Thursday, April 06, 2006

News Flash: Investment Income Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy!

Shocking news! When Gdub was selling his major tax cuts on investment income and claiming they would favor retires living from dividend check to dividend check, he lied!

They now want to make these tax cuts permanent, and to no one's surprise, are still lying.

Graphic: Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts on Investment Income
(enlarge graphic)

Here is a quick rundown of the New York Times piece.
  • Taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, averaged about $500,000 in investment tax savings in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.
  • Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.
  • Tax cuts for the "merely rich" (hundreds of thousands of dollars a year), are falling behind the very wealthiest, in part because another provision, the alternative minimum tax.
  • More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.
But one thing is certain about the GOP, they never let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

GOP Congressman David Camp from MI was their point man on the big lie. Last week, seeking to make these enormous tax breaks for the ultra-rich permanent during a time of wars lied,

"Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends," he said on the House floor.

But I.R.S. data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.

Mr. Camp, who had said in an interview that his figures were correct, said Monday through a spokesman that he had been misinformed by the staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. But his office said he supported making the investment tax cuts permanent because cutting these rates was "good policy and good for our economy."

The cost of these cuts is $197 billion over the next 10 years, but these poor multi-millions need this relief that our children will pay for.

Go to the NYTs for the whole story.

No comments: