Bush Tax Rates

How is it that democrats can criticize the Bush tax cuts as hurting the middle class 10 years ago and then claim today that reverting to the rates before those tax rates went into affect would ALSO hurt the middle class?

How does a media allow this to happen?

7 responses to “Bush Tax Rates

  1. Because the Democrats want to prevent the Bush tax cuts from hitting those making under $250,000. They are not critical of those cuts, they support them. Many Republicans agree, the two sides are pretty close – but the House has a lot of people who refuse to compromise on taxes and the result is probably a worse deal for the Republicans than they could have had if Boehner had better control over his caucus. But average Democrats and average Republicans agree far more than the people in DC.

    • They are not critical of those cuts, they support them.

      Today they do. But 10 years ago these same democrats –ugh, how do we have the SAME politicians after that many years?– were lambasting these tax cuts as harming the middle class.

      Which is it?

      But average Democrats and average Republicans agree far more than the people in DC.

      But even the average American doesn’t think that rates should be as high as they are now:

      Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax rates, according to a new poll for The Hill.

      The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below.

      The current rate for top earners is 35 percent. Only 4 percent thought it was appropriate to take 40 percent, which is approximately the level that President Obama is seeking from January 2013 onward.

      http://thehill.com/polls/212643-hill-poll-likely-voters-prefer-lower-tax-rates-for-individuals-business

  2. I don’t remember that argument ten years ago. I just remember thinking the claim that the cuts were OK because budget surpluses were going to be huge was fantasy. And it was.

    Polls like that are misleading – people don’t know the issue, and yeah – if the wealthy were paying 30% of their income for taxes, I’d support that. But as you know, Mitt Romney had to refuse to take deductions just so his effective rate reached 14%. The wealthy pay no where near 30%. That’s what I think the public thought – not 30% AND all the deductions they get.

    • Polls like that are misleading – people don’t know the issue

      You cannot simultaneously make the argument that people don’t know the issue AND that Obama has some sort of political cover to raise taxes based on the election.

      Either people are ignorant American Idol fanboys or they aren’t.

      • Nothing contradictory. People don’t understand that tax rates do not reflect the real percentage of taxes paid. So when asked they say 30%, thinking that means the wealthy should pay 30% of their income. You’re looking at only the tax rate on some income (not capital gains) and with massive deductions available. So yes, an effective 30% rate, everyone over $250,000 pays 30% of their total income.

        • People don’t understand that tax rates do not reflect the real percentage of taxes paid. So when asked they say 30%, thinking that means the wealthy should pay 30% of their income.

          The point is this:

          How do you find credibility in asking an individual a tax question when you find that same person ignorant of taxes? If, by your own admission, they don’t know that of which they speak, why bother asking them?

  3. Because I’m thinking about what they likely think the question means. It’s not all or nothing, it’s not totally ignorant or totally knowledgable. They’re thinking everyone should pay about 30% of their income, they’re not thinking about the complexities of the tax code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *