Comments on: Bush Tax Cut for the Rich Extended - Now What?

By: JB Baby

JB Baby — Sun, 21 May 2006 21:37:03 +0000

The new best part about the tax cuts passed for the rich, is the tax increase passed against students. Remember a few years ago when Bush suggested setting up college investment accounts for your kids as a way to offset tuition hikes (rather than increase funding to universities and colleges)? Now we know why. They are now going to tax the sh#* out of those accounts. As much as 35% of the interest. But it’s good to know that those making over a million a year get an extra $40K a year to send their kids to school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/washington/21tax.html?ex=1305864000&en=7c84696f1594960a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:37:51 +0000

Those numbers from the Heritage Foundation are deceiving though because they include things like FICA payroll taxes made by the employee as well as the employers 7.5%. So that’s where the bulk of the huge looking dispartity comes from.

By: 666

666 — Fri, 19 May 2006 03:31:23 +0000

Hey, I did a post on the blog site I participate in that makes fun of the upcoming Badger Blog Alliance Bash. Chris, one of the organizer got really mad at us for making fun of his bi-partisan party. He was picking on progressives and said the post wasn’t fun.

Could you take a look and let us know what you think? I looks to me that the BBA leadership is pretty much controlled by bloggers who love those Bloggers For Green links.

http://abovetheborderline.blogspot.com/2006/05/bloggers-make-plans-to-attend-this.html

For a stay-at-home, conservative blogger, that Chris is real sensitive.

By: JB Baby

JB Baby — Fri, 19 May 2006 00:39:21 +0000

Yes those who are wealthier pay more, but to paraphrase Chris Rock referring to alimony:
“If you make $30 million and she wants 15, big deal. You ain’t starving. But if you make $30,000, and she wants half, you might have to kill her…” While I don’t endorse violence against women, the point remains that there is a huge difference between an inconvenience for those with some money and affording the necessities of life for those without.

I also read the article, and while it had some good points, it also skims over a few other facts. For example, while tax cuts in the early 80’s precipitated an economic boom, tax increases in the early 90’s (under Clinton, targeted against the wealthy) precipitated an even bigger economic boom.

In addition to that little snippet, the article also points out how federal revenues increased after the tax cuts by Reagan (although they gloss over the two year loss following the cuts). However, everyone seems to forget how federal revenues from taxes rise naturally. So while the article states that revenues increased 33% (after inflation) it also gives no indication what the revenue increase would be without.

I think we can all agree on one thing, though. Taxes suck :(

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Thu, 18 May 2006 18:22:53 +0000

Meanwhile, the people that make over 100,000 will continue to pay 85% of the taxes collected in the US.

These income earners pay more in taxes in ONE YEAR than a lot people will pay in a LIFETIME. They pay almost as much as we pay in a decade. One needs to look at the whole picture.

Here’s a quick and rough chart of what people will PAY in taxes:
Income Taxes
10,000 1,135
20,000 2,640
30,000 4,165
40,000 6,665
50,000 9,165
60,000 11,665
100,000 22,506
250,000 69,498
500,000 155,470
1,000,000 330,470
2,000,000 680,470

Also - a good read:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm

By: JB Baby

JB Baby — Wed, 17 May 2006 21:51:13 +0000

I think I’ll put my $50 in the elect Gore lockbox ;)

On the plus side, I’ve noticed a strange occurence in my uber-conservative neighborhood. All of those stupid “W” stickers have suddenly disappeared from the cars around here. I mean a lot of them. Apparently shame has set in.