I Thought The Bush Tax Cuts Only Went To The Wealthy?

[red states rule]

After 8 years of hearing how the Bush tax cuts only helped the wealthy the NY Times has finally gotten around to reporting the truth

Amazing how when Obama is in dire need of some good PR to rally liberal Democrats the NY Times is there to help

Considering the NY Times and Dems have dismissed the tax cuts as paying for a muffler if you are in the lower tax brackets

WASHINGTON — With the Senate poised to hold a key vote on Monday on the tax cut deal between President Obama and Republicans, the political jousting has focused on what the agreement does for the wealthy by extending all of the Bush-era tax rates, and for the unemployed, by continuing jobless aid.

But a hefty portion of the $858 billion tax package will benefit middle- and upper-middle-income Americans — precisely the demographic that felt neglected the last two years as the White House and Congress focused on the major health care law and on helping the unemployed and people facing foreclosure.

These new tax breaks are in addition to the cuts Mr. Obama had always planned to maintain on all but the highest incomes, and they could pay big political dividends to Mr. Obama and other Democrats in 2012 — a point that the president and some senior advisers are counting on, and one reason that they were willing to give in to Republican demands to extend all Bush-era tax rates.

Austan Goolsbee, the chairman the White House Council of Economic Advisers, appearing Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC, said Mr. Obama was still convinced there was no economic benefit to continuing lower tax rates for the highest earners.

"That’s a bitter pill to have to deal with,” Mr. Goolsbee said. “But it’s a compromise, and by giving that one piece we were able to get a series of things that I think make a big difference to the middle class and working families.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us...x.html?_r=1&hp

[fj1200]

aid Mr. Obama was still convinced there was no economic benefit to continuing lower tax rates for the highest earners.

So why exactly would there be economic benefit for continuing the lower rates for lower earners if there's no benefits for the highest earners?

Libs???

[KarlMarx]

Like I used to say in 2008... Obama's presidency means good news and bad news....

The good news is that once Obama becomes president we're all going to be rich....

The bad news is.... remember that tax cut for the rich?

[logroller]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They would still drink for free...But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

[SassyLady]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They would still drink for free...But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS ANALOGY!!!!

Thanks Logroller!

[KarlMarx]

I think what's happening is that the bill started out at 100 dollars but then the bar tender kept raising the price. First, it was 120, then 180, now it's something like 10,000 dollars.

The poor still drink for free, the rich are paying about 5,900 dollars... they balk at the price... not only that, but the middle class drinkers are finding that they have less money and can't make ends meet.

The bartender says that the rich aren't paying their fair share, when he is doing nothing to control his costs and every year, the bill keeps going up faster than the cost of living.

Eventually, the bartender just commandeers all of the rich's wealth, and the middle class can't afford to live without assistance from the bartender...

[red states rule]

It is always nice to see a tax and spend liberal be educated on taxes

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JYsOet9ynS0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JYsOet9ynS0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[SassyLady]

It is always nice to see a tax and spend liberal be educated on taxes

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JYsOet9ynS0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JYsOet9ynS0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Wow, I think that's the longest I've heard Matthews go without interrupting ... guess he was speechless.

[logroller]

I think what's happening is that the bill started out at 100 dollars but then the bar tender kept raising the price. First, it was 120, then 180, now it's something like 10,000 dollars.

The poor still drink for free, the rich are paying about 5,900 dollars... they balk at the price... not only that, but the middle class drinkers are finding that they have less money and can't make ends meet.

The bartender says that the rich aren't paying their fair share, when he is doing nothing to control his costs and every year, the bill keeps going up faster than the cost of living.

Eventually, the bartender just commandeers all of the rich's wealth, and the middle class can't afford to live without assistance from the bartender...

I'd agree the bill has increased, but I'd disagree that it's because the bartender raised prices; I'd say the patrons have increased how much they drink!

[red states rule]

Now that the tax deal is done, the liberal media continues to "report" how it is a gift to the "rich"

How can you "give" something that does not belong to you?

On Friday's CBS Early Show, congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on the passage of legislation to extend current tax rates and described it as: "an early holiday gift for every American taxpayer." She pointed out how "The cost of all that led 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans to vote no."

Moments later, she falsely claimed: "The bill also cuts the estate tax rate from 45% in 2009 to 35%, a White House concession to Republicans." While tax did exist in 2009, the 2010 estate tax rate was zero, therefore, having any tax on inheritance in 2011 would be a tax increase. Also, the fact that the estate tax is being reimplemented at all is a concession by Republicans, who would prefer it to remain at zero.

Cordes noted how "Democrats tried but failed to strike [the estate tax] from the bill last night." That was followed by a clip of Nancy Pelosi ranting: "Instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in America, who really don't need the help." The headline on screen throughout the segment read: "Done Deal; Tax Cut Bill Passes Over House Dem Objections."

Following Cordes's report, co-host Harry Smith interviewed Democratic New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, wondering: "You have long been opposed to this and at the end of the day, you just decided to just say no. Why?" Weiner claimed he was simply worried about increasing the deficit: "...you reported on the deficit commission's work, the drowning in read ink that we're all doing. Well, in one vote yesterday, we gobbled up all of the savings, even if we had done all of that deficit reduction. We simply can't afford it."

Smith refused to challenge Weiner by pointing out the Congressman's votes in favor of massive spending in the stimulus bill and ObamaCare. Instead, Smith followed up with this: "How odd does it feel to you to find yourself on the same side as some of the deficit hawks?" Weiner replied: "I've always considered myself a fiscally responsible person."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyl...#ixzz18S7wcpck