Gay Patriot Header Image

You All Have More Money In Your Pockets…

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:38 am - October 3, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Bush-hatred,Economy,National Politics,Post 9-11 America

… and it is all Bush’s Fault.  (Hat tip: Polipundit)

Americans of every income have benefited from a drop in federal income tax rates as Bush administration tax cuts enacted since 2000 took effect, an independent analysis of newly released IRS data shows.

But those earning $75,000 to $500,000 are shouldering a larger share of total taxes paid as millions more of them earn higher incomes and get hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax, the analysis also found.

The review by the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research group that favors low taxes, provides one of the first detailed looks at the impact of federal tax changes phased in between 2000 and 2004.

Alluding to the political debate that often surrounds tax issues, Gerald Prante, a Tax Foundation economist, said, “It is true that in dollar amounts the rich have gained the most. But everybody’s tax rates have fallen.”

The analysis showed, for example, that a taxpayer who earned $35,000 in 2000 would have paid 8.54% of that income — $2,989 after credits — in federal taxes. In 2004, federal taxes would have accounted for 5.12% of that taxpayer’s annual income, or $1,792. That represents a 40% decrease in tax burden.

At the higher end of the income brackets, a $1.75 million earner would have paid $513,625 in 2000 federal taxes, when the rate for that earning bracket was 29.35%. Four years later, when the rate dropped to 25%, that earner would have paid $437,500. That represents a 14.8% cut in tax burden, the analysis shows.

Um wait… did I read that right?  The tax burden for the $35,000 taxpayer decreased 40% while it only went down 14.8% for the millionaire?

*paging through Democrat Talking Points*   But….but… that’s not in here!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

21 Comments

  1. Does that make up for each person’s share of the national debt incurred over the last six years.

    When you say that we have more money, remember that it is because we are living off of the taxpayers’ credit card. All that money you are talking about isn’t earned money, it is BORROWED money. Eventually, SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back.

    Comment by Anonymous — October 3, 2006 @ 9:21 am - October 3, 2006

  2. *paging through Republican talking points* But…but, that’s not in here!

    Comment by Britton — October 3, 2006 @ 11:07 am - October 3, 2006

  3. Anon –

    So, my income isnt ‘earned money’ any more?

    Any other spending by the fed government and I would probably agree with you, but letting people keep thier own damned money is not spending.

    Comment by Ryan Frank — October 3, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - October 3, 2006

  4. So who pays the debt run up by the government? People are getting the service our government is responsible for without paying for it. I’m all for lowering taxes, but to do so requires lowered spending on the part of the government. So you can’t bitch about how important the war in Iraq is and then bitch when you’re asked to foot the bill for it.

    Comment by Britton — October 3, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - October 3, 2006

  5. they had the exact same headline and article at polipundit.

    Comment by lester — October 3, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - October 3, 2006

  6. And that’s why I “hat tipped” them.

    Your point, lower-case-man?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - October 3, 2006

  7. oh i didn’t see that. what bogus article

    Comment by lester — October 3, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - October 3, 2006

  8. I’m curious, GP, whether the tax cuts have offset income declines in many middle class homes. There’s a lot of evidence that wages haven’t kept up with inflation for most of George Bush’s administration.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 3, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - October 3, 2006

  9. I find it interesting that the lowering of gasoline prices seems directly proportionate to the closer we get to election day. hmmmmmmmm

    Comment by Kevin — October 3, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - October 3, 2006

  10. #1 All that money you are talking about isn’t earned money, it is BORROWED money. Eventually, SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back.

    #4 So who pays the debt run up by the government?

    Government debt is paid back all the time. Any owner of a savings bond, T-bill or T-bond will tell you that. The national debt is not some amount that will come due in one lump sum sometime in the future. As to who pays it, the government does, with the money received from taxpayers and/or by selling more securities.

    Comment by John in IL — October 3, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - October 3, 2006

  11. To Bruce in #0

    Thanks for pointing this out. The only problem I have is that tax cuts and the tax cuts of previous administrations have made the income tax more progressive. The top 20% of households are now paying 66% of the total federal tax liability, up from 56% in 1979. The other 80% of households have all seen their share of federal taxes drop over the same time period.

