Who benefits from President Bush's tax cuts?

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
July 18, 2008 1:26am CST
I have heard how the Democrats are going to help me by repealing the Bush Tax cuts and going back to the Clinton era when they taxed the rich and gave breaks to the poor. I did some checking and found this chart that I will share with you. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.htmlTaxes Under: Clinton 1999 Bush 2008Single making 30K $ 8,400 $ 4,500Single making 60K $14,000 $12,500Single making 75K $23,250 $18,750Married making 60K $16,800 $ 9,000Married making 75K $21,000 $18,750Married making 125K $38,750 $31,250Both I then thought I will see how this impacted me and my taxes. I looked up my 1999 tax forms. At that time my adjusted gross income was $109,000.00. This was claiming my wife and two sons. My tax for the Federal Government was $14,631,.00. In 2006 my adjusted gross income was $108,000.00 and my tax, claiming my wife and one son, was $10,641.00. I would like someone to explain how I am better off under the Clinton tax rather than the Bush tax plan? My wife is a teacher and I was a school Principal, now retired. I do not consider us to be rich so how was Clinton helping me? President Bush gave me $4,000, per year more to help with living expenses. Please explain again how I am worse off with President Bush?
2 people like this
5 responses
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jul 08
Hello Bobmnu, Wow! You're just 'hittin 'em outa the ballpark' today! Sorry, I can't answer your question, because I don't know anyone who was better off during the Clinton years! Some people think they were. Though, if you sit down and run the numbers with them, like I did with a Dem. friend of mine, a whole different reality comes in to focus! Afterward, she was dumbfounded. She had really believed all the bunk! Yet, the numbers don't lie! Well ..... unless it's the result of creative accounting methodologies -- which is exactly what was being employed during the Clinton Administration by Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and the U.S. General Accounting Office!
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
19 Jul 08
One of the greatest scams that Clinton pulled was his college tax credit. You could receive a tax credit (an amount of money that is subtracted from your taxes, reducing your tax bill) for your children's college education expense. It was indexed so that the more you made the smaller tax credit you received. It ended at a max income of $60,000. There was one provision and that was you could nor be receiving a Pell Grant or Government student loans. To qualify for a Pell grant or Government Loans you could not make more that $60,000. Net effect was you could get a Pell grant or the tax credit but not both. This program was to help the middle class students attend college, but in reality the students it was designed to help were already receiving a Pell Grant and not eligable for the Tax Credit. It is called Smoke and Mirrors. Almost nobody really got anything under this program.
2 people like this
• United States
24 Jul 08
"I don't know anyone who was better off during the Clinton years!" Oh yes, it's much better today. Gas prices (and other prices) are so high and the value of the dollar is so low that the unemployed literally can't afford to get a new job. How often did you hear about that happening from 1992-2000?
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
19 Aug 08
All of that happened after the Democrats took control of the Congress and were going to fix the problems. Just think how great things would be if we have a veto proof congress and a Democrat president. We may have a few cents for food as we sit in our cars that have no gas and the house that is in foreclosure, while the welfare people have steak and lobster.
@gewcew23 (8010)
• United States
18 Jul 08
Bravo BobMNU you have done yeomans work spelling out to a T what the Democrat are speaking about. Under Bush that evil wealthest 1% carried more of the tax load than under Clinton, so I am not sure what they do not understand about that. One thing the Democrats never speak of is who creates jobs. Yes we have all heard of those ragges to wealth stories, but let us be real for a minute, most of us work for someone wealthy. If taxes were increased on those evil 1% would that not affect in a negative manner those that work for them.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
19 Jul 08
When President Reagan was making movies he figured that he could make a good living by making 5 movies a year. IF he made 6 he paid 90% taxes on the money made on that movie. His response was why work. When he did not work then all the people who worked on his movies did not work. The people who spent money to see his movies did not go to the movies he did not make and the theater lost money. It is called Trickle Down Economics. People at the top create jobs with their wealth and produce more tax money for the government. Increase taxes on the wealthy and they move. Look at the states that have an increase in population and most do not have an income tax. Look at states that have high taxes and you will find people and jobs leaving.
1 person likes this
@Zorrogirl (1503)
• South Africa
25 Jul 08
it wont help at all. i live in south africa and they are doing similar taxing to 'help' the poor. what it does, is putting the 'rich' under severe pressure and most have companies. now they downsize and fire people. or liquidate. now the poor gets poorer. anual raises are less. hows that helping anyone.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Jul 08
In the state of Michigan there is a governor who believes the way our of a recession is to raise taxes. They now have very high unemployment and business are leaving. People who can afford to move are doing so. In the US we did have some smart Presidents, JFK, Reagan, Bush Sr. and GW Bush. To get the economy going you cut taxes and good things start to happen.
@santuccie (3380)
• United States
26 Jul 08
Another Republican meme: Drop coins into the top of the coin counter starting with Scrooge, and watch it trickle down to Bob Cratchit from there. Bush has had eight years to make good things start happening with his tax cuts for the rich. But where are they? We have more layoffs, food is more expensive, gasoline is over $4.00 a gallon (I know, I know, just drill for more oil, right? Forget about alternative fuel, let's just kill ourselves and our children on an installment plan), prospective first-time home buyers can only afford a foreclosed home, which happens to be of a bounty these days. Theory and reality are two very different things. You seem to be eating up whatever Bush tells you. But do you really expect him to admit that he has flattened our economy? No, he's going to tell you whatever makes him look good, which is why so many e-mails have been conveniently erased from the White House data archives just in time to escape a subpoena. But as long as your own finances are looking up, everything must be hunky dory! Starve the lower classes while the fat cats get fatter - perfect balance!
