It's a little more complicated than that, Gene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States

For one thing, after 2003, if you sold your stock within a year, you were taxed at your federal income tax level. This closed the massive loophole of people simply buying a massive amount of stocks and selling them instantly to convert their income taxes into capital gains.

Secondly, Bush & Cheney's capital gains tax rates (particularly Bush's). 

I do stand corrected that they monkeyed around with capital gains at all in 2003 as my understanding was that this was done in 1999. 

But that doesn't change the result -- the government gets more money through capital gains than they were getting before because before, someone making $10 million who would have been at the 39% tax bracket would just convert it all into capital gains and be taxed only at 20%.  Now, they can't do that. They're taxed at the "lower" rate rate of 35% (the Bush income tax cut) but they can't convert it to short-term dividends.

In exchange, they lowered the long-term capital gains tax from 20% to 15%. 

Gene: Your article is about how Bush and Cheney made out. But in the case of Bush, he would have paid nearly the same in taxes. He's not even in the top income tax bracket for wages (after his deductions, he's one spot below).

The other thing you fail to mention is that the capital gains structure is already going up in less than 3 years. I somehow doubt you knew that.

Dragional

My point was that people with the income levels of Bush and Cheney have received a large cut in their tax liability because of the three tax cuts that Bush was able to get passed by the GOP controlled Congress. Bush was able to effect these changes with the very slim majority in both the House and Senate. In fact I believe at least one and may more of the tax cuts was decided by Cheney casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate. The net result of the tax cuts so far is than the treasury has lost between $300-400 Billion in tax revenue per year and that as of the analysis I saw of the 2005 data, 70% of the total tax cuts went to the top 10% of wage earners. The big tax cut that has not been fully implemented is the Federal Estate Tax which will be eliminated in 2011. That cut will only help the top 1`% and will cut another $40 Billion dollars per year from federal tax revenue. Given the Annual Deficit we are running and the huge increase in the National debt, we need to end the tax cuts (70% of the total) to the wealthy. The original justification Bush used for these tax cuts was that we had a $5.7 Trillion dollar surplus over the ten year period starting in 2002. That was not true. There was NO SURPLUS and thus his justification for cutting taxes was NOT VALID!

Oh please Gene, you didn't even know about the capital gains rate until I pointed it out to you.

The big tax cut you've been complaining about for years is the income tax (wages).

The capital gains rate wasn't changed until 2003 and the difference in income is marginal. As I mentioned it wasn't so much a tax cut as it was a chagne in the rules to close loop holes. They eliminated the massive short-term loophole and replaced it with a slight decrease in the long-term capital gains -- which goes away anyway.

Can't you be honest for once in your life? I think it's time for you to leave, Gene.  You're just here to spout out propaganda and lies and frankly, I'm tired of it. 

I'm sure there's some socialist site that will be happy to have you.

Dragional

This has NOTHING to do with Socialism. It has to do with bringing the spending and revenue of this country into balance. YOU NEVER address the fact that Bush justified his tax cuts on a SURPLUS that NEVER existed. It must be at the same location as the WMD in Iraq. There should not have been the Bush tax cuts given the fact the basis upon which they were justified did not exist. As Both Greenspan and O’Neil said in 2001, the tax cuts should have been tied to the available surplus to pay for them. If that had been done that tax cuts would have ENDED as soon as they were passed when it became clear the Bush SURPLUS was an illusion!

Dragional

Read This:



Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP)


Quote

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place"
President Bush, in his weekly radio address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

Oh please Gene, you didn't even know about the capital gains rate until I pointed it out to you. The big tax cut you've been complaining about for years is the income tax (wages). The capital gains rate wasn't changed until 2003 and the difference in income is marginal. As I mentioned it wasn't so much a tax cut as it was a chagne in the rules to close loop holes. They eliminated the massive short-term loophole and replaced it with a slight decrease in the long-term capital gains -- which goes away anyway. Can't you be honest for once in your life? I think it's time for you to leave, Gene. You're just here to spout out propaganda and lies and frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm sure there's some socialist site that will be happy to have you

So I would guess that Colon Gene is "STILL" the head dummy around here. Right?

drmiler

I am the one that posted the cut in the Capital gains and dividend article Dragional admitted he was wrong. This is his response: I do stand corrected that they moneyed around with capital gains at all in 2003 as my understanding was that this was done in 1999.

What is your comment on the quotations from Bush about the Surplus is the basis of his tax cuts:

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place"President Bush, in his weekly radio address

Even when I post quotations that PROVE what I have said is true from Bush you refuse to accept the truth!

What the hell does this have to do with your original topic you posted?

You tried to claim that the tax cuts were why Bush and Cheney were paying less of their total income in taxes.

You were wrong.  The difference in taxes has to do with WHERE their income came from (investments vs. salary). Their taxes would have been virtually the same regardless of the tax cuts. Bush isn't even in the top income tax bracket for crying out loud.

The difference between you and I is when I make an error (such as the capital gains tax rate change) I'll admit to it.  You, on the other hand, won't admit errors that are blatantly obvious.

 

Draginol

Taxpayers with the income levels of Bush and Cheney are paying less tax due to the tax cuts. They are both in the top 10% of taxpayers and that is where 70% of the nearly $400 Billion per year in tax cuts is going. You say I am a socialist for saying the tax cuts were not justified because there was no surplus which was the reason Bush gave for reducing the tax rates. The United States was NOT a SOCIALISTIC Country during the 1990's when the higher tax rates, I believe we need to restore, were in place. If you believe America was a communist country before Bush cut taxes you have lost your mind! Thus restoring the rates and provisions for Dividends and Capital gains to the pre 2001 levels will not turn us into a Marxist state or cause any harm to the wealthy of our country. What it will do is help restore fiscal stability to our country!

Yes, this is true he said this. Now put what he said in context. At the time the democrats were spending the surplus as fast as possible. They had proposals to spend all ten trillion dollars in one year all on social programs. The president stopped this waste by this proposal. The money spent was money collected instead of money not collected. The priorities were paid off first. I remember people in the news saying why not pay off all the debt. The president replied with a simple statement that I will paraphrase. All the current debt is paid off. To pay off more would mean the government would lose money not save money. Instead of paying off all the debt we are paying off the debt each year as it becomes due instead of past practices of paying late and incurring more interest. The next thing you need to keep in context to the presidents statements is that they were made prior to the attacks on 9/11. Once a nation goes to war all resources are devoted to winning that war unless you want to lose.
Our debit has gone up but not because of the tax cuts but because of the war. Wars are expensive unless you did not know this I can’t respect your arguments. The tax cuts have helped fund the war better than a tax increase, we were in a recession when the President took over and the tax cut got us out of it very quickly and allowed us to go to war on a better financial footing that you complain about.
The money paid by the President in taxes was honestly made and his fair share was paid. You say it was not enough yet you don’t complain about the Kennedy family keeping only 10% of their wealth in the United States while keeping the rest off shore to avoid paying the fair share. What is a billion dollars stashed away from the government? When Senator Kennedy says he wants to help the poor why does he not pay his taxes? At least the President pays his taxes.

Taxpayers with the income levels of Bush and Cheney are paying less tax due to the tax cuts. They are both in the top 10% of taxpayers and that is where 70% of the nearly $400 Billion per year in tax cuts is going.

You are a COMPLETE MORON! How many times must we beat it into you head before you get it, that the reason Bush an Cheney paid less tax is because of CAPITAL GAINS? It has NOTHING to do with tax cuts. It has EVERYTHIING to do with "how" they made their money.

Paladin77


"At the time the democrats were spending the surplus as fast as possible.”

That is NOT TRUE. The GOP controlled congress since 1994 and they controlled the spending. The spending increased when Bush took over with the help of the GOP controlled Congress. We have NEVER had the level of Pork or the number of Earmarks as when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House. The republicans have increased spending MORE then the democrats. The largest unfunded increase in the entitlement programs since the 1960' took place when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress and passed the Prescription Drug Plan. Yes I am aware that the Democrats also supported this new entitlement plan but it was the GOP and Bush that controlled the fate of this legislation and they refused to increases taxes to pay for this added entitlement. To this day, there is NOT ONE CENT of tax revenue to pay for this $60 Billion dollar per year program which will get even bigger as the baby boomers retire!

Please understand that it is easier to discuss a topic when you have even a basic knowledge of a topic. The surplus was announced just before the election if I remember correctly. This was to show that Clinton Gore had done a good job and if Mr. Gore was elected the good times would continue. It was also used to counter Mr. Bush's claims that we were heading into a recession because of bad fiscal policies by the Clinton Gore team. Mr. Gore was not elected and just as Mr. Bush stated the recession kicked in at the end of November. All the while the democrats in Congress suggested bill after bill on how they were going to spend the surplus. Plan after plan was proposed but because the President and Congress did not take power until January nothing would or could be done till then. The President had to fight All of the Congress to keep the money the Clinton Administration said was coming in.

The money was a ten trillion dollar surplus over ten years. It was a projection of revenue not hard cash in the treasury. All based on the last years income tax collection. Based on that figure they projected the surplus. The projection means that if everything stays the same and there is no recession then we would continue to build money until after ten years we will have accumulated ten trillion dollars, not a trillion dollars a year, or even eight hundred billion the first year. But the politicians saw the numbers at the end of the projection and wanted to spend it all that year. Yes, our democrat friends wanted to put us in a ten trillion dollar hole during a recession. To stop this the President came up with a plan to build the surplus and end the fighting over money not in the treasury. The tax cut ended the recession in record time. In fact by the time it registered as a recession it was already over and the nation was back on the mend. Yet you give the President no credit for that do you? We get attacked by AQ and instead of trying to make friends with them or ignoring them as the previous administration he attacked them. We have been attacked by AQ throughout the Clinton Administration yet noting was done to stop them. One of the reasons AQ is not attacking us like before is because they never thought we would fight back or fight back so long.
I mention the war on terror because it is the sole reason we have a deficit at this point in time.

Paladin77

It was Bush who claimed there was a $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus that was to exist between 2002 and 2012. That was the reason for the tax cuts to return this surplus to the taxpayers. The truth is there was NO surplus. Bush was not a little off he was totally wrong. Both Greenspan and O'Neil were skeptical that such a surplus existed and recommended that the tax cuts be tied to the available surplus. They BOTH warned NOT to return to annual budget deficits and guess what-- That is just what Bush did! When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed!

Without the tax cuts we would be taking in less money and go right back into a recession. So your plan is to have the government take in less money and at the same time fight an expensive war. Won’t that mean we would have higher deficits and less money to spend on social programs that you love?