Friday, December 03, 2010

The (Bush) Tax Cuts Explained

Media Matters had two separate posts regarding the Lame Duck House of Representative's vote on the Bush Tax Cuts, one about Fox Nation's response, and one about Fox and Friends.

In both, a member by the name of "whatithink" posted two very informative notes.

The first was about how tax cuts work:

I don't think conservatives realize just exactly what they are getting so upset about.

Let's say I make $249,000/yr. I would still get the Bush tax cuts.

Let's say I make $251,000/yr. I would still get the Bush tax cuts on $250,000 and the extra $1 would get taxed at a higher rate.

If a person makes over $250k/yr, that doesn't mean they get no tax cut at all. It means the portion that exceeds the $250k gets taxed at a higher rate. Get it yet? So all this crying that people making over $250k/yr will get no tax cut is a bunch of BS. EVERYBODY, from you, me, to the movie stars who make $20 million a picture, gets the same tax cuts on the first $250,000.

Now, I understand that math and numbers and what not are considered elitist and "out of touch", but how in the world do you expect to understand how the tax code works when you refuse to believe the numbers?

Oh yeah, I forgot, just listen to the lies the spew on Fox and right wing talk radio.



The second was information debunking this whole "The GOP Version Would Lead to More Job Creation" myth:

Okay, here's some numbers. All you conservatives who think learning and education is some sort of elitist past time, bear with me...numbers don't lie.

If a person makes $500,000 a year, and is single, how much money would this "job creator" save under the Bush tax plan?

If the Democrats get their plan, that person would owe $161,137.
If the Republicans get their plan, that person would owe $148,989.

That is a difference of $12,148.

Tell me, who is this "job creator" going to hire for $12,148 a year? That works out to $5.84 an hour. If a person has just 1 dependent, that is below the federal poverty line.

Now, it's been shown, that since the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the majority of the money has been placed in savings or investments...and not just investments, but foreign investments. Between 2000 and 2008 foreign investment went from $1.3 trillion to $3.2 trillion.

The Bush tax cuts in the same period cost $1.3 trillion.

Do you see the pattern yet? The Bush tax cuts cost $1.3 trillion between 2000 and 2008, foreign investments went up $1.9 trillion in the same period.

So, my question, and I'm sure the question that a lot of other people have, is: why wasn't that $1.3 trillion put back into the US economy? Failing that, why wasn't that $1.3 trillion used to create jobs? After all, the Republican argument is that tax cuts will spur job creation. Well, so far, $1.3 trillion in tax savings to the rich has resulted in the catastrophic loss of jobs. Why should the same policy, which has not succeeded in it's stated purpose be continued?


Things like this keep me optimistic, because it shows that not everyone is settling for whatever the TV is telling them.

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home