@Zorrogirl (1503)
• South Africa
27 Jul 08
i am sorry to hear you dont watch the news and dont know whats going on in the world. the usa has a great economy and people spend way too much. we pay 30 percent tax and will be paying much more soon. we dont get tax refunds. we dont earn much. my hubby is a mechanic. just to show you that the usa is much better off. our petrol costs 12 rand a liter. thats almost 2 dollars.bush is an excellent president . he did exactly what the people wanted him to do in iraq, and now hes wrong... people dont remember well, do they?
@santuccie (3380)
• United States
24 Jul 08
To be perfectly frank, you're not. Clearly, you are better off with a Republican president. But sometimes it boils down to thinking of others. You say you don't consider yourself wealthy, but according the Census Bureau, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 in 2006. You're making more than double that amount. I won't disclose my annual income, but let me only say that I would jump at the thought of being in a higher tax bracket if it meant making what you make. It's not an eyebrow-raiser that you would want a tax break; everybody does. But who needs it more, you or someone who makes half what you do? I'm sure you are a self-made man, and to you it might only make sense that greater wealth is earned, not handed out. Most Republicans appear to think this way; historically, they put themselves before the working class ("Rob the poor to feed the rich"). The Democrats go the other way. Even while most of them make over $348,000 a year, they still manage to place themselves in someone else's shoes. And that to me marks a servant of the people, a proponent of the greater good. It is only natural and perfectly reasonable for you to think of yourself and your family first. On the other hand, it is only moral to follow the golden rule. In the end, you have a choice to make: You can follow either your head or your heart.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
24 Jul 08
You would prefer to go back to the Clinton years where you were paying almost $4,000 more in taxes if you were in the bottom 20% of the population based on income? When a choice has to be made between providing for man or protecting an animal the Democrats choose the animal. When President Clinton had a chance to approve drilling in Anwar for oil 10-1`5 years ago he sided with the Carabo and banned drilling. If we had that oil today we probably would not have $4.00 a gallon gas. It was under the Clinton Administration that the famous Wall was built between FBI, CIA, and other Federal Law Enforcement agencies. They were not allowed to exchange information including information that would have exposed the 9/11 plot. I would suggest that you check you taxes from the Clinton Administration and then check what you are paying under the Bush tax cuts. You are probably paying more in taxes but also making more in income. You need to compare similar income and deductions. You will find that you have more of your money to spend. You work for your money shouldn't you decide how to spend that money. Under Senator Obama you will be sending at least $2,000, per household, for the low income people and increasing for higher income families. This money will be going to the leaders of the underdeveloped countries according to a plan developed by the UN. History has shown us that this money ends up in their personal bank accounts or unnecessary military spending. Is that how you want your money spent?
@santuccie (3380)
• United States
24 Jul 08
You would prefer to go back to the Clinton years where you were paying almost $4,000 more in taxes if you were in the bottom 20% of the population based on income? Bottom 20%? I think you mean top 20% (actually the top 17.3%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States The bottom 20% make less than $20,000 a year. And from appearances, your party could care less. That said, if I was making six figures a year, yes, I would be willing to pay $4,000 more. As it were, I would be willing to pay some $2,000 more now. That and military strategy aside, the biggest problem we all face is global warming. And this is not an American problem, nor a dispute between two or more nations; this is everybody’s problem. And your Republican party seems to be more interested in drilling for more oil than imposing a new mpg standard, as I understand Europe started doing years ago. According to a NASA expert hailed as a “prophet” and “godfather of global warming science,” this planet will become uninhabitable some 10-20 years from now if global warming does not come to a screeching halt. Everything he predicted twenty years ago has since come to pass. The year he made waves was the hottest year on record; 14 years have been hotter since then. And his opposition still scoffs like meme-driven lemmings. The greatest contributor to global warming is coal-fired power plants. The runner-up is gasoline. Out of our two presidential nominees, Obama is the more anxious to do something about both. God forbid you yourself live to see the end of this world, and if you don’t want to, you might give “tree hugging” and “whale saving” a second thought. Nothing personal, btw. I just call it like I see it.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
24 Jul 08
The top 5% of the people who pay taxes account for 90% of the taxes paid, while the bottom 20% consumes over 50% of the government aid. For example my daughters bot make about $35,000 per year, both are single but one has a child. The one with out a child pays a federal income tax of about $3000. The one with a Child receives a tax refund of $4,500. Why? The daughter with the child can claim head of household, is elegiable for and earned income tax credit she also gets to claim her child (which would reduce her tax by about $300). What the government is saying is that we will pay you $7,500, to be a single mom. They are also saying that if you work hard are successful and make a lot of money we will take some of it and give it to people who are not working so they can enjoy life. Before you jump all over me remember according to the US Census Buerau People living below poverty in the US most have a car, Colored TV, Micro wave ovens, a VCR and DVD, and over half own their own home. Something that cam out of the War On Poverty (LBJ a liberal Democrat) was the income limit for government services. What is the difference between a person on welfare or working receiving $20,000 and a person working making $22,000? It is over $15,000 in government aid and benefits. The incentive is there to stay poor. If you try to save and imporove your self the government will puch you back down. Case in point a girl who mother was disabled and not able to work receiving government aid. The girl did babysitting and saved enough money to go to college. When she was held up as an example of the American Dream Success Story, the government step in and took the money to pay back the welfare and the girl was told to apply for welfare. For me to get to the higher tax brackets I had to invest over $250,000 in my self to get an education which includes a BA degree and 2 MA degrees. I also had to move 8 times (job promotions) and spent several years working full time and going to school at night to get to where I am now. When I retired I could not sell my diplomas or various licenses so all I have is my retirement which is taxes. Work hard, invest in your self and the government will reward you with higher taxes.
• United States
16 Aug 08
Come On, Bob. You're better off because they tell you that you are better off. Why ask questions?