 per cent of income earners don't pay taxes. What they don't tell you is that most of these people live in the red states where there are few unions and labor laws are ignored.
Nor do they tell you that thee top one per cent of Americans now suck up 50 per cent of America's income, but only pay 36.7 per cent of the federal taxes.
When you look at wealth, the top one per cent of families, own 90 per cent of America's wealth.
Should you worry about tax increases on the affluent? Certainly not. these people can afford the best lawyers and accountants in the country to keep their taxes low.
Because most taxes in the US are regressive like sales tax and municipal tax, the affluent actually pay smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the middle calls does.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 10672
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.comsource: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment