Tax cuts for the 'Rich'?

Question

Can anyone show me the 'tax cut for the rich' that all the liberals seem to talk about all the time?

Can any of you liberals show me the specifics of the tax cut? Or do you just say it because you think it sounds good?

Answer 1

Example 1: Capital Gains Tax cut.

Capital Gains tax was cut by republicans from 27 percent to 15 percent. The capital gains tax is a tax that you pay on a certain type of investment income called a "Capital Gain" an example of a capital gain is the profit you make when you buy stock and it goes up in value and then you sell it. Capital Gains is one type of income that is not made by working.

Capital Gains taxes are paid by people who make lots of money on capital invetments, by definition they must make more than they lose on their other capital investments in order to pay the tax. Capital Gains taxes are not placed on retirement investment such as 401K with a few exceptions.

Most middle class people make a tiny percent of their income through capital gains, this is because most middle class people ahve their stock in a retirement account which doesnt pay capital gains. Most "RICH" people have already maxed out their retirement acocunt contributions and make a much larger share of their income on capital gains.

So when there is a capital gains tax cut, the Rich benefit the most. Their investment income (that they make from NOT WORKING) is now taxed at a much lower rate than most americans WORKING income, including their own. Many rich people have also figured out a way to turn their regular income into Capital Gains income through creative (but not illegal) accounting, so they are also getting a tax cut on their normal income.

This is an example of a TAX CUT FOR THE RICH. Massive tax cut for the rich, hardly anything for middle class.

Example 2: Dividend Tax Cut

Congress passed a Dividend Tax cut this year, reducing the tax rate on another type of investment income (a type of income that doesnt involve WORK), where people who own shares of stock and other assets receive cash payments for each share they own. Repulbicans slashed the top divided rate from 39.6 percent to 15 percent. This is now much lower than the income tax rate that the same people would pay on their income if they worked for it.

Again, regular people don't own enough stock to get very many dvidents. Througought my entire life, I think I've made about 1000 dollars on dividends. THE RICH benefit greatly from these tax cuts, since many rich people, especially older rich people, recieve a lot of dividend income.

George Bush, on his 2005 tax return, saved about 26,000 dollars from these tax cuts. I didn't make enough of this investment income to even qualify. Most americans don't.


Example 3: Estate Tax

Finally, the republicans tried unsuccessfully to cut the ESTATE TAX down to 0%. The estate tax is a tax that people like Paris Hilton pay, when they inherit more then 2 million dollars from a dead realative that for some reason, has not already transferred his entire fortune to his children already. If you don't inherit more than 2 million dollars then you don't pay the tax. If you inherit 2 million and two dollars, then you only pay estate tax on the 2 dollars in excess of two million.

It is not a tax on the dead person, it's a tax on the person taht recieves all that money by inheriting it. (NOT WORKING)

I don't think i have to explain why the middle class doesn't pay this tax.

So there are three examples of "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" That most people will never benefit from. I hope that is clear. The basic philosophy of republicans seems to be that the higher your income and the more income you make from not working, then the more you should get back in tax cuts.

I hope people realize how unfair the recent republican tax cust have been and vote this November.

Answer 2

Specifics, facts and figures, why do you NeoCons keep talking about facts and figures when you don't believe the facts and figures of the Tax cuts for the rich which Bush and the Republicans have forced through Congress. Just look at the Tax Cut bills written and look where the money goes. But then, what is use of arguing with people who refuse to see or accept the facts.
I will admit the Democrats came up with the "Tax cuts for the Rich slogan, however, why don't you try to be honest about it. If you refuse to honest about the purpose of Tax Cuts, then your mantra is no more than empty words.

Answer 3

There was defenitely a tax cut, but I seriously doubt that people can say that the rich aren't paying their fair share. The richest 1% of all Americans pay 33.7% of all federal income taxes, even after the Bush tax cuts, while the bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3.6% share. An IRS study shows that, even after including Social Security taxes, the tax burden for the rich grew from 1979 to 1999. The study shows that over the course of 20 years the richest 0.1% of all taxpayers saw their overall tax share double -- from 5.06% to 11.05%. The top 20% of all earners also saw their tax share increase sharply to more than two-thirds of all taxes paid.

