Cuts for the Poor, Not Rich

Standard

From : http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2043401
As the debate about extending the 2003 tax cuts heats up, liberals continue to tell egregious falsehoods about those tax cuts. The two biggest myths are that those tax cuts were mostly “tax cuts for the rich” and that they led to an explosion in the deficit.

Let’s start with the tale that the 2003 tax cuts were mostly for the rich. Here are some facts that anyone can confirm for themselves by consulting the 2000 tax brackets and comparing them with the post-2003-tax-cut brackets:

* The largest rate cuts went to the poor and to the lower middle class. Here are the 2003 tax cuts’ rate reductions for married couples filing jointly with the following incomes, using 2009 tax tables:

$15,000 – 33%
$50,000 – 46%
$110,000 – 19%
$165,000 – 22%
$300,000 – 16.5%
$380,000 – 11.5%

If we use 2004 tax tables, the rate cuts look like this for married couples filing jointly with the indicated incomes–MITR stands for “marginal income tax rate”:

$50,000 – MITR dropped from 28% to 15%, a drop of 47%
$110,000 – MITR dropped from 31% to 25%, a drop of 19.5%
$165,000 – MITR dropped from 36% to 28%, a drop of 22%
$300,000 – MITR dropped from 39.6% to 33%, a drop of 9%
$380,000 – MITR dropped from 39.6% to 35%, a drop of 11.5%

So the top two brackets got the smallest rate reductions, and the bottom two brackets not only got the largest rate reductions, but their rate reductions were about twice as large as those that the top two brackets received.

* The 2003 tax cuts also doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 (with the phase-out starting at a joint income of $110K) and increased the standard deduction for married couples.

So enough with this myth that the 2003 tax cuts were mostly “tax cuts for the rich.” Quite the opposite: They were mostly tax cuts for the poor and the middle class.

Tax Tables for Year 2000

15% — $0-$43.8K
28% — $43.8K-$105.9K
31% — $105.9K-$161.4K
36% — $161.4K-$288.3K
39.6 — $288.3K+

Tax Tables for Year 2004 (1 year after 2003 tax cuts)

10% — $0-$14.3K
15% — $14.3K-$58.1K
25% — $58.1K-$117.2K
28% — $117.2K-$178.6K
33% — $178.6K-$319.1K)
35% — $319.1K+

Tax Tables for Year 2009

10% — $0-$16K
15% — $16.7K-$67.9K)
25% — $67.9K-$137K
28% — $137K-$208.9K
33% — $208.9K-$372.9K)
35% — $372.9K+

As for the myth that the tax cuts caused the big jump in the deficit:

* Federal revenue increased dramatically after the 2003 tax cuts, going from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, a whopping increase of $780 billion in just four years (2004 to 2007).

* The rate of revenue growth in the three years after the 2003 tax cuts was greater than the rate of revenue growth during the best three years of the Clinton boom years. From 1998 to 2000, federal revenue rose by $300 billion, an increase of 17%. But, from 2004 to 2006, federal revenue rose by $520 billion, an increase of 27%. (The rate of inflation for the two periods was very similar 2.55% vs. 2.98%.)

* Reckless, runaway federal spending caused the deficit, not the tax cuts.

Suggested Reading:

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep…-Bush-Tax-Cuts

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s