|
Monday, January 08, 2007
Stating The Obvious
Today, the NYT reminds us that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 disproportionately benefited the wealthy over the middle class, the super wealthy over the wealthy, and the wealthy-beyond-your-imagination over the super wealthy.
Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.
That means that wealthier people didn't just get more of a tax break because they pay more in taxes. Their rates were cut more than everyone else's.
Which reminds me, why are taxes on the rich still so low?
Why are taxes on the rich still so low when only the rich have seen their wages and salaries grow in this recovery? When the rich have been getting richer, the middle class has been getting nowhere, and the poor have been getting poorer? When workers are more productive, but don't earn more?
Why are taxes on the rich still so low when we're fighting a war where the few are paying the price for the many? When the President is thinking about expanding that war and asking for another $100 billion to fund it?
Why are taxes on the rich still so low when, in the long run, it doesn't really increase economic growth?
Why are taxes on the rich still so low when Congress and the President say we don't have enough revenue for things like Medicaid, Head Start, and student loans?
Why are taxes on the rich still so low when we keep running high deficits? When we'll face even larger deficits when the baby boomers retire?
And so on...
Posted by Matt Lewis
|