Tax Burden Shifts to Middle Class

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.
Record deficit, National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
He just stripped overtime pay from 6 million Americans and is proposing "comp" time for millions more in place of overtime.

He's bankrupting America's children before they even enter the workforce.

--------------------------------

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tax_cuts_study

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090,e newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

This is great. Everyone gets to keep more of THEIR money.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Raider Bill]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.
Record deficit, National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
He just stripped overtime pay from 6 million Americans and is proposing "comp" time for millions more in place of overtime.

He's bankrupting America's children before they even enter the workforce.

Huh? The national debt was there long before W.



The total debt as a raw number is meaningless. Your ability to carry the debt is more important. The USA's debt load is far lower than other industrialized countries.
--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

So what they are saying is that everyone paid less taxes. The rest of this article is kind of moot. But I digress.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

Could it be there is less of them then there was at the height of the tech boom? Or could have there been less capital gains tax collected this year which historicaly is pretty volatle and difficult to forcast.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

Their "share" as a group is irrevelant. They paid less taxes individually then prior to the tax cuts. I wouldnt think that these income classes would stay the same over 5 years. I would think that they are always in a state of flux with people moving into and out of the top 20%.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, AHHH now I get it is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."

But it said that EVERYONE paid less taxes. No one was squeezed. Nothing to see here but more liberal bias in the press.

[Cito Pelon]

You, me, and most other people will do just fine without bending over backwards to accomodate milliionaires. Or bending over frontwards, as in this case (haha).

The USA is not going to collapse, you know, if someone that makes 4 million a year is forced to pay 1.5 million in taxes. They'll still be doing just fine, and those poor old people you see picking aluminum cans out of dumpsters so they can have a pork chop now and then can relax a litle bit. You damn well know that a 4 million a year person won't share 1.5 million unless they're forced to.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.

Isn't No Child Left Behind a Clinton program?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Isn't No Child Left Behind a Clinton program?

I bet Bush wishes it was.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.

Isn't it ironic that you complain on the one hand that Bush "spends more than any other president in history" and then turn right around and complain that he "proposes programs but doesn't fund them?" Seriously, which part bothers you more because they are kind of inconsistent complaints don't you think?

Not to mention the fact that Congress has a major role in all this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Isn't it ironic that you complain on the one hand that Bush "spends more than any other president in history" and then turn right around and complain that he "proposes programs but doesn't fund them?" Seriously, which part bothers you more because they are kind of inconsistent complaints don't you think?

Not to mention the fact that Congress has a major role in all this.

He doesn't fund them because HE cut revenues by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Nothing inconsistent at all of what I speak and "both" parts bother me equally.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

He doesn't fund them because HE cut revenues by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Nothing inconsistent at all of what I speak and "both" parts bother me equally.

Leaving aside the roll that Congress plays in all of this, that still doesn't make any sense at all. You are like the wife who cheers for her husband's favorite team but doesn't really understand the rules of the game.

[patteeu]

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tax_cuts_study

More inconsistency. Tax rates on the middle class drop during the Bush administration but democrats want you to think that his tax policy is putting the "squeeze" on working families. Doh!

Which would the typical middle class taxpayer prefer:

a) pay less in taxes (but realize that the middle class as a group is accountable for a larger share of total tax revenues), or

b) pay more taxes (but realize that the middle class as a group is accountable for the same share of total tax revenues as under the Clinton administration).

I'm betting that most people would pick option (a). I know I do.

As njbil said, this is nothing but liberal propaganda. The bottom line in this article is that taxes were reduced for everyone. The rest is just misleading spin intended to stoke class warfare emotions.

[Rock Chalk]

Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of the federal budget is miniscule at best here.

Isnt the middle class the largest portion of our society? Isnt it then conceivable that the middle class will, as a group, pay the largest share of the tax revenue?

The middle class has always ALWAYS paid the largest share because they have ALWAYS been the largest portion of society. When Bush has cut taxes across the board for ALL groups, then the middle class will STILL pay the largest share of revenues right?

Now, let's get to his spending.

War. Well we have to go to war. We were attacked and summarily must retaliate. Argue semantics about Iraq all you want but he funded terrorists - maybe not al Qaeda - but definately funded terrorists. Bush said (and even Democrats agreed with him) that ANY STATE THAT SPONSORS, FUNDS, OR OTHERWISE AIDS TERRORISTS IS CONSIDERED AN ENEMY OF THE STATE. THis includes Iraq. Not to mention we are STILL kicking ass in Afghanistan.

We had to rebuild New York city. Pay for the damage to property and the loss of life. You think that tab is a small bill? Think again.

We've had to fix the economy that had begun to fail a year before Clinton left office.

There is an old addage: "You cant make money without spending money".

We've had to spend resources going after the white collar criminals who set up shop during Clinton's term.

The ironic thing is, had Clinton managed to get his ********* Monica's mouth for a second and got tough with terrorists and big business crooks, we wouldn't be in this ****ing mess in the first place.

But let's just place it all on Bush like ignorant little children.

[Tom G]

Here are some facts for consideration:

Tax revenues are UP, not down, since the income tax cuts went into effect. The larger deficit is due to increased spending (mostly war), not decreased revenues.

The Democrats cleverly asked the GAO to evaluate the shift of tax burden based on ALL taxes not just on income tax. Based on just income tax,the only tax effected by the tax cuts, "the rich" ended up paying MORE of the income tax burden (percentage wise) than the "middle class".

At any rate, either way you evaluate the shift in burden, percentage wise, the increase/decrease is less than 2 percent which is roundoff error in these kinds of analyses.

