That may be your opinion but everything I posted is factual whether you agree or not. Most of your opposing opinions are not correct in any event
Obviously you were not an economics major. The reason everyone benefitted from the capital gains tax rate cuts, whether they personally had capital gains, was because the place where ones pension plans and 401s funds were invested had GREATER returns on the money invested, dummy
>
>>Better check you facts concerning the latest tax RATE cuts under Bush if
>>that is what you believe. Like the previous tax RATE cuts under >>Presidents
>>Kennedy and Reagan, income to the US treasury. Before the Kennedy tax >>RATE
>>cuts the marginal tax RATE was a staggering economy killing 90%. >
> Yeah, the economy really sucked in the 1950s.
>
>> Even the
>>budget deficit is not out of line, in time of war, as a percentage of GNP. >
> Really! Great, let's start another one so we can justify another > trillion in debt.
>
>>The budget was out of balance far worse in ALL previous war, with WWII >>being
>>the worse. When FDR was asked about the huge annual deficits because of >>the
>>war he said, when ones house in on fire they do not worry about the water >>bill
>
> Iraq vs. WWII. Yeah, I guess the only difference there was the party
> of the Commander and Chief.
>
>>The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the >>top.
>
> The people at the bottom got nothing because they didn't earn enough
> to pay taxes. (Except for FICA, Medicare, State income tax, sales > tax, etc.)
>
>>Millions of working poor were removed from the tax roles and many others >>had
>>their tax rate REDUCED by 50%.
>
> Those people weren't paying much Federal income tax to start with.
> They pay far more in the above taxes which are mostly regressive. >
>> The reduction in the long term capital gains
>>tax RATE benefit many of the working poor and middle class as well, by
>>greatly increasing their return on the stock they owned or they benefited
>>via their various insurance policies, their pension plans, be they defined
>>or 401s, and also the cost of supporting public employee pension plans >>with
>>their taxes.
>
> So it really helps poor and middle class people with lots of assets?
> BTW, you are totally wrong (what a surprise) with regards to the 401Ks
> and a lot of the other items above which are not taxed at the capital
> gains rate. 401K profits are taxed as regular income when you
> withdraw them.
>
>> States even benefited because of the extra taxes collected on
>>the extra money spent by taxpayers in the various states
>>
>>The Dims have been fostering that big lie for seven years, the truth is
>>quite the opposite. Sure those at the top saved more dollars but only
>>because the pay more dollars at their progressively higher tax RATE. The
>>fact is those at the top now pay a HIGHER percentage of all the federal
>>income taxes paid to the US treasury.
>
> They also have a disproportionately higher share of the total income
> then they used to. Meanwhile the middle class is getting the shit
> squeezed out of them, in case you haven't noticed.
>
>>Since the Bush tax cuts fully 49% of American families do not pay a penny >>in
>>federal income taxes and 34% of those that do have taxes withheld received >>a
>>full return of their taxes paid, in ADDITIONAL they receive a greater >>amount
>>in the form of the income tax credit to help pay their FICA.
>
> Never heard of that. The only FICA credit I could find on a Google
> search was a credit to restaurant owners who pay FICA contributions on > tips.
>
>>What we should be concerned about is why in the average workingman is now >>in
>>the 28% tax bracket when up until the early eighties he was only in the >>15%
>>bracket? Guess who controlled the Congress when that happened? >
> Guess who controlled Congress when the "Reagan" tax cuts were enacted?
> The last time the tax rates were adjusted, it was the Republicans in > Congress.
>
>>"SMS" rote in message news:flT3k
>>
>>
>>
>>.1118$ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive
>>>> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the
>>>> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and
>>>> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor
>>>> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes,
>>>> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money
>>>> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left
>>>> claims to have the backs of the poor...
>>>
>>> That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle
>>> class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting
>>> mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a
>>> combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user
>>> fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue >>> to
>>> state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee
>>> increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax"
>>> ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on >>> goods
>>> and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall. >>>
>>> What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for >>> more
>>> tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at the
>>> big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut that
>>> was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no >>> bargain.
>>>
>>> At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now
>>> it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts >>> were
>>> beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary. >>