Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

Are suppose to be good for the economy........

To fix the economy congress gives the rest of us a stimulus check......

Isn't' that just proving a tax break for the middle class is better for the economy ?

Update:

If they are over taxed tell me why Warren Buffet says the rich aren't paying their share.

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The whole thing is absolute absurdity. Bush has grown the government to record levels, debt to record levels, yet he keeps insisting that the fix is lower taxes.

    Republicans put up this smoke screen about taxes being lower under Bush than Clinton, but conveniently leave out that we were in great financial shape during the Clinton years. Under Bush, we're in terrible financial shape in terms of budget deficits and our skyrocketing national debt.

    In your personal life, it's the equivalent of charging up your credit cards, taking a pay cut at work, and making minimum payments.

    Republicans also like to tell you that "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't exist - another lie. Through loopholes intentionally written into the tax code, many many rich people are in the 15% tax bracket, and pay a disproportionately low percentage of their income in taxes.

    The problem is that people don't understand what's going on - they buy whatever line from whatever politician or pundit that makes them feel good, the insist on that being the truth.

    Low taxes are what we all want, but only to the point where lowering taxes is a responsible act. The Bush tax cuts in the face of record spending are highly IRRESPONSIBLE acts.

  • 1 decade ago

    Your first mistake was to believe Warren Buffet or George Soros. Your question points out that even liberals see that tax cuts are a good thing. Where they disagree is that somehow the rich need to pay more. The fact is that they DO pay more. They are rich. Having an "increased rate" system punishes those who work the hardest and promotes class envy. A "fair" tax is better. Each should pay the same percentage OR get rid of the income tax and let everyone pay taxes on the things they buy. Those things won't happen because Congress would have to give up too much power. Your premise does not hold. If ANY tax cut is good, that does not tell us that if the rich are not included it is better for the economy. It tells us that a refund across the board would not have been approved by a Congress that believes class warfare is a good thing and that money flows up to the rich and not vice versa. Where would you be if not for the rich?

  • 1 decade ago

    Keeping the citizens' money in the citizens' control has been a consistent way of spurring the economy. The government is a poor economic planner and is slow to react to changing markets.

    Bureaucracies produce nothing but more bureaucracies. This is the equivalent of Detroit making cars and selling them directly to junkyards to be scrapped, there may be a massive gross production but the net gain is a loser.

    Shrinking bureaucracies on all levels is good for the economy. The easiest way to do that is to take the money away from the governments that would create those bureacracies.

    Oh ... and Warren Buffet would have no problem having his income taxed... that is, his SALARY ... Much of what Buffet is living off of is NOT his salary but the investment income and the accumulated wealth of his corporations that pays for his meals, homes, vacations, travel, political contributions, medical care, etc.... but try to tax his accumulated worth and the value and he'll fight you tooth and nail.

    The Kennedy family learned this lesson well and so have never had any problem taxing people. Their income is protected from the taxes they have always sought on others.

    The Clintons are learning this as well... Bill and Hillary should be billionaires soon and much of it will never be taxed.

  • 1 decade ago

    There is a simple explanation of the tax system in America today. It is simplistic, but very realistic. Check the link below. Perhaps it will make sense to you.

    By the way, my tax gave me the opportunity to provide 6 jobs paying over 20 times more than the tax cut in wages, and increasing the federal revenue by over 40 times the cut. It was probably more stimulant to the economy and federal revenue than putting the same cut into the hands of 6 poor people.

    Check the simple story below.

    Edit: Warren Buffet says that the rich are not paying their share because he wanted to improve his image.

    x y z...14% of what? 50,000,000 he earned last year (wild guess, probably more than that). The reality is that the dems would have you believe that all tax breaks are evil. Many of the tax loopholes allow corporations to grow and hire. Thus creating MORE tax revenue than if they did not have the loophole. The reality is that if my tax % is less on my gross income, it is greatly in part because I am expanding my business and creating jobs. Would you rather that stop so you can complain about the loss of jobs? And those under $40,000 are paying little or no taxes if it is a family. By the time they get all deductions, plus child tax credit. As a matter of fact, the lowest 50% of wage earners in this country pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

    novice...paying bills and saving money stimulates the economy. You do not know how the banking/investment system works, obviously. Small rebates across the board will be spent universally. Those claiming that saving money does not stimulate the economy are politically motivated.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Under Bush, everyone who pays taxes is paying less in taxes than under Clinton. Our income tax system is organized into different categories. Bush has dropped the rate in each category, created a new low category (not making new people pay taxes, but those that barely pay income tax are paying 10% than 15% under Clinton). People say it only helps the rich, but it helps everyone paying taxes, about the top 50% of income earners. Because every category has dropped in rates, the higher up you go, the bigger the benefit has been because you incure the benefits of each category. The rich do benefit the most, but are not the only ones, and their benefit is not significantly great.

    Tax breaks at any level are good for the economy, but have different effects in different time frames. Tax breaks for the rich result in increases in investments, which create economic growth in the long run. Tax breaks for the middle class results in them spending the money right away, like injecting money into the economy, and have an immediate short-term impact.

  • 1 decade ago

    We have yet to see if that stimulus check will do any good for the economy. Previous tax rebates haven't worked.

    And Warren Buffett doesn't think the rich pay enough because he knows that if we increase tax rates on the rich, it won't affect him. Why? Because we don't tax wealth, we tax income. And increasing the income tax rate doesn't hurt those that are already rich; it hurts those who would like to become rich.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The rich are still over taxed. I think people like Bill Gates have every right to keep every dime he makes. He has created thousands of Jobs for people which has helped our economy. If you disagree with me create a new operating system thats better and put your name on the building and pay as much taxes as you wish.

    Barack and Hillary would only cripple the economy!

  • M B
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    You do understand that those tax cuts for the rich went all the way down to people making 24K per year right? Those who make less than that get everything back in rebates except for Social Security and Medicare. I am not really a fan of Bush but where people come up with the tax cuts for only the rich is a little curious...... Guess it depends on what your definition of rich is.

  • Ron N
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Buffet can afford to pay the taxes thats why it's easy to say.

    Lets try something here,

    Where does it say in the Constitution that there will be fairnes

    in life,, where does it say the weak and the poor should have

    the right to things someone who is better educated and has

    strived to become a better human being on there own has,

    Don't think that says that.

    So if the dims want to feed the sheep of the country,, have them work a extra job and give it to the sheep. And hold

    your breathe unitll that happens.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They said it on the news when Bush announced his "stimulus" package. It would have been better to give such a package to the lower middle class and the poor because they are most likely to spend the money----most people will use that money to catch up on bills or put it away for a rainy day, meaning it will not stimulate the economy.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.