A new study published by The Tax Foundation and authored by Nick Kasprak has concluded that low income Americans will suffer the most if President Bush's 2002 tax law changes are allowed to expire on January 1, 2011:
The report states that on Jan. 1 the doubling of the child tax credit, increased standard deductions and income credits and the creation of the 10 percent tax bracket -- all of which primarily aimed at non-wealthy taxpayers -- will vanish if gridlock persists in Washington.While wealthier taxpayers pay more in taxes and stand to lose more money if the tax cuts expire, the impact on low-income taxpayers will be far greater because they live on slimmer margins.
... "When comparing changes in after-tax income, low-income workers benefited substantially from the Bush-era tax cuts, and so they would pay much higher taxes if political gridlock allows the imminent expirations to occur on schedule," Kasprak said.
Moreover, low-income taxpayers have benefited from many temporary stimulus measures enacted in 2009 that are also set to expire at the end of this year: a further expansion of the earned income credit for couples, greater refundability of the child tax credit and bigger credits for college education.
This study proves once more the scope of the lies told by Democrats for the last eight years, that the Bush tax cuts only benefited "the rich." If the 10% tax bracket expires, it will be replaced by a 15% bracket, which is a whopping 50% tax rate increase. Working families would also see the return of the "marriage penalty," as well as a smaller standard deduction, smaller child tax credits, and a huge increase in the tax rate on dividends, which would greatly impact retirees who depend on stock dividends for a significant portion of their income.
The rest of this story involves speculation over whether Democrats can be forced by Republicans to extend all of the provisions of the 2002 tax bill, or if they will simply let all of them expire in order to ensure a tax rate hike for the wealthy. In the middle of a lame duck session, it might be tempting for hardcore liberal Democrats to not see such a dastardly act as political suicide, but the devastating effect that it will have on working families can only harm Barack Obama in 2012. If your family is financially devastated by a huge federal tax increase, you're not going to care how much tax the top 1% income bracket is paying.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Economics
Comments (12)
Yep, Nancy and Harry cut an... (Below threshold)1. Posted by 914 | October 7, 2010 9:47 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Yep, Nancy and Harry cut and run with the rest of the curs and are hiding in their vineyards/mansions hoping the masses dont ram a pitchfork up their bungholes..
November is very close jackals. Barry is a lame schmuck.
1. Posted by 914 | October 7, 2010 9:47 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2010 21:47
2. Posted by Jim Addison | October 7, 2010 11:08 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Well, the Marxists who have taken control of the Democratic Party believe all your property and income belongs to the State anyway, and you should be thankful for whatever portion they deign to let you keep.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | October 7, 2010 11:08 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2010 23:08
3. Posted by Dane | October 8, 2010 12:33 AM | Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
If I was a democrat I'd force a vote on a measure to extend the tax cuts for all but the rich.
If this important tax benefit for the poor and middle class fails it'll be because Republicans vogte against it.
Is duh! spelled with one u or two?
3. Posted by Dane | October 8, 2010 12:33 AM |
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 00:33
4. Posted by DSkinner | October 8, 2010 2:17 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
If this important tax benefit for the poor and middle class fails it'll be because Republicans vogte [sic] against it.
The Democratics have more votes than the Republicans. Therefore, the Republicans can't stop anything by themselves. If such a vote were to fail it would be because Democratics join the Republicans.
4. Posted by DSkinner | October 8, 2010 2:17 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 02:17
5. Posted by john | October 8, 2010 3:39 AM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
This study proves once more the scope of the lies told by Democrats for the last eight years, that the Bush tax cuts only benefited "the rich."
Please cite the existence of this alleged eight-year lie, that the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the rich.
And do you forget that the Democrats proposed (still do) to extend the tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, but the Republicans objected?
5. Posted by john | October 8, 2010 3:39 AM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 03:39
6. Posted by Olsoljer | October 8, 2010 9:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
An increase of taxes on the "rich" is simply off-set by an increase in the costs of goods/services they supply, ergo the middle and lower class income people will pay more for those goods/services provided by the "rich". If the Won totally exempted anyone making under 250k a year from taxes, their cost of living will still skyrocket.
(Even Dane, his stupid pills will probably double)
6. Posted by Olsoljer | October 8, 2010 9:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 09:54
7. Posted by SER | October 8, 2010 10:07 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
John #5,
"And do you forget that the Democrats proposed (still do) to extend the tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, but the Republicans objected?"
I hope your not another Dane. I like to have trolls that have some intelligence. That being said, how many Republicans does it take to pass any bill in the House? None. Did it pass the House? No. Please do a better job or George Soros will fire you.
7. Posted by SER | October 8, 2010 10:07 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 10:07
8. Posted by SER | October 8, 2010 4:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry - s/b "you're not another Dane" My mother was an English teacher and she would frown on me.
8. Posted by SER | October 8, 2010 4:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 16:01
9. Posted by john | October 8, 2010 6:03 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Hey, I'm certainly bummed that the Democrats caved in the face of Republican opposition. But the fact remains that if the Republicans supported it, it would be happening.
You don't get to obstruct something and then criticize the fact that it was obstructed.
9. Posted by john | October 8, 2010 6:03 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 18:03
10. Posted by Harmon | October 8, 2010 7:45 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
John #9,
Why not, that's what the Democrats/liberals do/have done. Or are you saying that the Republicans/conservatives are better than the Dems and should therefore be held to a higher standard...
10. Posted by Harmon | October 8, 2010 7:45 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2010 19:45
11. Posted by Highlander | October 10, 2010 11:14 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"The Democratics have more votes than the Republicans. Therefore, the Republicans can't stop anything by themselves. If such a vote were to fail it would be because Democratics join the Republicans." -- DSkinner
Uneducated conservative has never heard of the filibuster.
11. Posted by Highlander | October 10, 2010 11:14 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 10, 2010 11:14
12. Posted by John S | October 11, 2010 9:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Uneducated conservative has never heard of the filibuster."
In the House? I'll assume you learned civics in a public school. Nancy Pelosi did not allow a vote because so many Democrats want to extend all the cuts that her vote would have been badly defeated.
12. Posted by John S | October 11, 2010 9:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 11, 2010 21:27