So....Bush Tax Cuts included the rich AND middle class?????????

[bucs90]

For 10 years we've heard that Bush simply cut taxes for the rich.

But now, we hear that if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended, that taxes on the middle class will also go up January 1st.

How is that so? I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich? If so, then why are taxes going up on the middle class on January 1? The Dem's keep saying they are willing to renew the middle class portion of it, but not for the rich? But.......I thought the cuts included ONLY the rich, according the left wings rants over the last decade?

So Bush's crime wasn't cutting taxes for the rich. The crime was merely including the rich into his tax cuts that applied to everyone who wasn't on government welfare already?

I'm confused. So....basically, Bush cut everyones taxes? But his inclusion of rich people in that tax break is what made him so hated by the left?

 

[elvis]

For 10 years we've heard that Bush simply cut taxes for the rich.

But now, we hear that if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended, that taxes on the middle class will also go up January 1st.

How is that so? I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich? If so, then why are taxes going up on the middle class on January 1? The Dem's keep saying they are willing to renew the middle class portion of it, but not for the rich? But.......I thought the cuts included ONLY the rich, according the left wings rants over the last decade?

So Bush's crime wasn't cutting taxes for the rich. The crime was merely including the rich into his tax cuts that applied to everyone who wasn't on government welfare already?

I'm confused. So....basically, Bush cut everyones taxes? But his inclusion of rich people in that tax break is what made him so hated by the left?

The Bush tax cuts saved me at least $2600 a year the past eight years. I'm not rich.

 

[elvis]

all you have to do is look at the IRS tax brackets for say last year vs. 2000. That will tell the tale of the tax cuts.

 

[bucs90]

For 10 years we've heard that Bush simply cut taxes for the rich.

But now, we hear that if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended, that taxes on the middle class will also go up January 1st.

How is that so? I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich? If so, then why are taxes going up on the middle class on January 1? The Dem's keep saying they are willing to renew the middle class portion of it, but not for the rich? But.......I thought the cuts included ONLY the rich, according the left wings rants over the last decade?

So Bush's crime wasn't cutting taxes for the rich. The crime was merely including the rich into his tax cuts that applied to everyone who wasn't on government welfare already?

I'm confused. So....basically, Bush cut everyones taxes? But his inclusion of rich people in that tax break is what made him so hated by the left?

bush tax cuts saved me at least $2600 a year the past eight years. and I'm not rich.

Yeah, I'm not rich either, and the Bush cuts saved me a few thousand dollars too. I spent that money. Some on bills, some on just buying stuff I have wanted for a while but couldnt' afford yet, some on a new truck I needed.

But I was very confused. Because for 10 years, the left wing has ranted on how Bush just "cut taxes for the rich" and did nothing else.

If that were true, then only the rich's taxes would go up Jan 1, but they are all saying if these cuts aren't extended, everyone's are going up. How so? Does that mean Bush included the middle class in his tax cuts? It sure seems like it.

So....either the left wing is lying about Bush......or......they are lying in saying that Jan 1 the middle class will see higher taxes if the Bush cuts expire. Which is it?

 

[elvis]

For 10 years we've heard that Bush simply cut taxes for the rich.

But now, we hear that if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended, that taxes on the middle class will also go up January 1st.

How is that so? I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich? If so, then why are taxes going up on the middle class on January 1? The Dem's keep saying they are willing to renew the middle class portion of it, but not for the rich? But.......I thought the cuts included ONLY the rich, according the left wings rants over the last decade?

So Bush's crime wasn't cutting taxes for the rich. The crime was merely including the rich into his tax cuts that applied to everyone who wasn't on government welfare already?

I'm confused. So....basically, Bush cut everyones taxes? But his inclusion of rich people in that tax break is what made him so hated by the left?

bush tax cuts saved me at least $2600 a year the past eight years. and I'm not rich.

Yeah, I'm not rich either, and the Bush cuts saved me a few thousand dollars too. I spent that money. Some on bills, some on just buying stuff I have wanted for a while but couldnt' afford yet, some on a new truck I needed.

But I was very confused. Because for 10 years, the left wing has ranted on how Bush just "cut taxes for the rich" and did nothing else.

If that were true, then only the rich's taxes would go up Jan 1, but they are all saying if these cuts aren't extended, everyone's are going up. How so? Does that mean Bush included the middle class in his tax cuts? It sure seems like it.

So....either the left wing is lying about Bush......or......they are lying in saying that Jan 1 the middle class will see higher taxes if the Bush cuts expire. Which is it?

If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......

 

[mdn2000]

bush tax cuts saved me at least $2600 a year the past eight years. and I'm not rich.

Yeah, I'm not rich either, and the Bush cuts saved me a few thousand dollars too. I spent that money. Some on bills, some on just buying stuff I have wanted for a while but couldnt' afford yet, some on a new truck I needed.

But I was very confused. Because for 10 years, the left wing has ranted on how Bush just "cut taxes for the rich" and did nothing else.

If that were true, then only the rich's taxes would go up Jan 1, but they are all saying if these cuts aren't extended, everyone's are going up. How so? Does that mean Bush included the middle class in his tax cuts? It sure seems like it.

So....either the left wing is lying about Bush......or......they are lying in saying that Jan 1 the middle class will see higher taxes if the Bush cuts expire. Which is it?

If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......

If you tell a lie to a libel once they believe it.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So basically, the left has lied for 10 years. Bush did cut taxes for the rich....AND the middle class.

But they are so obsessed with class warfare, that his mere inclusion of the rich in his tax cuts infuriated them to the point that they just lied about it?

And NOW they are so obsessed with taking money away from the rich, that they are willing to risk allowing taxes to go up on everyone just to avoid allowing the rich to be included in a Bush Tax Cut extension?

So, I suppose the left is so fanatical about class warfare, they are putting ideology over the best interest in the nations economy right now. Got it.

 

[elvis]

Ok. So basically, the left has lied for 10 years. Bush did cut taxes for the rich....AND the middle class.

But they are so obsessed with class warfare, that his mere inclusion of the rich in his tax cuts infuriated them to the point that they just lied about it?

And NOW they are so obsessed with taking money away from the rich, that they are willing to risk allowing taxes to go up on everyone just to avoid allowing the rich to be included in a Bush Tax Cut extension?

So, I suppose the left is so fanatical about class warfare, they are putting ideology over the best interest in the nations economy right now. Got it.

lie by omission...

 

[Rozman]

Another interesting little factoid for you.The vote that was just held to extend the unemployment benefits yet again showed that 11 Democrats voted no on it and some Dems didn't vote at all.All I hear from Ed Shultz from MSNBC scream about after this latest vote was that the Republicans blocked it yet again.Those evil selfish bastards he pretty much called the Republicans.He failed to mention the Dems part in the vote.

And they rag on Fox for not being truthful.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/house-votes-against-jobless-benefits-extension.html

 

[mdn2000]

No Libels in this thread?

I guess the Libels do not like the title, the title to a thread is more important to the Libels than the content,

Libels want all message boards dominated by the Libel message. It does not matter what the content is inside, its simply repeat the message over and over until the idiots believe its true.

Six tax threads.

 

[mdn2000]

What can we say about taxes that have not been said six times already, now seven threads on tax

 

[edthecynic]

bush tax cuts saved me at least $2600 a year the past eight years. and I'm not rich.

Yeah, I'm not rich either, and the Bush cuts saved me a few thousand dollars too. I spent that money. Some on bills, some on just buying stuff I have wanted for a while but couldnt' afford yet, some on a new truck I needed.

But I was very confused. Because for 10 years, the left wing has ranted on how Bush just "cut taxes for the rich" and did nothing else.

