alt.politics.economics

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> professorchaos wrote:
>
>>
>> The Bush tax cut was a Keynesian measure that ended up giving support
>> for Friedman's permanent income hypothesis.
>
> It was really poorly designed. The vast majority of the populace didn't
> get much, but the very wealthy got a windfall.

Untrue. Single parents got the biggest amount back. The rich got the
lowest percentage in decreases in taxes out of the tax cut.


/id/2108201

"If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've
had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office.
(And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who
make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about percent; those who
make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million
a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they
pay more than 38 times as much. Overall, the biggest percentage cuts
went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000
range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that,
with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut
falls off as your income rises."

So the tax cut made taxes more progressive. The rich are paying an
even higher percentage of their income in taxes than the less rich and
poor as compared to before the cut. Democrats ignore the people taken
off the tax roles. They pay zero taxes now when they paid something before.

All though it was poorly designed. The temporary nature that the
Democrats forced into the bill meant the tax cut did not have the effect
a permanent one would have.