"Stimulating the Rich" Part 2 (Electric Boogaloo)

[Thrillhouse]

Here are the numbers:

Estimated average tax savings under each proposal:

Adj. Gross income.................Bush plan...............Dem. plan
< $10,000.................................$5..........................$234
$10-20,000...............................$63........................$290
$20-30,000...............................$204......................$319
$30-40,000...............................$351......................$361
$40-50,000...............................$500......................$385
$50-75,000...............................$820......................$447
$75-100,000.............................$1,776...................$510
$100-200,000...........................$2,710...................$517
$200-500,000...........................$5,527...................$521
$500,000-1 million....................$17,605.................$516
$1 million <...............................$88,873.................$515

(Source: Urban Institute - Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center)


Percentage savings, under the Bush Plan

Total income Single Married, no kids Married, 2 kids
$40,000..............6.1%....................13.5%.....................97.6%
$70,000............11.3%....................17.8%.....................20.6%
$150,000..........13.4%....................16.4%.....................11.3%
$300,000..........16.8%....................14.1%.......................9.8%


(Includes dividend income, which represents average taxable dividends for each income level and profile according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data. Taxpayers earning less than $71,000 are assumed to be taking the standard deduction. Taxpayers earning more than $100,000 are assumed to be itemizing deductions. Itemized deductions represent average deductions taken for taxpayers at the given income levels, according to calculations based on IRS data.)

(Source: Tax Foundation)

Discuss.

 

[Guest]

I'm not interested, but wanted to be part of the thread.

The first one by REDWAVE is just too long to join in.

 

[RawHumor]

Percentage savings, under the Bush Plan

Total income Single Married, no kids Married, 2 kids
$40,000 6.1% 13.5% 97.6%
$70,000 11.3% 17.8% 20.6%
$150,000 13.4% 16.4% 11.3%
$300,000 16.8% 14.1% 9.8%

These numbers don't seem to mesh with the others, unless the previous ones were only for single people.

I like that 97.6% number personally.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: Re: "Stimulating the Rich" Part 2 (Electric Boogaloo)

These numbers don't seem to mesh with the others, unless the previous ones were only for single people.

My bad. I failed to mention that the income levels in the first "chart" include all filers.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Bump for the night crew.

 

[miles]

There is no room for facts in this discussion. Bring on the rhetoric.

 

[REDWAVE]

Stimulated, but . . .

Well, I'm definitely stimulated. I just wish I was rich, too.

 

[70/30]

Here's some facts...enjoy

snip from
WHITE HOUSE WATCH
Budget Crunch
by Ryan Lizza

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030127&s=lizza012703

The January drip of upbeat budget news is premised on a system in which the dirty work of negotiating the appropriations bills, which synchronizes the budget with reality, comes months later, when few even remember what Bush promised. But, this year, the president will be offering his idealized version of the 2004 budget at the same time that he's in painful negotiations with Congress over the real thing for 2003.

That's because, while fiscal year 2003 officially started in October, Congress still hasn't finished eleven of its 13 spending bills. In the Senate, those eleven bills add up to $395 billion in spending and were passed unanimously before the election by the Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee. But, after the election, as Senate Republicans returned to the chamber in the majority, an emboldened OMB demanded that Congress limit its overall spending on the eleven remaining bills to $385 billion. GOP leaders in the Senate caved, and this week they began the unpleasant task of cutting the extra $10 billion out of the package.

Normally Congress doesn't do anything in January, so the president has the month to himself to suck up media attention with his new proposals. But, thanks to the 2003 budget delays, this year the pre-State of the Union debate won't be about Bush's generous 2004 budget. It will be about his slashing homeland security, job-training, and education funds from this year's budget. Thanks to Bush's tightfisted request, Republicans are trying to remove about $1 billion for homeland security, more than $500 million for job training, and $1.5 billion in education funding, including $500 million for Title I--all of which make his 2004 promises look like nothing more than political hot air.

This has given Democrats, already encouraged by the president's softening job-approval ratings, a unique opportunity to scuttle the White House's rollout strategy. The Democratic message is simple: An internal strategy memo for Democratic senators instructs, "Argue Republicans are forcing $10 bn in painful cuts from level passed unanimously by Senate Appropriations Committee at same time pressing for $674 bn in tax cuts." They plan to pair Bush's January p.r. push for his 2004 budget largesse with his 2003 stinginess and attack the president as a hypocrite who slashes programs in one year that he claims to support in the next. After Bush announced his huge new increase for the SEC in the 2004 budget on January 11, Democrats prepared an attack on Republican efforts to cut the SEC's 2003 budget. The strategy memo notes that the restoration of SEC funding "moved up list [of priorities] due to President's Saturday radio address."