If that were true, then only the rich's taxes would go up Jan 1, but they are all saying if these cuts aren't extended, everyone's are going up. How so? Does that mean Bush included the middle class in his tax cuts? It sure seems like it.

So....either the left wing is lying about Bush......or......they are lying in saying that Jan 1 the middle class will see higher taxes if the Bush cuts expire. Which is it?

If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......

Another example of the first quote in my sig!

It is a CON$ervative lie that Libs said there were NO tax cuts for people who weren't rich! Libs said MOST of the tax cuts went to the rich. MOST is not ALL!!!!!! A small percent of the tax cuts went to the middle class and below.

What CON$ did to make it appear that the tax cuts were spread across the whole spectrum of tax payers was to average the big tax cuts the rich got with the small tax cuts the middle class got. Not only that, they didn't include the 25% who didn't get a tax cut in the average to make the average as deliberately misleading as possible, it was an average only of people who got cuts. Bush claimed an AVERAGE tax cut of $1,586.00. If you average ALL tax payers whether they got a refund or not, it was $1,217.00. To get a tax cut of $1,586.00 you need an income of over $75,000.00.

A more HONEST representation of the tax cuts is the MEDIAN tax cut of $407.00, or about $9.00 per week. That means 50% of tax payers got less than $407 and 50% got more.

For someone to average a $2,600.00 tax cut for 8 years they would need an average income of over $100,000.00 for the 8 years. Maybe that's not rich, but it certainly is well above the median income most Americans earn.

 

[elvis]

Yeah, I'm not rich either, and the Bush cuts saved me a few thousand dollars too. I spent that money. Some on bills, some on just buying stuff I have wanted for a while but couldnt' afford yet, some on a new truck I needed.

But I was very confused. Because for 10 years, the left wing has ranted on how Bush just "cut taxes for the rich" and did nothing else.

If that were true, then only the rich's taxes would go up Jan 1, but they are all saying if these cuts aren't extended, everyone's are going up. How so? Does that mean Bush included the middle class in his tax cuts? It sure seems like it.

So....either the left wing is lying about Bush......or......they are lying in saying that Jan 1 the middle class will see higher taxes if the Bush cuts expire. Which is it?

If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......

Another example of the first quote in my sig!

It is a CON$ervative lie that Libs said there were NO tax cuts for people who weren't rich! Libs said MOST of the tax cuts went to the rich. MOST is not ALL!!!!!! A small percent of the tax cuts went to the middle class and below.

What CON$ did to make it appear that the tax cuts were spread across the whole spectrum of tax payers was to average the big tax cuts the rich got with the small tax cuts the middle class got. Not only that, they didn't include the 25% who didn't get a tax cut in the average to make the average as deliberately misleading as possible, it was an average only of people who got cuts. Bush claimed an AVERAGE tax cut of $1,586.00. If you average ALL tax payers whether they got a refund or not, it was $1,217.00. To get a tax cut of $1,586.00 you need an income of over $75,000.00.

A more HONEST representation of the tax cuts is the MEDIAN tax cut of $407.00, or about $9.00 per week. That means 50% of tax payers got less than $407 and 50% got more.

For someone to average a $2,600.00 tax cut for 8 years they would need an average income of over $100,000.00 for the 8 years. Maybe that's not rich, but it certainly is well above the median income most Americans earn.

Wrong. I didn't make 100k a year. Sorry.

 

[edthecynic]

If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......

Another example of the first quote in my sig!

It is a CON$ervative lie that Libs said there were NO tax cuts for people who weren't rich! Libs said MOST of the tax cuts went to the rich. MOST is not ALL!!!!!! A small percent of the tax cuts went to the middle class and below.

What CON$ did to make it appear that the tax cuts were spread across the whole spectrum of tax payers was to average the big tax cuts the rich got with the small tax cuts the middle class got. Not only that, they didn't include the 25% who didn't get a tax cut in the average to make the average as deliberately misleading as possible, it was an average only of people who got cuts. Bush claimed an AVERAGE tax cut of $1,586.00. If you average ALL tax payers whether they got a refund or not, it was $1,217.00. To get a tax cut of $1,586.00 you need an income of over $75,000.00.

