Not hardly. The tax cuts favored people who get the bulk of their income from dividends, interest, and capital gains rather than from salaries and business profit. The middle class only got significant tax relief if they had significant investment income . . . and most do not. It was stacked for people with large portfolio incomes, not people that work for a living.
You could argue with a brick wall.:lol: From your own quote.... Hence, it was not only a tax cut for the very wealthy. Check out this page with a breakdown. What the Bush Tax Cut Means for You at SmartMoney.com It was definitely a tax cut for the wealthy but helped everyone. When one group is paying most of the bill, they obviously will benefit the most when the bill is smaller (or more accurately, when less of the bill is paid.:hihi
wiki shows decrease in taxes (%) for all above $28k, but the largest decrease (%) was for the highest bracket, 3.6% decrease for those over $320k. the other brackets had 2% decreases. so almost double the tax break as a %.
This is what the cuts look like for a median filer, married, with two kids vs if they are allowed to sunset. Bush No Bush Agi 45000 45000 standard deduction 11400 9576 taxable income 33600 35424 taxes at 10% 835 0 taxes at 15% 3787.5 5313.6 child tax credit -2000 -1200 total liability 2622.5 4113.6 36% reduction in tax liability for median earner. The poor median earner only got a 36% reduction in his liability.
I wonder what they will do with the payments that are collected for the first four years? If you think the politicians won't get their greedy little hands on it you are crazy. By the time the four years are up there will be zero money left and they will have to borrow to get it.
How does it look for a million-dollar earner that gets most of his passive income taxed at 10%? They do really, really well.
