Friday, August 13, 2004
ka-ching!
In a revelation sure to send shock waves throughout the political landscape, the Congressional Budget Office is reporting the Bush tax cuts of the last three years have gone to the top one percent of income.
It's a good thing that the CBO is on the case. We'd never have known (unless you count what Kerry has been saying his entire campaign). But just to make sure they can appear "unbiased", the Times gets a dig in:
Those are also the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes.
Earth to the NYT: They are the top one percent and they hold the vast majority of the wealth. Is it not feasible that they have a "disproportionate" share of the nation's wealth?
The Washington Post has this take:
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
First of all, the top one percent are paying LESS percentage than those averaging $182,700? That's nuts. Second, the top one percent holds the vast majority of the amount of the wealth (something like ninety percent). The tax burden at the local level is already shouldered by the middle class as well. So now we've shifted the federal AND the local burdens to the middle class.
Anyone who's income is below $182,700 is screwing themselves by voting for Bush.
|
It's a good thing that the CBO is on the case. We'd never have known (unless you count what Kerry has been saying his entire campaign). But just to make sure they can appear "unbiased", the Times gets a dig in:
Those are also the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes.
Earth to the NYT: They are the top one percent and they hold the vast majority of the wealth. Is it not feasible that they have a "disproportionate" share of the nation's wealth?
The Washington Post has this take:
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
First of all, the top one percent are paying LESS percentage than those averaging $182,700? That's nuts. Second, the top one percent holds the vast majority of the amount of the wealth (something like ninety percent). The tax burden at the local level is already shouldered by the middle class as well. So now we've shifted the federal AND the local burdens to the middle class.
Anyone who's income is below $182,700 is screwing themselves by voting for Bush.
Return to Main