A more HONEST representation of the tax cuts is the MEDIAN tax cut of $407.00, or about $9.00 per week. That means 50% of tax payers got less than $407 and 50% got more.

For someone to average a $2,600.00 tax cut for 8 years they would need an average income of over $100,000.00 for the 8 years. Maybe that's not rich, but it certainly is well above the median income most Americans earn.

Wrong. I didn't make 100k a year. Sorry.

Then you didn't get a $2600 tax cut. Sorry.

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change

Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table Table T03-0123
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/Excel/T03-0123.xls

 

[elvis]

Another example of the first quote in my sig!

It is a CON$ervative lie that Libs said there were NO tax cuts for people who weren't rich! Libs said MOST of the tax cuts went to the rich. MOST is not ALL!!!!!! A small percent of the tax cuts went to the middle class and below.

What CON$ did to make it appear that the tax cuts were spread across the whole spectrum of tax payers was to average the big tax cuts the rich got with the small tax cuts the middle class got. Not only that, they didn't include the 25% who didn't get a tax cut in the average to make the average as deliberately misleading as possible, it was an average only of people who got cuts. Bush claimed an AVERAGE tax cut of $1,586.00. If you average ALL tax payers whether they got a refund or not, it was $1,217.00. To get a tax cut of $1,586.00 you need an income of over $75,000.00.

A more HONEST representation of the tax cuts is the MEDIAN tax cut of $407.00, or about $9.00 per week. That means 50% of tax payers got less than $407 and 50% got more.

For someone to average a $2,600.00 tax cut for 8 years they would need an average income of over $100,000.00 for the 8 years. Maybe that's not rich, but it certainly is well above the median income most Americans earn.

Wrong. I didn't make 100k a year. Sorry.

Then you didn't get a $2600 tax cut. Sorry.

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change

Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table Table T03-0123
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/Excel/T03-0123.xls

those are averages.
I know what I got you disingenuous fuck. Look up the tax brackets the IRS provides and compare 2000 to 2008. Otherwise find out where Obama is so you can face that direction while praying to him, dipshit.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. I didn't make 100k a year. Sorry.

Then you didn't get a $2600 tax cut. Sorry.

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change

Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table Table T03-0123
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/Excel/T03-0123.xls

those are averages.
I know what I got you disingenuous fuck. Look up the tax brackets the IRS provides and compare 2000 to 2008. Otherwise find out where Obama is so you can face that direction while praying to him, dipshit.

That's true, averages don't take into account tax cheats.

 

[elvis]

Then you didn't get a $2600 tax cut. Sorry.

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change

Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table Table T03-0123
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/Excel/T03-0123.xls

those are averages.
I know what I got you disingenuous fuck. Look up the tax brackets the IRS provides and compare 2000 to 2008. Otherwise find out where Obama is so you can face that direction while praying to him, dipshit.

That's true, averages don't take into account tax cheats.

bite me, asshole.

 

[edthecynic]

those are averages.
I know what I got you disingenuous fuck. Look up the tax brackets the IRS provides and compare 2000 to 2008. Otherwise find out where Obama is so you can face that direction while praying to him, dipshit.

That's true, averages don't take into account tax cheats.

bite me, asshole.

The numbers expose you as an America-hating tax cheat, a liar or both.

 

[elvis]

That's true, averages don't take into account tax cheats.

bite me, asshole.

The numbers expose you as an America-hating tax cheat, a liar or both.

yawn.

 

[Article 15]

Here's a link to an income tax calculator that you can adjust year, income, and filing status to determine your tax payment.

Elvis' numbers don't seem unreasonable to me.

A married couple filing jointly with a taxable income of 70k in 2002 paid $12,696.

The same return in 2008 paid $10,188 or about $2400 less.

So if he makes in that neighborhood $2600 a year seems about right.