Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Another stealth tax cut for the wealthiest two-tenths of one percent (0.02%) has been passed under the radar by the Republican Congress, says the National Women’s Law Center according to CNN.
If you find yourself per chance a member of the other ninety-nine and ninety-eight one-hundredths (99.98%) of the American population, how are you doing?
Annual Income Average Annual Tax Relief
$ 20,000 - $ 30,000 $ 9.00
$ 50,000 - $ 75,000 $ 110.00
$100,000 - $200,000 $ 1388.00
Over $1,000,000.00 $41,977.00
Source: Tax Policy Institute, as reported on CNN.
The Republicans were able to slip this through in the dead of night without debate by keeping it under seventy-two Billion dollars ($72,000,000,000), a loophole that precludes filibuster, the only weapon left to the Democratic minority to fight this insanity.
Clever devils! And a good thing, to. Someone has to keep Bush's economy "Rocking and Rolling". Don’t spend it all on gas!
Only in Republican Land: Another Stealth Tax Cut
|
Posted By: AZ Moderate Posted on: May. 12, 2006 at 11:18 PM  19 Comments
|
4.3 / 5
Based on 12 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
May. 13, 2006 at 07:30:21 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| In tax dollars, how much does each actually pay? Point is, you can't give a tax cut to someone who pays nothing or next to nothing. Thank you Mr. Bush for my $1388.00. It comes straight off the $10,000.00 plus I paid this year. |
||
|
May. 14, 2006 at 09:10:00 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| If anyone is worried about how much taxes they are paying in capital gains and dividends then they must love this nazi-republican congress of ours. They did just passed a bonanza for the rich and in a time of war also. None of OUR troops dying for Bush have capital gains too worry about anymore. Maybe his war dodging daughters have excess capital? What does it matter? Let us all just keep voting for murdering our young, and tax cuts for the rich, while letting osama bin laden run free! Ha, this is The worst unelected President ever!
|
||
|
|
May. 14, 2006 at 08:57:56 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Yes, AA, we're all quite impressed with your boasts of wealth. You are quite the rugged, selfmade, go-it-alone capitalist. For those of us with a social conscience, I think this article elicits something other than rejoicing. How in the world can Bush give anyone tax cuts in a time of war, as ALTRUISM asks. For me, that overshadows all the inequities in the cuts! Spend your money on whatever, AA, some hypocritical magnetic Support the Troops stickers would be nice. Smallmindedness, Bob called it. Smallminded materialism, I call it. |
||
|
|
May. 14, 2006 at 09:52:48 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| You just won't anser the question will you? How much of a cut do you give a person who pays nothing? I am asking a question. I am entering the debate. I am laying up a softball question... Just answer the damn thing. |
||
|
May. 14, 2006 at 11:18:07 PM
|
|
| Time for a little cut and paste. Posted earlier this evening under Akman's fine article "No Signing Statement for the Law of Gravity": 'Another thing AA. You have been spotted elsewhere on this site as saying "Point is, you can't give a tax cut to someone who pays nothing or next to nothing." Well you can't cut income taxes on these people, true, because they don't make enough (whether through their own sloth or because they are a shell-shocked triple amputee from Operation Iraqi Freedom). But they pay the same sales tax on their clothes, their car, and their bottle of milk as does Bill Gates. It's a flat tax on goods and services, but the effect on the below poverty level household is somewhat more profound than on Bill or Melinda. Poor people also pay the same payroll tax that you and I do, although in my case I stop paying into social security after my first $94,000 of income (or something like that). It hits them proportionately harder, and that's why the EITC was created in the first place. This latest tax cut is an affront to good old decency. It doesn't even pretend to be flat and give money back to us proportionate to our incomes, let alone address the disparity in how payroll and sales taxes are felt by the poor and wealthy amongst us. If you are starving, you get next to none of the pie. If you are stuffed to the gills like the fat guy in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life", you get the smorgasbord meal and the wafer thin mint.' Now here's a quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "An innovative tax credit that was established in 1975 for low-income working families and has long enjoyed bipartisan support, the Earned Income Tax Credit has been found to produce substantial increases in employment and reductions in welfare receipt among single parents, as well as large decreases in poverty. Research indicates that families use the EITC to pay for necessities, repair homes and vehicles that are needed to commute to work, and in some cases, to help boost their employability and earning power by obtaining additional education or training." Back to my words: So how much of a tax cut do you give someone who pays no income tax? You give them money back. That, in effect, is what you are doing for the millionaires and billionaires with this insane tax cut - so make it fair. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. You think this will perpetuate the cycle of poverty? Then give the poor scholarship money for vocational and college education. Earmark money for schools and infrastructure in poor communities in proportion to the billions you return to the wealthiest among us. Expand Medicaid and Medicare, or better yet, put together a truly comprehensive national healthcare system so that poor uninsured people do not have to use the emergency room as their family doctor, or wait until their illness is incurable. More bleeding heart liberalism? You bet it is! Because if you took the $200 billion we already spent in Iraq killing people and getting our children killed, and instead did what Jesus would do (the question that the religious right loves to ask but never answers correctly) - helping the poor and not ignoring them or imploring them to be less poor - then we would truly be a nation that is the envy of all the world. |
||
|
|
May. 15, 2006 at 12:21:42 AM
|
|
| BTW, I am not at all religious. I just find it the height of hypocrasy that the very same people who claim to speak for Jesus ignore his most basic teachings.
