Once again, the nice lady from the west coast has delivered an interesting email. Think the democrats are watching out for the little guy? Think George Bush and the republicans are just trying to help the wealthy? Read the following:
After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, …. for the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So, an ex-IRS employee decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in this country.”
Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie ‘The Sting’ with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.
Citizen WElls 
Can someone please fax this to their Senators and House of Reps. thanks
The Government, and governments, (all parties) have backed-off on the income tax and switched to a revenue system based on employment taxes, sales taxes, fines, and fees.
If you look at the big picture, both parties want more of your money. Who knows, maybe they deserve it.
Jim,
First of all, thanks for responding.
This is our money. Government is far too big in this country. The founding fathers never wanted that. The federal government has these priorities:
1. national defense.
2. interstate commerce.
3. federal reserve, banking regulation
4. supreme court
5. national legislation (limited)
Anything beyond this goes beyond the
scope of original intent.
Your figures are in error. The taxes for both Clinton and Bush were calculated using the maximum rate for that selected income. For instance the Clinton 1999 tax rate on 30K was 28%, which is what they used to get the 8400 figure. However taxes are not calculated that way. The first 25K of income would have been taxes at the lower 15% bracket first, thus yielding a much lower figure than what you show.
I am not arguing that Bush doesn’t have lower taxes. He certainly does. Of course he obtained his lower tax brackets by using deficit spending and increasing the national debt. Add back in the interest payments we’ll be making and I bet Bush actually cost taxpayers far more than Clinton ever did.
Which figures are you challenging? Did you read the post with corrected tax data?
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/bush-versus-clinton-corrected-tax-data-tax-tables-george-bush-taxes/
I disagree with you about paying more with Bush. As you know, we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11. National defense is the number 1 priority of the president. What was the cost of Clinton not doing more? What about the United Nations not doing their job.
The correct tax comparison, according to The Tax Foundation Tax Policy Blog: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html is as follows:
Single making $30,000: 1999, $3,157 vs 2008, $2,756 (Your claim, $8,400 vs $4,500 overstates the difference by $3,499). Single making $50,000: 1999, $7,263 vs 2008, $6,606 (Your claim, $14,000 vs $12,500 overstates the difference by $844). Married making $60,000: 1999, $6,585 vs 2008, $5,513 (Your claim, $16,800 vs $9,000 overstates the difference by $6,728). Married making $75,000: 1999, $9,427 vs 2008, $7,763 (Your claim, $21,000 vs $18,750 overstates the difference by $585).
Shouldn’t you verify that the numbers you’ve used that are now circulating around the Internet were actually published by the claimed source?
Paula Gott.
Shouldn’t you carefully read the first article and then the followup? The first article clearly said that it came from an email and provided a link to the Tax Foundation.
“Several days ago I posted an email that was sent to me regarding the tax rates and federal taxes imposed under the presidency of Bill Clinton and George W Bush. I clearly stated that the data came from an email and provided a link to The Tax Foundation. I knew that tax rates have been lower during the presidency of George W Bush and that Democrats are generally known for raising taxes and Republicans for lowering taxes.”
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/posting-rules-disagreement-civility-accuracy-insults-hate/
Part of the reason I posted the way that I did was to get people to go to the site, research and think.
Not being a US Citizen or Taxpayer, I can’t say much about the Tax situation, except that higher taxes are not necessarily a bad thing. I live in Scandinavia (specifically Finland), where the taxes are (by worldwide comparison) extraordinarily high.
Of course, we also have free University, free Schools, free Healthcare and everything is paid for or heavily subsidized if you’re a student: by comparison of University students in my own country, students here have it easy!
Oh, and nowhere in Scandinavia is there really any poverty at all, and the few homeless people have the option of being taken care of by the state.
It’s not perfect, but if I had the choice of here or the USA, I’d pick here. It’s also way cleaner…
So raising taxes isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Your “free” things are not really free.
You have a smaller more homogenous society
as well.
I would like to think W for the tax cuts. I also want to think him in advance for requiring me to work until the age of 70-75 since the government will be paying his trillions of dollars of debt with the use of the social security taxes that I have been paying for the last 40 years. Only Republicans can be sucker in to thinking that getting $2,000 less a year now is equal to getting $18,000 less a year at age 65 to 75 is best in the long run. Can someone show me how I can make $16,000 interest on $2,000.
Don’t worry you will be thanking Obama for outdoing Bush – according to Obamas projection over 10 years – he will outspend and out borrow George Bush by a margin of 3 to 1 – we will have 23 trillion in debt. Our children will not be able to afford it -and of course he declared in his address to the nation and congress – that we should not leave our children huge debt that is unmanageable. Oh and paying taxes is Patriotic – which is why he keeps appointing people that do not pay their taxes to high Government positions… I think I should be a politician – so I can make laws for others to live by and tell people it is the other guys who are to blame..