Rich Paid %23 More Under Bush Tax Cuts

Obama is doing his Twitter to Media tour promising that we can fix the giant hole in the economy he caused by abolishing the Bush tax cuts that favored the 1 percent. But did they really?

As John Merline at IBD shows us, the 1 percent paid more money under the Bush tax cuts, while the middle class paid less. That is why they were called middle class tax cuts.

It’s been more than 10 years since President Bush signed his first round of tax cuts into law. And in the years since, those cuts have been the source of constant attacks. Critics charge they gave away too much to the rich, exploded the deficit, contributed to income inequality, did little to spur economic growth, and so on.

President Obama has for years attacked the Bush cuts, and demanded that the top two income tax brackets return to Clinton-era levels.

The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush’s tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect.

In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 — that’s a 23% increase — even though their average tax rate went down.

What’s more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007.

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of taxpayers paid $6 billion less in income taxes in 2007 than they had seven years earlier — a 16% drop — and their share of the total income tax burden dropped from 3.9% to 2.9%.

Millions dropped from the tax rolls entirely. Another unheralded feature of the Bush tax cuts is that they pushed nearly 8 million people off the tax rolls entirely because, among other things, Bush doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000 and lowered the bottom rate to 10%.

But of course we all know that Obama hates the middle class. You don’t earn the support of the two richest men in America by being for the middle class and against the rich. You do it by rewarding crony capitalism while punishing free enterprise and attacking the working middle class.

  • Viet Vet

    We know this, but the marxists, led by their sycophant media, keep this a well-guarded secret to the useful idiots of the nation.

    • Mary Sue

      That's because they want to destroy the rich, not rake in more dough.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "That's because they want to destroy the rich, not rake in more dough."

        Precisely. However, I wonder if they were smart enough to understand, perhaps they'd be willing to listen to reason…if class warfare had not been so frequently deployed as a tactic for these past decades.

        • Mary Sue

          the problem is most of them aren't smart enough to understand this, and aren't even smart enough to realize that they're not as smart as they think they are.

      • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

        Let us all just do/think the polar opposite of that which the Radical-in-Chief champions.
        And it is not as if he can blow smoke up this blogger's backside…she co-owned a corporate tax/forensics practice in the NYC/NJ metro area.
        That being said, there is so much more for Americans to worry about…hold onto your seats…your sanity and your assets too – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/02/obama-regime-
        The radicals/revolutionaries want it all! And those who will benefit from the above(as assets/retirement portfolios are deconstructed/stripped bare) are people who have nothing to begin with!
        Adina Kutnicki, Israel- <a href="http://www.adinakutnicki.com/about/” target=”_blank”>www.adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • http://twitter.com/tifosies @tifosies

      "Useful idiots" seems a perfect description of teas lead into voting for loser Mitt because Repub Elite left no choice, no?

  • dan

    Why did not GOP point this out to the liberals and voters before the election ?

    • Mary Sue

      I think that's because the RINOs in the GOP don't even think about it and swallow the line about how 'tax cuts cause deficits'. They're economic illliterates.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I think that's because the RINOs in the GOP don't even think about it and swallow the line about how 'tax cuts cause deficits'. They're economic illliterates."

        They're afraid of the fact that most of their constituents are economic illiterates, yet all of these illiterates have strong opinions anyway.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    The bottom 40% pay about 6% of taxes, while the top 40% pay about 85% of taxes — or about 14 times more than their counterparts in the lower brackets.

    The Rich: Taxes Paid, Polls, and Reality http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_rich_t
    ~ American Thinker

    The real goal of this strategy is to raise everybody's taxes.
    The real function of the "tax the rich" mantra, then, is not to tax the rich and create jobs, but to break the resistance working voters have against tax increases. By enabling the federal government to appear to "tax the rich."

    Read more:
    What the 'Taxing the Rich' Rhetoric Really Means http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/what_the_t… American Thinker

  • objectivefactsmatter

    The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush’s tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect.

    In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 — that’s a 23% increase — even though their average tax rate went down.

    What’s more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007.

    –This is too complicated for the average Joe to understand, and yet they get angry and march all over town because people like Obama present taxes in such simple terms it seems self-evident that we need to increase tax rates on the rich to get more money from them. It's not THAT simple. Do you want to punish them at the expense of revenue, or maximize the revenue generated?

    Liberals fixate on class warfare and "fairness" which in reality has no standard when it comes to nebulous concepts like "social justice."

    • Mary Sue

      They need the rich to "feel the pain" because they're so sure the rich's wealth is ill-gotten by "stealing it from the poor". That's ridiculous on its face (they never do articulate exactly how they believe the alleged theft takes place), because since the poor don't have "anything", how can ANYONE get rich from "stealing" from them?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "That's ridiculous on its face (they never do articulate exactly how they believe the alleged theft takes place), because since the poor don't have "anything", how can ANYONE get rich from "stealing" from them?"

    The nebulous theory would be articulated be describing some kind of theoretical money source, like endless gold mines or public oil fields that the rich somehow just tapped in to effortlessly without sharing. It's like localized versions of what they believe colonialism was all about. Sugar plantations all over the world you know, but they're more sneaky when they steal from locals.

    Or they just imagine Hernán Cortés stealing gold or some rich slave owners that got so filthy rich that they've been dominating the others ever since through descendants. It doesn't exactly pan out when you try to rationalize it, but that's one more reason why liberals reject rational thought that goes against their play book. It's why they hate free speech. Soon their religious feelings will be hurt if you try to defend a rational tax policy.