# Someone told me that most tax cuts don't even benefit middle or low income wage earners, is this true?

Candidates for government office often use tax cuts as a platform to run for office. But don't mention that you usually have to make a minimum amount (more than most make) before the tax cut can even be used?

Relevance
• J P
Lv 7

By definition, tax cuts provide the greatest benefit to those who pay a lot in taxes, and provide very little benefit to those who pay little to begin with.

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.

The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.

The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.

When calculating the "benefit" of an across-the-board tax cut, the pie is going to be divided the very same way. Since the bottom 50 percent of income earners collectively pay only 4 percent of the total income tax collected, their share of any cut will be only 4 percent of that cut divided among 50 percent of tax payers, resulting in a minimal dollar amout for each person because they paid so little to begin with.

Conversely, 35 percent of any across-the-board cut is going to distributed among the top 1 percent of tax payers, resulting in a substantial savings to them, because they're paying such a large percentage in the first place.

There is nothing evil about this, it's just math. But it makes for a great bumper-sticker argument to say that Bush cuts taxes for the rich while ignoring the poor.

• ?
Lv 7

This is so true.

Have you noticed that since bush has been in office the price of everything from a loaf of bread to a gallon of gasoline has skyrocketed in massive leaps and bounds?

A dollar just doesn't buy as much as it used to.

Those who take home over \$100,000.00 a year are getting the biggest tax cuts in American history and they're begging, with their hats in their hands, for more.

Most Americans don't make \$100,000.00.

Most middle and low income Americans have to seek out Medi-Aid and food banks because even though both husband and wife are working they make just enough money to pay rent or buy groceries, but not both.

There have never been so many young Americans who have lost their homes, because of not being able to keep up with the payments, as now.

The middle class is rapidly disappearing under reagan/bush-anomics.

.

The problem with tax cuts is they give low-income people a small amount of money back (if any), whereas rich people get millions and millions of dollars. This is justified, however, thanks to the ultra-right wing myth of trickle-down economics. There are two major problems with this theory:

1. The extremely wealthy don't generally go out and just blow a few million dollars. They invest it for their own personal gain.

2. Wealthy people don't generally buy products from poor or working class people. They don't generally buy consumer-grade products at all, they buy exclusive, handmade goods. Do you think that anyone who sells Ferraris for a living is worrying over rent payments? Don't count on it.

I don't have a problem with wealthy people earning more money, but when they get money at the expense of the nation and government it begins to worry me. Why is it that important to get the money back? What can someone do with \$90,000,000 that he can't do with \$88,000,000?

It all comes down to greed and upper-class elitism, nothing more.