In other words, there is no significant change in "tax burden". The top 1 percent of wage earners still pay 35 percent of the income tax revenue, the top 50 percent pay 96 percent, and the bottom 30 percent of the wage earners pay no income tax at all. You could argue that that's not exactly fair, unless you're a Democrat.("To each according to need, from each according to ability": Karl Marx).

Despite the Democrats mantra, everybody is paying less income tax, the economy has been stimulated, there are more people employed, therefore more people are paying taxes and revenues are up, the rich are still getting screwed and way too many people are getting a free ride.

And it's not a "tax cut for the rich", it's a "tax cut for people who pay taxes". "The rich" get a bigger tax break than the rest of us because they pay way more tax to begin with than the rest of us. And guess what? People who don't pay income taxes don't benefit from income tax cuts at all!

Duh.

[broncogary]

Originally Posted by Tom G

People who don't pay income taxes don't benefit from income tax cuts at all!Duh.

Not fair!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, there is no significant change in "tax burden"....And it's not a "tax cut for the rich"...

That's not what the CBO says:

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...bo_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

[watermock]

[/quote]In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.[/quote]

Isn't it that a rather odd comment? Making 57,000 you payed 1,600 less, then they bring it to 75,000 and don't even give a figure. LABF, it doesn't take a genius to see the cutoff points are 51,000 and 75,000. Go look at it again dimwit. They are using breakout points to make a very weak argument. What do you bet someone making 49,900 to 74,900 had SIGNIFICANT tax savings.

And as was pointed out, the lowest 30% don't even pay taxes. Many got 300 dollars if you filed even a year after they didn't. In effect, they filed a year later and still got 300 bucks.

Now hit the spam button.

[alkemical]

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6684.htm

The Broken Promises of George W. Bush:

Rhetoric vs. Reality

08/09/04 "American Progress" -- President Bush made a lot of promises during his 2000 presidential campaign. The record shows it was all talk.

HEALTH CARE RHETORIC


HEALTH CARE REALITY

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


In the first two years Bush was in office, the number of uninsured American increased by nearly four million. Since Bush took office, health insurance premiums have risen by an average rate of 12.5 percent per year. According to a major study, "widespread adoption [of Bush's major health care plan] could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers." [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 7/8/04; Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/04; USA Today, 4/25/04]

"George W. Bush will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund' to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


Bush never established this fund. [Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04]

ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC


ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question.

[Source: Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04]

HIGHER ED RHETORIC


HIGHER ED REALITY

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Education website]


President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. [Source: House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04]



there's more listed -

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by amesj523

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6684.htm

The Broken Promises of George W. Bush:

Rhetoric vs. Reality

08/09/04 "American Progress" -- President Bush made a lot of promises during his 2000 presidential campaign. The record shows it was all talk.

HEALTH CARE RHETORIC


HEALTH CARE REALITY

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


In the first two years Bush was in office, the number of uninsured American increased by nearly four million. Since Bush took office, health insurance premiums have risen by an average rate of 12.5 percent per year. According to a major study, "widespread adoption [of Bush's major health care plan] could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers." [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 7/8/04; Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/04; USA Today, 4/25/04]

"George W. Bush will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund' to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


Bush never established this fund. [Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04]

ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC


ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question.

[Source: Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04]

HIGHER ED RHETORIC


HIGHER ED REALITY

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Education website]


President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. [Source: House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04]



there's more listed -

Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

A politician lying... who'd have thunk it? rofl

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

It depends on who the press is talking about.

If it's Kerry, then it's "flip flops."

If it's AWOL Boy, then it's "steady leadership."

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

It depends on who the press is talking about.

If it's Kerry, then it's "flip flops."

If it's AWOL Boy, then it's "steady leadership."

, it's too late to fight that fight, your side's already lost. Here are some results from the latest Pew poll of undecided voters:

Willing to Take A Stand - Bush 68%, Kerry 15%
A Strong Leader - Bush 62%, Kerry 14%
Good Judgement In A Crisis - Bush 50%, Kerry 20%
Honest and Truthful - Bush 34%, Kerry 19%
Down to Earth - Bush 46%, Kerry 34%
Personally Likeable - Bush 39%, Kerry 32%
Changes Mind Too Much - Bush 21%, Kerry 48%
Favorablility - Bush 75%, Kerry 66%

Kerry "wins" the "Changes Mind Too Much" by more than 2:1. ROFL

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/221.pdf

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here are some results from the latest Pew poll...

Pew poll?

Looks like another right-wing think tank can't calculate electoral votes.

Kerry 327

Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Zogby: Kerry 50 Bush 43 - Likely Voters.

"The presidential ticket of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards gained two points since the Democratic National convention over President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney and now leads by seven points (50%-43%)."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=851

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.

Bull****. Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office and there's $16 billion in unclaimed federal education money that is just sitting there for the states to claim. The numbers Democrats point to are spending caps, not funding levels. Using the Democrat's standard, even their proposed budget for FY' 05 didn't fully fund NCLB.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Bull****. Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office and there's $16 billion in unclaimed federal education money that is just sitting there for the states to claim. The numbers Democrats point to are spending caps, not funding levels. Using the Democrat's standard, even their proposed budget for FY' 05 didn't fully fund NCLB.

Is that why there's a new M&O (maintenance and operations) school levy brought to the ballot almost every year?

And if your stats are true, how can you explain this:

LAT: Teachers Lose (fed. and Cali st.) Tax Breaks for Class Supplies

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supplies15aug15...

(requires registration)