Originally posted by Toad
Hold on there, amigo.
The 2001 Bush tax cut didn't cut a third off any rich dude's taxes. There are minimal reductions in percentage tax rates of the 2-3 higher brackets.
Further, the bracket adjustment clearly favors the lowest income taxpayers.
Before the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
2004, after the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
Now, if you want to argue that extremely rich people can afford to pay the very best tax advisor's, attorneys and investment people to decrease their tax burden, I'd agree. I'd also agree that that very, very rich have tax shelters available that are not available to lower bracket taxpayers. But you can't hang either one of those situations on Bush. It's been that way forever, under Presidents from both parties.
if ti was strictly what percentage bracket she fell into you would be absolutely correct.
but as anyone who does their won taxes knows it's never that simple. in an average year, if I just take standard deductions I would get about $600 back on my federal taxes, while if I take advantage of all of the deduction I am legally entitled to I get anywhere from $2,700-$3,400 back.
the Bush tax cuts were not just about changing percentage points on the tax table.
much of it was about re classifying what types or how much of what types of income is taxable. this has a much bigger impact than just changing the percentage.
for example one of the cuts reduced the taxable amount on income from dividends on privately owned stock.
the majority of working people I know own stock through their pension plans, these aren't privately owned so no tax cut for us.
while very wealthy people who are living off inherited money (or more accurately the income that money generates) get the amount of their income drastically cut while the guy who has to sweat for his income doesn't see the cuts.
