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

[edthecynic]

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

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.

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.
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.

Ed, you were wrong to call Elvis a liar or a cheat based on what he said. The numbers I posted prove that.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic boom years.

 

[Article 15]

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.
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.

Ed, you were wrong to call Elvis a liar or a cheat based on what he said. The numbers I posted prove that.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic years.

The way I read it he was talking about the 2003 cuts. The brackets have been the same every year since, correct? So it would be fair to believe the guy if he said he saved about that every year. Elvis isn't a liar, I'd vouch for that every day.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The thing is there were two different tax cuts. One in 2001 and the other in 2003. The ones which are set to expire are the 2003 cuts which favor the wealthy.

There doesn't seem to be any logical-reason to maintain either....

​

 

[editec]

Wonder how much of a tax cut Rush got?

Bet its wildly greater than a mere $112,925
.

In fact I'd be willing to bet its more than the $1,000,001 dollars that people in the same tax break class make every year, too.

But hey. if you geniuses making a mere million a year want to be taxed more so that billionaires can pay less?

Who am I to complain?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

C'mon....a "conservative"....totally-immune to FAUX Noise & Porky Limbaugh???

I don't buy it. That'd suggest bucs90 has the capacity to think-for-himself (herself?).....and, we (already) know what happens to "conservatives" who attempt that!!!

​

 

[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 ****. 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.

Ed, you were wrong to call Elvis a liar or a cheat based on what he said. The numbers I posted prove that.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic years.

The way I read it he was talking about the 2003 cuts. The brackets have been the same every year since, correct? So it would be fair to believe the guy if he said he saved about that every year. Elvis isn't a liar, I'd vouch for that every day.

Not to belabor the point, he did say 2000 to 2008, so since you vouch for him, and I consider you to be an honest person, I will assume if he is married and filing jointly that his wife or someone else does his taxes.

 

[Care4all]

Ed, you were wrong to call Elvis a liar or a cheat based on what he said. The numbers I posted prove that.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic years.

The way I read it he was talking about the 2003 cuts. The brackets have been the same every year since, correct? So it would be fair to believe the guy if he said he saved about that every year. Elvis isn't a liar, I'd vouch for that every day.

I'd vouch for that as well, any day of the week!

 

[Article 15]

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 ****. 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.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic years.

The way I read it he was talking about the 2003 cuts. The brackets have been the same every year since, correct? So it would be fair to believe the guy if he said he saved about that every year. Elvis isn't a liar, I'd vouch for that every day.

Not to belabor the point, he did say 2000 to 2008, so since you vouch for him, and I consider you to be an honest person, I will assume if he is married and filing jointly that his wife or someone else does his taxes.

lol ... he did say 2000-2008, I stand corrected but I don't think he was lying ... $2,600 a year is very reasonable from 2003-present and it appeared as though he wasn't aware there were two different tax cuts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Liberals run and hide from the truth. When their lips are moving they are lying. If you do see a liberal on here spouting off you know he will be lying.

wow.....sophomoric-rhetoric.....whatta creative-tactic......

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The thing is there were two different tax cuts. One in 2001 and the other in 2003. The ones which are set to expire are the 2003 cuts which favor the wealthy.

ahh. the plot thickens.....

Only for the totally-clueless.....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

have a good day, Sheman.

Kickin' "conservative"-ass ALWAYS constitutes a Good Day!!!!

​

 

[Care4all]

The problem I have with the tax cuts is that the social security surplus taxes collected is what is paying for what income taxes should be paying.

taking the social security taxes from the working class and giving them for the most part to the wealthy who primarily do not pay social security taxes on their entire income, was unfair and theft of the poor and middle class's ss surplus money by the wealthiest.

we were told by the bush administration and republicans that a tax cut was needed because we had a projected surplus of taxes coming in.... well, the surplus of taxes projected were surplus taxes from the social security taxes collect and NOT FROM THE WEALTHIEST earners in this country, not from income taxes collected, yet the wealthiest earners took their tax breaks with the surplus taxes in social security, which they do not pay on their full income....if they pay any SS tax at all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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


Look at the TOP TWO income levels.

Note how much the over $1 million a year rate jumps?

This is exactly why I say the progressive rate of taxation has to be continued right up to the top wage levels.

I guaranteed you that the highly productive upper middle and lower-ipperclasses people who made $1,000,001 dollars did not get anywhere near that $112,000 tax break.

BUT THEY ARE included in these dummied down computations, are they not?

It is precisely THOSE people who our current simplified tax system (at the top levels) is SCREWING.

If you make a million a year, you are a flea compared to the people who are REALLY rich.

....And, what poor, downtrodden fleas they are.

Maybe we need to hold a bake-sale, to help them get-by.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wonder how much of a tax cut Rush got?

Bet its wildly greater than a mere $112,925
.

In fact I'd be willing to bet its more than the $1,000,001 dollars that people in the same tax break class make every year, too.

....But, ya' gotta figure....much like Glenn Beck....if Porky isn't bunkered-down (in all his opulence)....he's gotta be shellin'-out some SERIOUS body-guard buck$, when he goes outside....to avoid the SERIOUS ASS-KICKIN' he'd face....by everyone he marginalizes!!!!

That ain't Livin'. That's wallowing-around in his (own) pig-shit....and, waitin'-around for another "wife" to leave him.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 should have never cut taxes for anyone...

...without cutting spending proportionately.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That revenue loss went onto the national debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Who on the left, anyone of consequence, ever claimed Bush ONLY cut taxes for the rich? And who cares?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Tell us who on the left ever said that Bush only cut taxes for the rich. I think the BIG LIE here is claiming that 'the left' said this, btw, there is no 'the left' that unanimously says the same thing.

 

[elvis]

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.

Then quit listening to FAUX Noise & Porky Limbaugh!!!!!!!!​

I don't listen to either one you stupid fuckhead.

 

[elvis]

Ed, you were wrong to call Elvis a liar or a cheat based on what he said. The numbers I posted prove that.

No offense, but you posted only one year, 2008 which was the very lowest income that would produce a $2,600 saving. Elvis said he saved $2,600 EVERY year of Bush's 8 years so he had to average over $100k for the 8 years AND he had to have a DECLINING income each and every one of the GREAT Bush economic years.

The way I read it he was talking about the 2003 cuts. The brackets have been the same every year since, correct? So it would be fair to believe the guy if he said he saved about that every year. Elvis isn't a liar, I'd vouch for that every day.

thank you. I made the calculation back in 2008, comparing each bracket from 2000 to 2008, assuming apparently incorrectly that the numbers were the same for all years in between. and to answer Ed's question, we have our taxes done by an accountant. If there was any cheating (and I doubt there was) it was on her part.