http://www.businessinsider.com/rip-the-bush-tax-cuts-they-have-become-the-obama-tax-cuts-2013

Hey, the GOP and the American people lost the Fiscal Cliff fight. Politico gleefully says "GOP anti-tax policy goes over the cliff". Kind of like when HW Bush caved on his no new taxes pledge.

It's lose-lose. GOP credibility will suffer, and the media will give the GOP  zero credit for compromising.

By contrast, the Democrats' cave-ins and compromises in the fiscal cliff agreement are viewed as "statesmanlike" and "showing their flexibility and moderation"...

Nonetheless it is amusing and stark how the Dems ranted and raved with their  class warfare vitroil for over 10 years on the evils of the "Bush tax cuts", which supposedly  favored the rich ...yet Obama has now approved them, twice; and Dems now have the cajones to brag about how 97% of Americans will benefit from these tax cuts!

Democrats approved 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts...made them permanent. 
That kind of discredits their entire "blame Bush" agenda, doesnt it?

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

 

Under the Bush cuts, the middle class tax rate dropped from 28% to 25%, while the upper tax rate dropped from 39% to 33%. Also, the capital gains rate went from 25% to 15%. The 18% rate went to 15% and the 3% rate went to 10%.

The Bush tax cuts indeed favored the rich.  It gave crumbs to the middle class and gave cake to those in the higher brackets.

In response to UserName99's comment:

Right.  Because no one in the middle class is exposed to capital gains.  Thank god they don't have IRA's and 401K's.

The middle class taxes went up yesterday.  Maybe only to their ankles, but it is about to go deeper.  Obama doesn't care about people trying to make it, middle class or .  To Obama, you are the problem.

Right.  Because no one in the middle class is exposed to capital gains.  Thank god they don't have IRA's and 401K's.

--------------------------------

They don't buy houses either.

Should I mention JFK cut taxes on the top 1% by NINETEEN percent?  Cake v crumbs, what?

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

You don't pay capital gains on 401K or IRA accounts when you tap into them at retirement.  They are taxed as regular income.

Please explain how middle class taxes went up yesterday?  And don't give me any boloney about how the temporary payroll tax reduction that expired. 

Here is a good example of how capital gains work for the top earners.

I own stock in Campbell's Soup and I was reviewing the 10K they sent me in the mail.

Denise Morrison's Salary is $950K & stock awards are $5,067,264. She pays regular tax on the salary. Sells the stock in 12 months and pays a mere 15% (soon to be 20%)tax on the gains even though everyone knows its income.

Then there are the grand children of the founder, so lets talk about dividends:

Bennett Dorrance has 46,362,107 shares
Mary Alice D Malone has  53,118,146 shares
The dividend for the year was $1.16 per share.

For Bennett:  46,362,107X1.16=53,780,011.4.   He ends up paying a 15% tax of $8,067001.60 on the payday.  Again....how is this not regular income?

I hold no grudge against Mr. Dorrance but he is just one example of the 1% who pay a lower tax rate than your local auto mechanic.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to UserName99's comment:

You are right about 401k's, etc.  but, many people have retirement savings outside these vehicles.  Those are taxed at capital gain rates. 

Besides, wiht the 401K's, how long before the call goes out to put a surtax on retirement incomes that stem from 401ks and IRA's in order to fund social securtiy?  Dems have been talking about that behind closed doors for the past 30 years.

Here's the explanation on how middle class taxes went up yesterday.  SS taxes went up to 6%.  big uptick.  lowers take home pay for middle class earners by about $1,000 a year.

I'll be curious to see how the house gop implodes again over the archaic debt ceiling and then the govt re-authorization a couple of months later.

 

It's like a train wreck in slow motion...so hard to look away....

 

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

SS isn't a tax, it is an insurance system that working people paid into all our working days.  With a few adjustments to the program, it will be in great shape for future generations.

The Social Security trust fund has over a trillion dollars worth of US Treasury bonds. The excess brought into the fund over the past half century has been invested in treasury bonds, as required by law. Now that the system is paying out a bit more than it is taking it, some of those bonds must be sold back to the government. The government must purchase those bonds with either general revenue funds or the feds creating more bonds to sell to raise the money to pay the benefits. General revenue funds are not used to pay Social Security benefits. The Social Security fund is not in debt. And it should not be included in any discussion of deficit reduction.

Simply raising the minimum wage and raising the salary ceiling would quickly resolve any need to cash in the treasury bonds the Trust fund is holding.

In response to UserName99's comment:

It is not regular income because ity is not income, it is a dividend.  Do you want to get paid based on a dividend that is claculated at the time (or nearly the time)of the dividend?  Even if inherited, the stock is paid for.  Seems like you are just jealous that your grandfather didn't work as hard.

As far as your first example, Morrison, do you want to hold onto your stock, which you PAY FOR at a set price (usually the price on the day of the grant, but other arrangements are possible),  hold for a year to see if it generates any "income" for you? It is called risk.  You might get a lot, you might get the goose egg.

So, in this case, Morrison puts @$5 million at risk for a possible return in the vicinity of an additional $150K return.  So, Morrison in 2013, if the deal is relatively the same,  Morrison pays a combined rate of 35%.  Somewhat higher than the worker putting the soup into the cans.  That's just on dividents and income.  If the stock is sold, well we would need to know the stock price at the time of purchase, and the time of sale, whihc is likely to not be that great.

Now, don't misconstrue this as my thinking that the overall compensation is OK.  I am explaining WHY cap gains is lower than regualr income.

In response to jmel's comment:

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether anyone got more of a cut than anyone else? It doesn't matter whether anyone needed a cut more than anyone else?

Huh?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to jmel's comment:

Uhm, the Bush era tax cuts favored the wealthy.  Yes, we all got one, but the wealthy got big tax cuts.  They were bad because a) they were too big and b) because they didn't have a corresponding cut in spending.  Quite the contrary.  The Bush tax cuts were accompanied by a huge increase in permanant Federal Spending - the perscription drug benefit and 2 little things known as the Gulf War and Afghanistan.

And yes, they still aren't paid for, but we have a very weak economy and trying to remove the entire Bush Era tax cut or cut federal spending to accommodate the Tax cut would wreck the economy.

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to Newtster's comment:

The Constitution also says the govt needs to pay its bills.  It says a lot of things.

Raising the debt ceiling is not a 'blank check' and there is indeed 'oversight', albeit by a fickle, unpopular congress.  If it was fine the dozens of other times when it was raised, why is it no longer thus...?

The only reason for the house repubs to oppose the debt ceiling increase is for leverage to cut things they don't like, ergo, purely political theater.  It's a tool for them, not a solution for us, and the distinction matters.

The truth is that the house repubs have not proposed any feasible plan to either a) reform entitlements, or b) cut spending, in either case significantly enough to truly impact the debt.

Re: budgets: it's a bit laughable to think these lawmakers can pass a reasonable budget when they can barely manage to keep the lights on.

 

In response to Newtster's comment:

The current tax cuts don't favor the wealthy - moron.

You're ramblings are a little hard to follow - did you get your insulin shot but forget to eat again? 

In any case, the Federal Government isn't an individual.  It's borrowing and spending don't have the same impact on the economy as mine.  But I did borrow money to support my lifestyle when I bought my home and car.  I do make changes in spending when my pay raises don't keep up with inflation or when I get hit with a tax increase.

You're basic problem, other that the obvious complete lack of intelligence, is you think the Federal Government has the same impact on the economy as a person.  It doesn't.

Oh, and I borrowed money to pay for my education.  It's called an investment in the future.

This post has been removed.

Uhm, the Bush era tax cuts favored the wealthy.  Yes, we all got one, but the wealthy got big tax cuts.

-----------------------------------

Wow.  3% of a million > 3% 30k.  Stunning!

This is all Obama all the time....Bush has been gone for a long time.  We need to encourage all of our elected officials to give Obama exactly what he wants and stop trying to protect voters from the the dems agenda. 

Voters deserve what they asked for in an Obama led government.  Give them what they want no matter what it costs our nation.  Elections have consequences and we need the people who re-elected Obama to get what they asked for...

I pledge allegiance to my savior, his excellency Barack Obama....we need to follow all that he does and give him anything he asks of us.

The electorate deserves our blind faith in Obama and the democrats.

In response to jmel's comment:

Again: Therefore, it doesn't matter whether anyone got more of a cut than anyone else? It doesn't matter whether anyone needed a cut more than anyone else?

 

Huh?

 

 

 

The wealthy benefitted more than the middle class from the cuts they received. They also needed them FAR LESS.

 

This post has been removed.