Were the income tax rates less on lower income workers during 2000 tax year under Clinton administration or 2004 tax year under Bush administration?
2007-09-19 07:32:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lower under Bush, his 2001 plan created a 10% bracket.
2007-09-19 07:36:59 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since President Reagan's Omnibus Tax Reform bill, the poor have NOT even needed to FILE a return, let alone pay Federal Income Taxes (including myself!)
If you will get out a 1040 and read through it, you would realize that the poor have not been affected by Federal Income Taxes since that time. (Don't know about States, but a lot of States base the State Income Taxes upon whatever the IRS does.)
Perhaps you meant the rich (what the Liberal Media calls the Muddle, er, Middle Class!)
If you recall, that was one of the things the Democrats railed against President Bush for: LOWERING Federal Income Taxes!
NOTE: The filthy rich (wealthy) actually had to pay higher rates under Bush than under Clinton. Perhaps these are the ones you call "the poor".
2007-09-19 07:43:09 · answer #2 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares about tax rates when looking at the big picture of the net cost of living? It's a trade-off. When Clinton was in office there were higher taxes, but lower rates of inflation. Now there are lower taxes, but high inflation.
How about the Iraq situation?
Q: Who do you think is going to be responsible for paying for it?
A: Multi generations of tax payers.
2007-09-19 07:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were less under the Bush Administration. He decreased tax rates for everyone after he was elected into office.
2007-09-19 07:37:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
making use of Clinton's tax plan could've helped, yet in the process the 1st 6 years of the Bush administration, whilst repubs controlled each and every thing, Bush signed each and each solitary spending bill positioned till now him. Bush has spent greater funds than all different presidents blended! His falsified conflict in Iraq will finally end up costing us 3 trillion funds. Bush has weakened our greenback, depleted our militia, and used our shape for perforated disposal sheets in his bathing room. you won't be able to spend funds like there is no the following day and anticipate issues to paintings out. Plus, each and each republican voted against a bill that could've outlawed conflict profiteering. So, we've companies making a killing in income off the blood of our squaddies...this has by no skill surpassed off in previous wars. conflict profiteering became seen treason, yet not under republican rule...that's stated as make as lots funds as you are able to off the taxpayer, whilst status on the bodies of our lifeless squaddies.
2016-12-17 05:17:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They didn't change for the poorest as they don't pay taxes but for those that do pay taxes they went down for everyone under Bush...........
2007-09-19 07:36:42 · answer #6 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Shame on you, Soperson.
Clinton promised to lower them before he was elected, but he ended up raising them. Go figure!
2007-09-19 07:39:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the poor do not pay taxes.
2007-09-19 07:55:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know. but we are throwing away money and blood into the black hole of iraq.
general betrayus did not persuade anyone. good.
2007-09-19 07:36:55 · answer #9 · answered by soperson 4 · 0⤊ 6⤋