You confuse tax RATE reduction with the actual dollar amount someone saved as a result of a reduced tax rate. They are not one and the same.
The crap about the child rate deduction is irrelevant and Congress was years overdue on adjusting it anyway. That child rate deduction represents just a fraction of what it actually costs to support a child every year. And it isn't meant to cover the total cost of supporting a child, but just provide a slight offset to that total cost with the deduction. Is it really fair to tax someone who earns $40,000 the exact same dollar amount when he is supporting 2 or more people on that salary and the other guy is only supporting himself?
why not? he/she CHOSE to have children and those children use gvt services that taxes pay for, like sCHIP HEALTH insurance, free vacinations, public schools, the parents... to drive kids around use our public roads more too, while the person on their own, uses the roads less and uses gvt resources less in many cases....
should those without children be punished with higher taxes than you for your personal CHOICE?
we were paying $4000 a year on property taxes for schools for the proverbial, ''your'' children to go to school....that's each and every year....for goodness sakes!
NOW, let me say that we are fine with the property tax and the taxes from our federal taxes that go towards k=12 schools for your kids, and for special loans that many of these kids never pay in full for their college and the state universities that get our taxes too, and the vaccinations and the road use and the healthcare, and the college grants etc..........
BUT, is it FAIR to us, having to pay higher taxes while you pay less because by CHOICE you had children?
no, it's not.....imo, but it is acceptable to me because I WISH THE BEST FOR YOU and the future of our country...
Congress is always slow about making any adjustments to it even during times of inflation and rapid rises in the cost of living. Those who earn the same amount but do not have other dependents but themselves will still have far more disposable income than someone with dependents who gets that deduction. They didn't get RICHER than you with that deduction because it is always going to be just a fractional offset of what it cost them to support other people with their income -while you only had to support yourself. Having kids is not a good way of trying to end up with more money in your pocket -because you definitely won't. LOL
if i take care of a sister or a mother or a grandparent or a stranger as you do with your kids, shouldn't i get the same credit as you do with the child credit?
Bush gave an across-the-board tax rate reduction -everyone's tax RATE was reduced by the IDENTICAL percent.
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 15% bracket was NOT REDUCED 3-5% for their entire bracket, they only got the first 5k or so of earnings taxed reduced to 10%, which every tax bracket above the 15% tax bracket got as well.........THAT'S IT.....got it? hope so....
There was not a HUGE tax bracket reduction for the rich while the tax rates for middle and lower income taxpayers were reduced by less. They were all reduced by the identical percent. If the tax rates were 37%-35%-30%-28%-17%-12%, then after the identical tax rate reduction they became 35%-33%-28%-26%-15%-10%.
AGAIN, NOT TRUE frazz.....there was no 17& bracket, only a 15% and the 15% bracket was NOT REDUCED to 12%!!!!! PLEASE LOOK IT UP!
The rich still pay the exact same percent higher tax rate than you do. However if someone paid $385,000 in taxes, a 2% reduction in their tax rate will result in them reducing their taxes by a greater dollar amount than someone who only paid $9,000 in taxes. Someone who paid $9000 in taxes will keep a greater dollar amount of their money than someone who only paid $400 in taxes. Do you think a tax rate cut intended to stimulate the economy should somehow put $7700 of free money in the pocket of someone who was only paying $400 in taxes to begin with while the rich got nothing or what? Maybe you didn't know this -but the majority of all businesses get taxed at the rate used by the wealthiest -so somehow trying to gyp the wealthy out of it would also have zero economic stimulus too.
It was a 2% reduction of every tax bracket. Everyone's tax rate was 2% lower. If someone paying 3 times more taxes than you even earn got to keep a substantially larger dollar amount than you did -that should be a clue that guy STILL pays a massive amount in taxes and STILL pays many times more in total taxes than you even EARNED. Not try to use it as an opportunity to wallow in class envy -which is really about the fact you just didn't earn as much as that guy to begin with. He still got to keep 2% more of his OWN money just like you got to keep 2% more of YOUR money. You didn't get handed someone else's money and neither did the rich guy.
AGAIN, SIMPLY NOT TRUE, THERE WAS NO FULL BRACKET REDUCTION IN THE 15% TAX BRACKET.
It is as if people like you just can't comprehend what that tax rate reduction was even for. The economy was in trouble when Bush took office -and he decided to use the tax rate code as the means to stimulate the economy. The purpose of that tax rate reduction wasn't to try and turn our tax code to an even more progressive one. It wasn't to try and shift an even higher percentage of all taxes paid onto the wealthiest who already pay the lion's share. It was to stimulate the economy. PERIOD -it was the only purpose. And in order to stimulate the economy, you damn well better include the group that actually creates new jobs in the first place or it has little to no stimulative effect whatsoever. The most effective and FAIREST way to stimulate the economy by manipulating the tax rate code -is by reducing all tax brackets by the identical percent. Exactly what Bush did. And exactly why Congress passed it. It treated all taxpayers identically -they all got to keep 2% more of the money they earned.
IF it was to stimulate the economy then:
1 you do not mind letting these tax cuts to expire, when things are better with the economy.
2 you see how well it worked now don't you?
3 every statistic, every analysis, every report sgows as FACT that if it was a stimulus for individuals then most of the money should have been put in to the hands of the poor and the middle class....this group puts near every dollar in stimulus, back in to the economy immediately, while the wealthiest individuals do not even put 40% back in to it months after getting it. AGAIN, omb and the gao have these reports...
It doesn't require a whole lot of mental math here to realize that 2% really isn't a huge amount of your total income, so it just put a bit more of your own money in your pocket instead of government's. Not a lot. It put the identical fraction of the rich guy's income back in his pocket too -but because he pays far more in taxes than you do in the first place, it is a larger dollar amount. Even though it is still just 2%. And multiplied by 180 million taxpayers and the vast majority of businesses who create new jobs -that represents enough to provide a real economic stimulus. However, remove that 2% reduction from those who pay the highest tax rate in the first place but for whom it is still just 2% of their own money they get to keep just like you -and you remove nearly the entire stimulative effect.