|
||
|
|
May. 17, 2006 at 02:41:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Average American, I get a kick out of your analogy. How about a little value on the contributions the little guy makes so the big guy can have his? It always escapes everyone in Conservative or in the Highest Capitalism echelons of ideology that are unswayale in their rigidity. Where the only value is the person making the investment and the grunts doing the work cease to exist. The same analogy is how much would people need to pay their wives for all the things they do on an annual basis? I know. Just take them for granted too. Just because they had to make a commitment doesn't mean that everything they do is ho hum to the master. This is not an all or nothing ideal here. This is an ideal where a company appreciates what the scores of workers do for them, and whether they pay taxes or not, deserve something back. How in the heck(another copout from some of you), can the lower wage person pay more taxes when they aren't making it and the companies won't pay it. You've already elaborated on why Minimum wage should not be raised. I value this like the meat company, years ago, who brought his employess together and gave them so much for each year employment. He said without their hard work he wouldn't have made it. Sure he paid more taxes than them. I don't think he threw it in their faces though. But giving back for their contributions was an ideal he thought worthwhile. They were astounded. Others can't think like that(AA)?, and they continue to place their me, me, me, all or nothing approach and keep it right inside that little box of theirs. Never venturing out in to another more enlightened approach. It may seem unfair to Conservatives that they pay most of the taxes. It wouldn't to me if I was loaded with gazillions. One of the more fortunate people in America with a little bit of luck and a little good idea and good employees helped me get there. There is nothing more sickening to me than someone saying "I worked so hard to get where I am as if they are the sole source and there was nothing else involved. Humble yourselves big shots. PLEASE! |
||
|
|
May. 17, 2006 at 06:23:36 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| The little guy contributes, I have never disputed that, but he would have little to contribute towards if the "big guy" had not thought outside the box, risked it all, and took the chance that gave the little guy the opportunity to contribute to it. This is a Mexican standoff. Going to bitch about that term too maggie...It's a phrase many people know. |
||
|
|
May. 17, 2006 at 08:16:36 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| No Average American. I am willing to concede that the big guy contributes. But it always appears to be a one sided deal the other way around. The old cliche: "Suppose they gave a job and no one came". Doesn't amount to much either because that ain't gonna happen. If people are always conceding that the little guy makes contributions why all the blatant negativity and criticism perpetually about the state they are in(knowing they can but of course may never will), sometimes through no fault of their own? Or is it always their fault? If it is not their fault most of the time, and they are needed and do make contributions, then why the miserably low tax relief for them, whether they paid much or not. It is one big system and it is always touted for the big guy. It's hard not to talk in circles about this but it IS, IS, IS one big circle of no relief for people who you say contribute as a lower class worker. It is just that. TALK! The big guys contribute the jobs. The little guy contributes the slave labor. Why can't the little guy's return be as tax relief be in the form of actual cash, tax relief that we can use. Don't anyone dare talk about the middle class or poorer tax relief having any meaning now when gasoline, as a necessary commodity, is taking more and more of their income to get to work. There is no tax relief for the poor. The tables are totally wiped out in significance of meaning of tax relief because of gasoline prices which crunch the poor working stiff more than the person who gets 47,000 tax relief to put in his back pocket. |
||
deep in the tank, so far down,
small government - tax cut!
to save GOP butt
how 'bout a rail outta town?
Report Abuse