Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So you are talking about only the percent they pay/paid relative to the percent they previously paid. Its cute how you leave the fourth 20% out entirely. They had their entire tax burden wiped out and receive welfare payments now. There was no possible way to even cut their effective rates by 3%.
|
The bottom 20% are largely below the poverty line. Incidentally, that line is drawn at about $18,600 for a family of four. They're supposed to have a negative tax rate. It almost allows them to purchase food and shelter. Well, food at any rate.
Quote:
|
Instead of changing their income by 3% via tax cuts and welfare payments, why not just get Governor Blagoyevich to buy them their crack in bulk?
|
This is below my contempt, let alone comment.
Quote:
|
That said, if you wish to maintain your characterization of it in the terms you show above (the rich got 3% of their money back, but you only got 2% back -- did you know John Kerry is a Vietnam war Hero?), I'll agree to disagree. The characterization that the wealthy are paying a higher portion of the tax base now seems like something I'd throw in a Democrats face anytime this came up, and the comparative strength of the statements makes the left look silly.
|
According to the IRS SOI bulletin, the top twenty percent actually saw their effective tax rate, and their share of the total tax burden decrease. I don't know how the CBO comes up with their numbers, but I'll go with the study that I know the methodology of. In any event, if the wealthy (which I keep reminding people includes us) is in fact paying a higher share of the tax burden, so be it. We enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. If we pay a little extra to remain at the top of the heap, think of it as a transaction cost.
