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 5)

COL Gene

on Apr 18, 2005

I like to have someone explain how we can be running a 675 billion-dollar deficit at a time when the economy is supposedly in recovery and believe that a healthy economic reality for this country. If the tax cuts work to work while I with a recovering economy are rerunning is huge deficit? The answer is supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate the economy sufficiently to restore the lost revenue from the tax cut and produce the additional revenue to fund the increased spending. It is exactly what happened in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. The only difference is a we have now raised the debt to almost $8 trillion heading toward 10 with no end in sight. When we finally choose to fix this problem it is going to require huge increases in taxes for both the wealthy and the not so wealthy. All of this will be put at the doorsteps of the conservative Republican party and George W. (Voodo economics) Bush.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

If you feed the Great Pig a little more, it is sure to get more thin and healthy.

NOT. Put the pig on a diet. If your kid blows his week's allowance the first day, you don't make him more fiscally responsibe by doubling his allowance the next week.

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

BakerStreet

Put up or shut up? Show how you would lower federal spending by $ 675 Billion that would be acceptable to the majority of Americans. Not what the so called, "Christian conservatives" like Bush would cut but the cuts most MOST Americans (remenber democracy) would support!

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

Gene, it isn't going to be 675 Billion when your changes get made, and you know it. That's what so digusting about your arguments sometimes. You KNOW that we that the cost of the war in Iraq isn't permanent. You KNOW that the loss of revenues caused by a flagging economy isn't permanent... UNLESS you strangle the economy by punishing those who invest in it, and who should be rewarded for not shoving it in a less useful tax shelter.

That is what you keep overlooking. What you propose harms the economy, robbing it of capital, punishing people for investment. Then, your harmed economy generates LESS revenue for the government. Worse, it harms the economy two years down the road, since you aren't possibly going to get these changes made until the 2007 budget.

So, you want to address 2005's problems in 2007, when this economy could need even MORE fuel. If we followed your lead, we might see an even weaker economy in 2007, and then strip it of even MORE capital.

You are the last person to start reminding people about Democracy. You economic ideals are far, far more of an imposition on the general will, and seek political change through scare tactics and panic mongering.

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2005

I have tried to explain this to Col Gene repeatedly but he seems to simply ignore it.

If you slow the rate of spending increases each year so that it's less than the increase we receive from natural growth in tax receipts due to a growing economy, we will have a balanced budget at some point.

That is how we got a balanced budget in the 90s incidentally. It wasn't from tax increases (including the 1991 one that doomed Bush Sr.). It was that tax receipts increased faster than spending. The tech bubble produced immense tax income through capital gains (in fact, yout ake out the capital gains tax income and we didn't really have much, if any, of a surplus).

Most Americans would support this. Most Americans do NOT support increasing taxes. That issue was settled this past November.

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

First, it has been over 3 years and the economy has not produced the added revenue even though we have some of the largest tax cuts and deficits in our history. The administration keeps telling us how the economy has recovered. Then why is the deficit growing?

Look at the increase in interest rates and energy prices. look at the stock market. It appears as if what recovery has taken place may be disappearing which will produce an even greater gap between revenue and expenses. Your correct the war cost will not last forever but even without the hundred billion or so we are spending in Iraq, we have a substantial imbalance between ongoing revenue and ongoing expenses. In addition, you fail to recognize the huge impact almost $8 Trillion debt, which is heading toward $10 Trillion. Every year we will pay more interest on that huge increase in the debt which will make it more difficult to balance the budget. Since 1980, the American taxpayers have paid over $6.5 Trillion dollars in interest on the national Debt. We could see annual interest payments of $500 Billion EVERY YEAR on the $10 Trillion debt until we REPAY that debt. We have created structural deficit where the ongoing revenue, at the current rate of taxation, is simply not equal to the ongoing expense. I have balanced many large budgets in my career and I can tell you that way we are going about the financial management of this country would bankrupt any company I worked for.

drmiler

on Apr 19, 2005

Look at the increase in interest rates and energy prices. look at the stock market

Yeah! Lets look at the stock market! The market has gone UP on both sides of the fence. So how is this a bad thing?

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

It's kind of self defeating to pretend you give a damn about the stock market and then scream the benefits of dividend taxes.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

Col Gene, it is class warfare because your whole solution says that while you should be able to use deductions and loopholes, those who make more than you shouldn't.

If you think it is tax breaks that are causing the deficit, put your money where your rhetoric is! There is no law requiring you to use any deduction or tax credit. Return your pension, as it adds to the deficit! Encourage everyone to do the same!!!

If all you are doing is pointing out why other people shouldn't be getting the same tax breaks you are using, just because they make more.... That is Class Warfare!!!

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

Bakerstreet

Not So. That is where part of my retirement savings are invested. It has dropped to the lowest levels this year (about 700 points).

Parated2K

It has nothing to do with deductions etc. It is the rates on the top two income brachets, rates on dividends and capital gains and the federal Estate Tax. they need to return to the same levels that were in effect prior to 2001. That had the deductions etc in the 1990's - the rates were higher which produced more revenue.

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

Draginol

I looked at the Federal revenue from OMB . You will see, federal revenue has dropped even after growth in GDP since 2000. This is the result of the TAX CUTS:

1998 1.722 Trillion
1999 1.828
2000 2.025
2001 1.991
2002 1.853
2003 1.922

After three year of GDP increases and three years of the tax cuts we are collecting LESS federal taxes then in 2000! At the same time federal spending has increases EVERY YEAR. That is why we have added 2.3 Trillion in Debt since Bush took office!

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

"Not So. That is where part of my retirement savings are invested. It has dropped to the lowest levels this year (about 700 points)."

I wonder if you would be so hot for dividend taxes if your fund was doing better?

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

It has nothing to do with MY Fund. It has to do with not taking this country into a level of debt that will harm the future for my children and grandchildren. I have pensions and resources that will take care of me and my wife. I want this country to be strong for my children and grandchildren. Bush is taking us off a clif so his ultra wealthy supporters can add some more zero's to their wealth as we go into debt as a nation. We ignore the consequences of Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the trade deficit, the federal deficit, loss of jobs and industries so the wealthy and big corporations can add to their net worth at the expense of the average American. I object to that I hope Americans form the majority of this country rise and remove the conservative Republican from power before it is too late.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

Col., you'd just have to be on my end of this, and hear you talk about the evils of debt and suggesting to solve it by punishing the people who fuel our economy.

It's beyond transparent how partisan it is.

Island Dog

on Apr 19, 2005

I object to that I hope Americans form the majority of this country rise and remove the conservative Republican from power before it is too late.

Americans had their chance and they chose Bush. Americans do not want liberals who will raise taxes, don't you get that?

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!