Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......
For 10 years we've heard that Bush simply cut taxes for the rich.
According to Google, you're the only one who has ever said, "Bush simply cut taxes for the rich."
"Bush simply cut taxes for the rich." - Google Search
Getting back to the OP we see that Elvis was right!! If you tell the same lie enough times (such as someone said that Bush only cut taxes for the rich) then people will start to believe it.
So now we know that nobody ever said that except for the OP.
What can we say about taxes that have not been said six times already, now seven threads on tax.
What can we say about taxes that have not been said six times already, now seven threads on tax.Bingo!!!!
I'm guessing the (above) neophyte-"conservatives" assume everyone (else) has the same short-term-memory issues (most) "conservatives" have (proven-to) possess.
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?
According to Google, you're the only one who has ever said, "Bush simply cut taxes for the rich."
"Bush simply cut taxes for the rich." - Google Search
Getting back to the OP we see that Elvis was right!! If you tell the same lie enough times (such as someone said that Bush only cut taxes for the rich) then people will start to believe it.
So now we know that nobody ever said that except for the OP.
Have you said your prayers to Obama yet this morning?
Another example of the first quote in my sig!If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......
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 $2600 tax cut. Sorry.Another example of the first quote in my sig!
It is a CON$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.
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.Then you didn't get a $2600 tax cut. Sorry.Wrong. I didn't make 100k a year. 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
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.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.
bite me, asshole.
The numbers expose you as an America-hating tax cheat, a liar or both.That's true, averages don't take into account tax cheats.
bite me, asshole.
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?
Where are all those jobs that were supposed to trickle down from these tax cuts?
Borrowing $2 trillion to pay for these cuts did not seem to help
I still think that that tax cut should disappear ... not just for Elvis but for everyone else who got a tax cut on China's dime 7 years ago. Time to pay the piper, America.
Another example of the first quote in my sig!If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it......
It is a CON$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.
Using your calculator, a married couple filing jointly with a taxable income of $400k in 2000, Clinton's last tax year, paid $131,068 in taxes. After Bush's first tax cut in 2001 the same couple paid $128,443 or about $2,600 less.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 $2600 a year seems about right.
Another example of the first quote in my sig!
It is a CON$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.
Using your calculator, a married couple filing jointly with a taxable income of $400k in 2000, Clinton's last tax year, paid $131,068 in taxes. After Bush's first tax cut in 2001 the same couple paid $128,443 or about $2,600 less.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.
In 2002 an income of $300k saved $2,600. After Bush's 2003 tax cut an income of $120k saved $2,600. In 2004 $115k saved $2,600. 2005 - $110k, 2006 - $100k, 2007 - $85k, 2008 - $77k for an average income of over $160k for Bush's 8 years to average a $2,600 savings each year. Even if you drop Bush's first 2 years and use only 2003 to 2008 as you did it averages $102k, so I was in the ballpark with my over $100k figure all along.
I still think that that tax cut should disappear ... not just for Elvis but for everyone else who got a tax cut on China's dime 7 years ago. Time to pay the piper, America.
and we can discuss that...the deficit is huge. but I get tired of hearing that only the rich got the cuts.
and we can discuss that...the deficit is huge. but I get tired of hearing that only the rich got the cuts.
The weren't the only one to get a tax cut, this is true, but they certainly got the largest tax cut. The two lowest brackets went unchanged and the next tier (which most of us fall under) got a 2% cut while the highest bracket got nearly twice that cut at 3.8%. The cuts favored the wealthy, IMO.
That is a total falsehood.