Monday, January 08, 2007

Study: Bush tax cuts aid richest the most (duh, I could have told them that)
Posted on CNN Money

NEW YORK ( -- President Bush's tax cuts offered the biggest benefits to families in the highest income categories, according to a study cited in a published report Monday.

Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any other group, The New York Times reported, citing a Congressional study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Video More video

CNN's Gerri Willis explains how you can pay off your holiday hangover - debt. (January 7)
Play video
The study also found that tax rates for middle-income earners edged higher in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, the paper said.

The Times said 2004 was also the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.

Families with average incomes of $56,200 saw their average effective tax rate fall to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000, which translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003, the paper said.

Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their tax rate drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. which translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000, the paper said, citing the budget office.

Experts say the Democrats are unlikely to make any major tax moves that would increase taxes or otherwise unravel Bush's tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010.

[[Editor: Bush's policies have been all about helping the richest in the hopes that their investment and consumption will trickle down to everyone else. And yes, there is some trickle-down, although the current Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is on record as saying that tax cuts don't wholly pay for themselves under normal conditions.

The problem is that Bush is, I assume, trying to help the poorest by helping the richest. That speaks of a monumental failure in our priorities.

What if we tried to help the rich by helping the poor? After all, MLK Jr proposed that injustice anywhere was a threat to justice everywhere. Has anyone considered that maybe he was right?]

No comments: