Taxes have come up recently here. Below is some info on the Bush tax cuts from 2003 - leading up to the last Presidential election (when some of the Democratic candidates were running on reversing the Bush tax cuts - dispels some myths.
BUSH'S TAX CUTS: THE POWER OF TRUTH I've often complained that the Bush administration has been passive and ineffective in countering demagogic lies about its tax cuts with simple facts. Well, here's a case where they got it exactly right. Matthew Hoy of the Hoystory.com blog points out this devastating exchange between Democratic presidential wannabe Howard Dean and NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" last Sunday.
"Russert: This is what you said last month about the Bush tax cut and I’ll show you and our viewers. 'It has become clear what this president is attempting to do and why we must repeal the entire package of tax cuts.' The Department of Treasury, we consulted and asked them: What effect would that have across America? And this is what they said. A married couple with two children making $40,000 a year, under the Bush plan, would pay $45 in taxes. Repealing them, under the Dean plan, if you will, would pay $1,978, a tax increase of over 4,000 percent. A married couple over 65 making $40,000 and claiming their Social Security, under Bush would pay $675 in taxes. You’re suggesting close to $1,400, a 107 percent tax increase. Can you honestly go across the country and say, 'I'm going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent,' and be elected?
"Dean: Well, first of all, were those figures from the Treasury Department, did you say, or CBO?
"Russert: Treasury Department.
"Dean: I don’t believe them. This administration has not been candid about the impacts of this tax cut."
Our friend Bruce Bartlett came up with the documentation that Treasury supplied to Russert. Here's the whole thing -- now why aren't we hearing more like this to counter the demagogic lies that Bush's tax cuts only benefit "the rich"?
"If Democrats repealed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), they would be raising taxes on millions of hardworking American families.
"Example 1:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple with one child and income of $40,000 will see their taxes increase by $1,433 (from $1,503 to $2,935), an increase of 95 percent.
"Example 2:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple with two children and income of $40,000 will see their taxes increase by $1,933 (from $45 to $1,978), an increase of 4,296 percent.
"Example 3:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple with two children and income of $60,000 will see their taxes increase by $1,700 (from $2,850 to $4,550), an increase of 60 percent.
"Example 4:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple with two children and income of $75,000 will see their taxes increase by $1,700 (from $4,695 to $6,395), an increase of 36 percent.
"Example 5:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple, both aged 65, with income of $40,000 (of which $2,000 is dividends and $15,000 is Social Security benefits) will see their taxes increase by $720 (from $675 to $1,395), an increase of 107 percent.
"Example 6:
If EGTRRA & JGTRRA were repealed, a married couple, both aged 65, with income of $80,000 (of which $4,500 is dividends and $20,000 is Social Security benefits) will see their taxes increase by $2,373 (from $7,430 to $9,803), an increase of 32 percent."
Why did someone like Russert have to ask for stuff like this? Facts are good. Let's hear more of them!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:52 AM
poorandstupid.com 6/24/2003 |
