Skip to main content

If you earned less than $100,000 your share of the tax cut was $158.61 on Average.

If you earned more than $100,000, your share of the tax cut was $4,754.57 on Average.

So if you earn over $100,000 a year, you should vote republican.

If you are earning less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican, you should ask yourself WHY? For $158.61? The increase in gas wiped that out in a week.

If you do not believe me, do the math yourself. Here are my calculations...

I am going to break this down for everyone based on the ADMINISTRATIONS numbers....

In 2003 the Administration said there were 92 million tax payers who on 'average' would receive $1083 each. This does not mean each of the 92 million GOT $1083, it just meant that if you took the entire tax cut and divided it by the number of tax payers it comes to $1083.

The reality is this.

The total tax cut in 2003 was $99,636,000,000.

$87,978,588,000 goes to people making over $100,000 a year.

If you make over $100,000 a year, the 'average' tax cut you received was $4,754.57

18,504,000 received this on average.

The rest of America, the lower middle class and the working poor received what was left. That is $11,657,412,000 to be divided between the remaining 73,496,000 Tax payers.

So if you made less than $100,000 you received on Average a tax cut of $158.61.

So you tell me, who HONESTLY benefited from the Bush Tax cuts?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

According to theTax Policy Institute:
45.8% of the benefits from a reduction in capital gains and dividends went to people with incomes over $1 million.  There were 284,000 taxpayers in this income group.  This is .19% of all taxpayers.

An additional 10.8% of the benefits went to people with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million.  There were 593,000 taxpayers in this income group.  This is .40% of all taxpayers.

17.4% of the benefits went to people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000. There were 3,588,000 taxpayers in this income group. This is 2.46% of all taxpayers.

14.3% of the benefits went to people with incomes of $100,000 to $200,000.  There were 14,039,000 taxpayers in this income group.  
This is 9.66% of all taxpayers.
In other words --
88.3% of the total benefits from Bush tax cuts went to people with incomes over $100,000.  In addition, the total number of taxpayers who got a vast majority of the benefits represent only 12.71% of all taxpayers.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

Originally posted to VirtualTruth on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 07:52 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Different cutoff salary (3+ / 0-)

    A lot of families in the US who are struggling earn over $100,000 dollars a year.  This argument misses the point.  However the details about the breakdown of the taxpayers over $100,000 makes the point.

    What is the share of the tax cut for folks above and below $500,000 a year ($250,000 being a high-income small businessman, the higher end of middle management compensation, and the lower end of executive compensation for major corporations).

    The $100,000 figure tells two-income suburbanites to vote Republican.  Doing the same calculation for a higher income would clearly show that the Republicans are not acting in their interests.

    •  9 out of 10 Americans make under $100,000 (0+ / 0-)

      The point I was making was that the vast majority of Americans did NOT benefit from the tax cuts. If fact let me recap, if you earn less than $100,000 (88% of the US) you got a tax cut of $158.61. The 15 million jobs Bush promised would happen because of the tax cuts, are not occurring. The GDP
      has slowed to 1.6%. There is serious talk of a recession. The tax cuts have caused record debt and record deficits. Your Children now owe
      $10,326.09 each to pay back the debt, this number will only grow. Those making over $100,000 received a tax cut of $4,754.57.
      Republicans say that Democrats will raise your taxes.

      What American is not willing to pay $158.61, so their Children will
      not have to pay $10,326.09? I will tell you. Republicans are not willing.

      Time will Tell all the Truth VT, Virtual Truth

      by VirtualTruth on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 03:21:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In CA, and in many high cost (0+ / 0-)

    areas an income of 100,000 isn't much more then middle, or even lower middle class.  Housing eats up most of the cost, and then gas, food and so on.

    We didn't get much of a tax break from Bush (even though our income was slightly over 100,000) , and given that the cost of college has gone up, and everything else, we find ourselves moving downward, not up.

    At some point I would like to see national adjustments for regions in regards to income taxes, and would very much like to see the local taxes one pays be figured BACK into the deductions (we pay 8.25 percent for local taxes, can't write a cent of that off, nor does anyone get to write off the gas tax and other national taxes).  By not allowing those taxes to be deducted we are being double taxed: taxed when we make the money, taxed when we spend it.

    •  If you itemize you can deduct state taxes (0+ / 0-)

      In MD, where I live, the local taxes are piggybacked on the state taxes (you figure your state taxes and then add another 50% or so, depending on which county you live in).  So the whole thing is deductible. Eight and a half percent for local taxes is pretty hefty. I think our state tax, with the piggyback, is only around 4%. And a 5% state sales tax, but that's another story, and not deductible.

      You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

      by yellowdog on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:16:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  According to the IRS (0+ / 0-)

      local taxes are deductible.  Maybe you need a new tax preparer.

      You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

      by yellowdog on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:19:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I donated my Bush tax cut (0+ / 0-)

    to Ned Lamont, Jerry McNerney, and Dr David Gill.
    I live in California, where a six figure salary would only mean my apartment isn't a rat-hole, 'cause that isn't enough money to buy a place unless you want to live 50 miles from work.

  •  It would also be nice to see the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    cutoff at a median income level.  Those above median vs. those below median.

    nice job though.

    If you are looking for Truth, you better be ready to change your mind.

    by jimraff on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:11:47 AM PST

  •  Our household income is over $100,000 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deha, yoduuuh do or do not

    Can I still vote for Democrats? Please, please, don't make me vote Republican!! I'll take a pay cut.

    You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

    by yellowdog on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:11:55 AM PST

  •  Screw you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    So if you earn over $100,000 a year, you should vote republican.

    I prefer the following formulation:  If you're stupid, you should vote Republican.  So now you're arguing that I should vote Republican and I'm arguing that you should.

    You're engaging in several different Republican-type falacies:

    1. Who you vote for should be based solely on what the bottom line effect on your taxes will be.  That's immoral and profoundly anti-American.  It is also profoundly against the ideals of the Democratic Party which are about the broader common good.  And it's politically stupid too, since Democrats do better in the above-$100K group as a whole than Republicans.
    1. It's completely arbitrary.  Why choose $100K?  You could make a much better argument if you look for the cutoff where the net effect of the tax cuts is, for example, more than the median US take home salary.
    1. It's anti-net roots.  While the Democratic Party as a whole generally skews towards people who are better off that tendency is even more pronounced here at dKos.  Your instructions for those of us who make over your arbitrary cut-off to vote Republican excludes me, numerous well known diarists, and almost certainly Kos himself.
    1. It feeds in to the Republican noise that all the Democrats stand for is class war -- and rightly so in this case.

    Thanks, I think I'll listen to my conscience and vote Democratic.

    Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:14:39 AM PST

  •  Duh, let's see. (0+ / 0-)

    If I made <$100k and didn't want to get raped when I worked hard to make>$100k I should vote repub in your opinion?  

    I live in CA where you better make >$100k if you want a decent standard of living.  So, I deserve to get raped as I try to even own a house here?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site