It Was a Tax Hike On The Rich, Not a Tax Cut
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of households ranked by income increased from 36.5% in 2000 to 38.8% in 2005, recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show (see chart above). Their share of total federal taxes increased from 25.5% in 2000 to 27.6% in 2005, the last year for which data are available."Under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the data show that the tax shares of the top 1% increased between 2000 and 2005 to historically high levels," ranking member Jim Saxton of the Joint Economic Committee said today. "Despite the contention that the tax cuts would unfairly reduce the tax burden of the rich, their share of taxes has in fact gone up," Saxton concluded.
6 Comments:
"Despite the contention that the tax cuts would unfairly reduce the tax burden of the rich, their share of taxes has in fact gone up,"
And we are going to see all manner of the "wealthy" lobbying for tax increases so they can pay less tax.
Well I think the rich shouldn't pay one penny more than the so called, "not-rich"...
Why shouldn't those that want these government services be the ones who pay for them?
Let's face it, most of us leech off of the rich...
Another way to put this is that Bush shifted more of the tax burden on to the rich. You won't hear to many Dems admit to that.
Juandos, I agree, but I suppose if the only direct taxes on individuals was maybe a flat 10% tax on people earning over 500k a year, maybe that would not be that bad? I know some one will ask how government will get the money it needs - but I would suggest they should have a bake sale or something like everyone else.
The top 1% paid less federal income taxes and total federal taxes as a percentage of their income in 2005 than they did in 2000. The total effective federal tax rate declined from 33.0% to 31.2% of income and the effective federal income tax rate declined from 24.2% to 19.4% of income.
It was a Tax Cut on the Income of the Rich, Not a Tax Hike.
In other words, if Tom Cruise netted $10 million pre-tax for Mission Impossible 1 (pre-Bush43 tax cuts), and Mission Impossible 11 (post-Bush43 tax cuts) he took home $6.7 million and $6.88 million, respectively.
"In other words, if Tom Cruise netted $10 million pre-tax for Mission Impossible 1"...
Tom Cruise shouldn't pay one more penny than you do anon...
"I agree, but I suppose if the only direct taxes on individuals was maybe a flat 10% tax on people earning over 500k a year, maybe that would not be that bad?"...
Well marko, if the federal government dumped the Constitutionally questionable (socialist) nanny state programs en masse we wouldn't be having to worry if the rich were carrying their end of the log...
Now we have class warfare being incited by fools and knaves on the very people who's money puts most of us to work...
Juandos,
Agree with you that taxes targetting the most productive members of society are counterproductive. The present liquidity crisis and market turbulence has provided a convenient whipping boy for Democrats and the usual gang of "anti's".
Many are unaware of the extent to which a very small percentage of the population transforms our society.
When a country targets such innovators, they can and do leave. The U.S. has led the world in innovation largely because it has attracted the best and brightest while the UK, Canada, Central and South America continue to drive out talent.
Few of us pause to consider the products that have come to be just part of our day to day routine. The range of different foods, consumer goods, medications, electronics, machines and innovative services that come from all around the world. We don't even know who has developed most of these products or understand the technology involved.
Post a Comment
<< Home