California Expert Software

Truth is Everything

The Washington Post reports the CBO's study of taxation resulting from George W Bush's tax cuts:

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle

Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

According to Jason Furman, economic director of John Kerry's presidential campaign,

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before."

What is most interesting in connection with CBO's study are the various comments George W Bush made the last few days, endorsing a national sales tax and a flat tax. Both of those tax arrangements are regressive; i.e., they would shift the tax burden even more to the lowest, poorest classes. Apparently, if George W Bush is re-elected, he plans to pursue those tax plans, which are likely to be approved by the Republican Congress. (No matter who wins the Presidency, Congress is likely to remain in Republican hands.) The philosophy behind those remarks and intentions is that the successful should be rewarded for their efforts, whereas the poor have no one to blame but themselves for their condition. (This is a derivative of Calvinism, that the 'successful are the chosen of God.')

At least, it is becoming very clear just what Bush's re-election will mean to the lower half of society. What I do not understand is why the lower half in places like Ohio doesn't understand this.

August 12, 2004

Last update: 11/02/2007