Answer 4

It is the estate tax cut that would tax inheritences of over 5 million dollars, hence it would favor the richest Americans. Fortunately, the repeal of this tax is being contested not only by Democrats but by a Republican from Ohio, because he noted that it would cut out a huge part of our national revenue.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters that the bill, which would reduce federal revenues by nearly $280 billion over the next 10 years, would be brought to the House floor for a vote Thursday.

Answer 5

I HAVE BEEN CALLED A LIBERAL ON MANY OCCASIONS AS WELL AS A CONSERVATIVE A FEW TIMES.
there is no such thing as a tax cut or tax increase it is all just a way of saying you have to work harder or less to have the same thing you have now.corporate tax increases are passed directly to workers and consumers if consumers can not absorb it then workers will . never once has a single dollar in tax been paid by a corporation so why do we tax them at all.what are we hiding from the people by hiding tax increases why do we not just say you need to do more work or you can relax a little and things will still be allright.
with some much ignorance i find myself just blurting out anything i can to try and understand whats wrong with people.

Answer 6

While you all seem pretty happy showing the $ amount SAVED by the rich, you should take a look at the amount SPENT annually by the rich.

Before you *****, realize that the wealthy are paying for ALL of your social programs, ALL government expenses, and generating damn near ALL the jobs that you have to put food on your table.

Instead of bitching, do like they did and make more money. You'll have a different perspective when 50%+ of your paycheck is going to taxes.

Answer 7

Your question is what's the optimal tax fee, and would't be responded except you specify some criteria. If were searching at monetary performance, the tax fee might want to nicely be raised plenty with out hampering lengthy run monetary performance, given the evidence of historic tax expenses and monetary boom. to illustrate, the utmost boom fee of the U. S. became 17% in 1941 even as the acceptable fee became ninety 2.5%. with out figuring out on absolutely everyone certain style of dates or tax expenses, that is overly beneficiant to say there is not any correlation between lengthy time period monetary boom and tax expenses. in actuality, some economists argue that prime tax expenses stimulate agency funding to steer away from the tax, and that this hence will enhance wages and decreases the inequality of income, elevating mixture call for and stabilizing intense output. There are a minimum of two thoughts of 'equity' - one is that folk might want to pay an identical tax regardless of their income, and individuals might want to pay more advantageous the more advantageous they make. the former (what became once called the 'pole tax' became dropped contained in the middle a even as. that is now for us be certain what fee structure is perfect. i imagine that because the monetary gadget became doing nicely and few complained about taxes in the course of the Clinton administration, i might want to say that is probable ok, and to shrink taxes, as Bush did, became stupid and absurd, given the consequences to the deficit.

Answer 8

Are you rich?(income over 1,000,000 a year) if so, why worry? Official government statistics: those earning 14 times over the annual average income receiive 44 times more in tax dividends. Why worry about the rich? Some of those rich folks are democrats. Oh, the horror.

Answer 9

ill give you reason from personal experience rather then numbers. i live in a working class neighborhood where in the 90's everbody got more money from taxes and had more money to support their families. since the bush tax cuts we are now paying more money and receiving less money while somebody that make over a million pays less then in the 90's and receives more. shame on bush and shame on anybody that agrees with this philosophy. you don't know the difference between clinton and bush becasue either you live in a household that makes over 100,000 or youve been brainwashed to follow a president that doesn't care about you. i could get the numbers but i would be wasting my energy, bush supporters are too stubborn, like their leader. and shame on that yahoo user before me for using the term welfare like it is something to make front of, lets start treating people with respect your no better then somebody on welfare. we are equal. we all breath the same air, we bleed, and have the same human emotions, lets stop acting like were better then other people becasue of money.

Answer 10

Tax Cuts to the Rich would be those Cuts on Tax that he gave to everyone, but they convienently got bigger the more money you have. Therefore, the richer you are, the bigger the tax cut.