Republicans claim Bush tax cuts, intended to eliminate tax burden for poor, didn’t help the rich, despite them getting 90% of it…

The CBO on Falling Incomes and Rising Tax Shares of the Top 1% | Cato @ Liberty

A favorite talking point among redistributionists is to say the tax code was much “fairer” under President Bill Clinton, than it has been since the Bush tax cuts of 2003. New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president, but they paid 25.1% from 2003 to 2008, after the Bush tax cuts. If 21.3% was a fair share in the Clinton years, then the top 1% has been paying much more than its fair share since 2003.

I’ve noted this before…even looked up the speech…the poor not paying taxes is a FEATURE of the Bush cuts. Now that it has happened, Republicans turn around and claim that the actual beneficiaries of the Bush cuts (even eliminating tax on the poor left 90% of the Bush cuts going to the wealthy, it was a huge tax cut) actually didn’t get most of the help by claiming the resulting concentration of wealth is an indication of something other than a massive concentration of wealth (another intended feature of supply-side economics).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s