HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Welcome to the Grand Illu... » Reply #29
In the discussion thread: Welcome to the Grand Illusion [View all]

Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 10:36 PM

29. maybe because that is not how the rich win

that's NOT how the top 5% get their $2.1 trillion.

Check this out http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/103

in 2001 tax rates for singles were
15% on first $27,050
27.5% up to $65,550
30.5% up to $136,750
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest


in 2008 tax rates for singles were
10% on first $8.025
15% up to $32,550
25% up to $78,850
28% up to $164,550
33% up to $357,700
35% for the rest


Sure, in that bottom bracket almost everybody (except the poorest) gets the same $401.25 tax cut (except in 2012, the 10% rate went up to $8,350)

But if you keep the 25% rate on that 3rd bracket EVERYbody does not benefit, only those with taxable income greater than $32,550.

And the next rate cut only benefits those with taxable income over $78,850.

And the next rate cut only benefits those with taxable income over $164,550.

And then there is the favorable tax treatment of dividends. Sure enough, I did have $67.70 in dividend income last year. So I save a whole $10.16 in taxes thanks to Obama keeping the Bush tax cuts.

Somehow, though, that becomes a much bigger benefit to Mitt Romney with his $5,000,000 in dividend income and Alice Walton with her $500,000,000 in dividend income.

Then there's the estate tax cuts, which Obama dishonestly called "increases" in the estate tax. Those only benefit people with estates larger than $1,000,000.

And there's the point. Instead of the filthy turd of ATRA, Congress could have chosen and Obama could have fought for
1. no cuts to the estate tax
2. treat dividends like wage income
3. only keep the lower rates on the bottom 3 brackets.

But then, omigosh, taxes would go up for the 15% of people making from $78,000 to $200,000, and even though they would still get tax cuts on their first $78,000 of taxable income, we just cannot have those "middle class people" paying more in taxes, even though they make more money than about 75% of the rest of us.

No, they are a major donor class and so they must keep ALL of their Bush tax cuts, and if that means that even richer people get even bigger tax cuts, then so be it.

After all, what choice do voters have when even the socialist votes for the tax cuts for the rich? And the M$M, and even Krugman, will never tell.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
hfojvt Oct 2013 OP
Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #1
factsarenotfair Oct 2013 #2
hfojvt Oct 2013 #4
quinnox Oct 2013 #3
hfojvt Oct 2013 #21
1000words Oct 2013 #5
Poker Bots Oct 2013 #6
gopiscrap Oct 2013 #13
Dragonfli Oct 2013 #7
JDPriestly Oct 2013 #8
Divernan Oct 2013 #9
hfojvt Oct 2013 #18
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #10
jtuck004 Oct 2013 #11
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #20
hfojvt Oct 2013 #14
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #19
Laelth Oct 2013 #12
dawg Oct 2013 #15
hfojvt Oct 2013 #16
leftstreet Oct 2013 #17
ProSense Oct 2013 #22
hfojvt Oct 2013 #23
ProSense Oct 2013 #24
hfojvt Oct 2013 #25
ProSense Oct 2013 #26
hfojvt Oct 2013 #27
ProSense Oct 2013 #28
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply maybe because that is not how the rich win
hfojvt Oct 2013 #29
ProSense Oct 2013 #30
hfojvt Oct 2013 #31
Please login to view edit histories.