Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

The boys did good for themselves with the tax cuts

Published on April 16, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

The 1040's for Bush and Cheney are on the web. Here are the results from their tax returns:

In 2004 Bush had taxable income Line 35 of $784, 219 and paid 26.4% in Federal Income tax. In 2001 Bush before his tax cuts he had taxable income of $811,100 and paid 30.8 % in Federal Income taxes.

The Big winner is Cheney. In 2004, he had taxable income of $1,734,373 and paid 21.3% in Federal Income taxes. In 2001 Cheney had taxable income of $4,356,635 and paid 38% in Federal Income Taxes.

The more you make the less you pay after the Bush tax cuts. The President is in the top 3% and Cheney the top 1% of wage earners . ANYONE THAT BELIEVES THAT PAYING 21% OR 26 % IS TOO HIGH FOR PEOPLE MAKING THIS AMOUNT OF INCOME, HAS LOST THEIR MIND! SO MUCH FOR THE CLAIM THE RICH ARE OVERTXED!

Comments (Page 3)

COL Gene

on Apr 17, 2005

Standerer

I doubt you paid 33% of your total income. The last bracket may have been in the 33% range but not 33% of your taxable income Line 35.

Yes, I used two returns but I bet Bush and Cheney paid all they were REQUIRED to pay because their returns are made public. How many other people in their income bracket streach the deductions and pay even less! The bottom line At the tax rates after the Bush Tax cuts, we have a gap of 25% between tax revenue and spending. That can not be allowed to continue. Cut were possible (acceptable to the majority) and then increase tax revenue to finish the job. The first tax changes should be to restore the top two rates, restore the rates on CapitalGains and dividends to the pre 2000 levels. Retain the Estate Tax after allowing a deferal for family farms and business that pass to the family. Then examine the results of the cuts and tax increases. If the budget is not balanced, we need more cuts (that are acceptable to the American People - not just conservatives) and some added tax revenue.

Draginol

on Apr 17, 2005

Lets say for the sake of argument that a spending freeze wouldn't eliminate the deficit in a single year. Fine, freeze spending for say two or three years. Across the board.

No cuts. Just a spending freeze. As things in Iraq continue to improve, the costs over there will go down as well.

Raising taxes on other people is very selfish. Especially when those other people are the ones paying most of the taxes already. Like I said, put your money where your mouth is and send thegovernment extra checks to do your part. I'm already sending 6 figures to the feds each year and I don't see myself receiving a particularly good return on that.

COL Gene

on Apr 17, 2005

It has nothing to do with selfish. It has to do with matching resources with needs. Because the items funded by the budget contain COLA adjustments or are subject to the higher costs( inflation) , spending freeze will not be possible. Even a freeze on the discretionary portion will not be possible for a great deal of that is salaries for the military and other government staff. Also how would you freeze the interest payments which are increasing due to both higher interest rates and the increaseing size of the national debt.

This a favorate way people who do not want to solve the issue avoid it. No, it will take higher Federal revenue from higher taxes. We have gone to far in cutting the revenue side with tax cuts given the reality of the world today!

Lee1776

on Apr 17, 2005

In 2004 Bush had taxable income Line 35 of $784, 219 and paid 26.4% in Federal Income tax.

Bush also gave 10% of his income to charity - congratulations George W. Bush.

I'm not an expert on income tax law, but don't the amount that a person deducts from charity give the illusion that they are paying less? (Hell, Kerry donated his old underwear to charity to pay less in taxes)

If Bush donated 10% and deducted 10%, does that not mean the he really paid 36.4%. If you want to collect more tax money, lets just scrap the tax deduction for charity. Who really needs the Boys Scouts, Salvation Army, Jerry Lewis telethons, PBS, Churches, ACLU, and the Sierra Club.

COL Gene

on Apr 17, 2005

Charity to help the poor is the Bush/conservative thing. they want all help to come from that source and not the Fed. If you take away their deduction the Bush buddies would die! No he did not pay 36%. The deduction would yield about 33% reduction in his tax .

messybuu

on Apr 17, 2005

I never knew that charity = government welfare.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 17, 2005

and yet, you still haven't answered my question, Col Gene, by your logic, do you think you should be paying more in taxes than every American who makes less than you do?

Lee1776

on Apr 17, 2005

I never knew that charity = government welfare.

If you deduct the amount that you give to charity, from the amount you pay in taxes, it is.

The difference is that you get the choice of where your money goes, instead of the Government. Whether you give to charity or not, your money will ultimately go to the needy. That is why many liberals keep asking to have the "Loopholes" closed. When they really are saying that your money should be spent through the Government.

You really don't think so many people with good tax accountants donate so much of their money out of the goodness of their heart, do ya?

Draginol

on Apr 17, 2005

This a favorate way people who do not want to solve the issue avoid it. No, it will take higher Federal revenue from higher taxes. We have gone to far in cutting the revenue side with tax cuts given the reality of the world today!

You've provided no proof of this.

And that's probably because you're wrong. Completely wrong.

http://www.budget.house.gov/lgcausdeficit030905.pdf

If we raised taxes back -- on everyone -- to where they were in 2000, the deficit would be 14% smaller.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You either don't understand economcis or you choose to ignore economcis in an effort to be mindlessly partisan.

We're not going to be raising taxes any time soon. You should just get over that. If you really care about lowering the deficit then you should start thinking of a realistic plan to suggest.

Slanderer

on Apr 17, 2005

I doubt you paid 33% of your total income. The last bracket may have been in the 33% range but not 33% of your taxable income Line 35.

I have a completed tax return that says otherwise.

dabe

on Apr 17, 2005

In that we will agree. But the answer is not to tax more, but spend less. There is no limit on spending, there is only a limit on income. And if you want to bash Bush for spending too much, then you can count me in on that.

But not for taxing too much.

This is what the bushies do:

They create a tax cut. Doesn't matter that we're in an expensive war. they are instituting that loverly failed economic policy called Voodoo Economics, or Trickle down. Anyway, yes it's a tax cut.

People get upset because the country is spiraling down a deep dark deficit hole, that will require the next generation to pay. But that's OK. They are taking care of this generation of corporate interests. Trickle down nonsense.

When people start complaining about spending going out of control, repulsicans say that dems just want to raise taxes. No, not true. Dems just want the bushie tax cuts eliminated, at least while we're paying through the nose for a war.

But no, they call that raising taxes, which is just an Orwellian (I like the term) shell game. So, the solution everyone comes up with is lowering spending. Great.

Rather than cut the tax cuts, they opt to cut spending. Cuts to environmental regulations. Cuts in health care and medicade. Cuts in education. Cuts for the most vunerable in society, those with virtually no voice and no vote, because they are already too poor to be worrying about anything but survival. But hey, they are not the population that makes the election differences. Cut those suckers. They're just lazy trash, and god forbid we make 'em too comfortable, anyway.

It's not about raising taxes. It's about eliminating the bushie tax cuts while we're fighting a freakin' war. What is so damned hard to comprehend here, folks?

COL Gene

on Apr 18, 2005

ParaTed2K Yes to your question. I believe in a progressive tax system

Dragional- You used a chart from 2001. If you looked at the same type of chart using 2004 data, you would see the tax cuts amount to over half. the reason is that the tax cuts were phased in. in fact they do not all become effective until 2010. Thus each year the loss in federal revenue gets larger. Also the impact of the economic downturn that in the 2001 chart is 1/2 is all but gone. The Iraq war and the tax cuts are the rwo main reasons for the deficut.

Slanderer - Better look at the tax rates. 0-14,300 pay 10%; 14,300-58,100 pay 15% ; 58,100-117,250 pay 25%; 117,250-178,650 pay 28%; 178,650-319,100 pay 33% and all above 319,100 pays 35%. Thus when you apply the tax rates avove to each section of income, you will not get to an overall 33% until your total was very high. Cheney had income of 1.7Million and paid an overall rate of 23%. Bush with 3/4 million in income paid an overall rate of 26%.

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2005

Dabe: As has been shown elsewhere, the deficits we currently have are not because of the tax cuts.

People who want to raise taxes on a particular group are, in my view, just waging a crude form of class warfare. It's mostly people who pay virtually no taxes versus people who pay most of the taxes. Want to compare tax returns? Let's see who's paying for all these "wonderful" federal programs..

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2005

Col Gene: You're so full of shit.

Here's a chart that shows the deficit and its causes from 2000 to 2004 along with projections in to the future:

http://www.budget.house.gov/nottaxcuts030905.pdf

Not anywhere near over half. We would STILL have a deficit today even if the tax cuts were repealed. And arguably, the deficit would be much worse because without those tax cuts, we probably wouldn't have seem the economy rebound and it's the economy that causes the deficits more than any other factor.

COL Gene

on Apr 18, 2005

Draginol

I never said the entire deficit is from the tax cuts. Your chart shows in 2004 the tax cuts cost 275 Billion. The Iraq War is another $100 Billion. and the added cost from homeland defense is another $30 billion. That is over 400 Billion. In addition, since the revenue loss from the tax cut increases each year as more of the cuts phase in the problem gets bigger not smaller. The Brookings institute study shows that if the tax cuts are made permanent, another $2.4 Trillion will be added to the debt by 2014! In addition to rescinding the tax cuts, we must do a better job in collecting the taxes that people and corporations are not paying. The IRS has estimated that between $200- 300 billion per year are not being collected. We could also cut $30 Billion from the Pork if Bush had the B*lls. We can balance the budget if we cut the pork, enforce the tax laws, get out of Iraq and rescend the tax cuts for the wealthy ( top 5%). It will take all of that to do the job!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!