    As noted in the source of your link:

    as shown by the “percent of returns that are taxable” column, the tax cuts have taken many taxpayers in the low-income groups off the tax rolls entirely. In 2000, approximately 29 million tax returns had no income tax. By 2004, that number had risen to around 43 million returns. This is largely because of the expansion of the Child Tax Credit along with the establishment of the 10 percent tax bracket.

    Finally, in 2004, much more money was returned to low-income earners through the tax code via programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Refundable Child Tax Credit than in 2000. Table 1 shows that among lower- and middle-income groups, many taxpayers receive more back from the IRS than they actually pay in federal income taxes. Every AGI group up to $25,000 actually receives more back from the IRS in the aggregate than it pays in federal income taxes

    Comment by John in IL — October 3, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - October 3, 2006

  12. #9 – Kevin, you can either believe one of two things:

    (a) because petroleum supplies have a 3-month lag time behind demand, the prices are falling due to the balance of supply shifting, or

    (b) it’s an evil Karl Rove plot to ensure that George W. Bush will become Supreme Klingon Ruler and declare by fiat of his supremacy that all the gay people will be sent to the same gay concentration camp where Mark Foley is now languishing.

    Somehow, I wouldn’t be surprised if you picked (b). Maybe you need a new tinfoil chapeau from Huffington, Kos & Co.

    Also – and I’ll let you in on a little rightwing conspiracy secret here – gas prices are inversely related to poll approval numbers. And with Brent crude down to $59/bbl, it’s gonna be a nice low-price-gas day come November 7.

    Keep hope alive, Kev ol’ girl.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 11:06 pm - October 3, 2006

  13. Much like the Reagan years, Republicans trumpet all this money, but as we found in the elder Bush’s term, the bill for the party will come due one day.

    Comment by Kevin — October 4, 2006 @ 12:04 am - October 4, 2006

  14. #13
    And as we found in the Clinton years, a douchebag liberal will claim responsibility for a great economy as soon as he walks in the door. Then he’ll turn around and punish everyone for having too much of their own money. Then walk out the door leaving a recession in his tracks. Thanks BJ “I can spend your money better than you can” Clinton.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 4, 2006 @ 5:48 am - October 4, 2006

  15. #8
    Actually, Ashley, if you quit listening to Howard Dean, wages are about equal with the 90s and there’s plenty of evidence of that. However, you’re not supposed to know that. You’re supposed to be so damn stupid that you believe whatever the liberals tell you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 4, 2006 @ 5:50 am - October 4, 2006

  16. #15 – TGC, you hit the nail right on the head.

    Most libs think the electorate IS stupid. They must be SHOWN what to do and TOLD whom to vote for.

    This lofty plantation-owner arrogance will come crashing all around them on 11/7. You read it here first.

    Methinks the electorate will repudiate what appears to be the RATS’ Wellstone Memorial circa 2006. The GOP loses some seats but retains overall control of Congress.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 4, 2006 @ 11:30 am - October 4, 2006

  17. #15
    I think you misread the question posed in #8. As you say, wages have stagnated since the 90’s – yet inflation has increased.
    so those tax decreases (which some say did effect the middle class) did not offset the wage stagnation

    Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 12:09 pm - October 4, 2006

  18. #17 – Uh, 401kplan, you’re cutting-and-pasting again. Please quit pulling a Joe Biden and use your own material.

    How can I tell? For starters, there are no glaring spelling errors. You also capitalized appropriately. Heck, you even used correct punctuation.

    Deduction = you used talking points again.

    You make this WAY too easy, lester401kplansockpuppet. Sheesh.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 4, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - October 4, 2006

  19. That Gay Conservative in 15, if you’re correct that wages are stagnant at their 1990s levels, then you’ve underscored my point. I still wonder whether the tax cuts offset inflation’s erosion of the middle class’ bottom line.

    By the way, I don’t believe anything Howard Dean says and seldom even listen to the windbag. But, then, I’ve also stopped believing a lot of things George Bush says.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 4, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - October 4, 2006

  20. The top 20% of taxpayers earn, what, 80% of the income in the US? 90%? And they only pay 66% of the taxes? That sucks.

    Comment by Moon — December 16, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - December 16, 2006

  21. It’s true that the devide between the rich and the poor are widening.

    A serious and constructive overhauling of the tax policies needs to be done.

    But it will also be interesting to note that ‘there was court ruling that said taxing on income is uncostitutional!’

    http://www.taxesandattorney.com

    Comment by John Sinclair — January 27, 2007 @ 8:41 am - January 27, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.