Posted on 10/07/2004 7:14:17 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
The second presidential debatewhich will focus on domestic issues, including the economy and the living standards of average Americansis slated to darken TV screens across this sweet land of liberty at the end of the week. So it's a good time to take stock of one of the major bones of contention between President George W. Bush and challenger John F. Kerry. We speak, of course, of Bush's income tax cuts, which Kerry has consistently attacked as little more than a giveaway to the rich and powerful.
"George Bush has given more to those with the most, at the expense of the middle-class working families who are struggling to get ahead," Kerry pronounced in a recent, and typical, speech. In at least one sense, this statement is incontrovertibly true: Those at the top of the income pyramid get more money back from tax cuts. However, that's mostly because they pay more in taxes. In a recent publication, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the households comprising the top 10 percent of income earners in 2001 shouldered 67.7 percent of income tax liabilities. So any cut in rates will reduce the burden of those paying the most.
But of course that's not what Kerry, and many of his supporters, mean. They've consistently suggested that the Bush tax cuts push platefuls of cake to well-connected millionaires while reserving only a few crumbs for the vast majority of Americans whose income places them far lower on the income scale.
Is that true? Using tax amounts due in the pre-Bush tax cut year of 2000 as a baseline, we ran some numbers based on households that made between $50,000 and $75,000 a year in total income. We chose those numbers for a couple of important reasons. First, more households18.4 percent in 2001, according to Census figuresreported an income in that range than in any other. Second, that same spread is the most typical range for income tax returns filed. Using 2001 IRS stats, 13 percent of all returns filed reported an adjusted gross income level of between $50,000 and $75,000. In fact, that range accounted for 18 percent of all returns when there was any taxable income reported. For each scenario below, we calculate cumulative savings by subtracting the amounts due under Bush's cuts from the figure that would have been due if the 2000 rates had remained in place. That is, cumulative savings = (2000 tax x 3) - (2001 tax + 2002 tax + 2003 tax). Because the lower tax rates were phased in gradually, we've also noted the difference between amounts due in 2000 and 2003.
Consider first a married couple that brings in $75,000 a year in total income. That's a lot of moneyenough to put a household in the fourth-highest income quintile (go here for the upper limits on each quintile). We assumed that they own a home and that their itemized deductions, including mortgage interest, property taxes, and charitable contributions, totals $13,500 (a typical amount). We ran the numbers for them as childless and with two kids. Here's what their federal income tax came to in each of the last four years.
Year |
Childless Couple |
Couple with Two Kids |
||
2000 actual tax |
$9,959.00 |
$7,391.00 |
||
2001 actual tax |
$9,674.00 |
$6,879.00 |
||
2002 actual tax |
$8,788.00 |
$5,968.00 |
||
2003 actual tax |
$7,614.00 |
$4,699.00 |
||
Cumulative savings |
$3,801 |
$4,627 |
||
Difference between 2000 and 2003 tax |
$2,345 |
$2,692 |
In both the childless and two-child scenarios, the amount of taxes saved over the three years of Bush tax cuts is substantial. So is the difference between the 2000 and 2003 tax due.
Significant, if smaller, savings can be seen at a lower level of income, especially if there are children involved. Here are our calculations for a couple making $50,000 a year and taking the same $13,500 in itemized deductions.
Year |
Childless Couple |
Couple with Two Kids |
||
2000 actual tax |
$4,639.00 |
$2,799.00 |
||
2001 actual tax |
$4,609.00 |
$2,539.00 |
||
2002 actual tax |
$3,979.00 |
$1,879.00 |
||
2003 actual tax |
$3,864.00 |
$949.00 |
||
Cumulative savings |
$1,465 |
$3,030 |
||
Difference between 2000 and 2003 tax |
$775 |
$1,850 |
And here are the figures for a $50,000 a year household that lives in an apartment and takes the standard federal deduction.
Year |
Childless Couple |
Couple with Two Kids |
||
2000 actual tax |
$5,561.00 |
$3,721.00 |
||
2001 actual tax |
$5,494.00 |
$3,424.00 |
||
2002 actual tax |
$4,826.00 |
$2,726.00 |
||
2003 actual tax |
$4,464.00 |
$1,549.00 |
||
Cumulative savings |
$1,899 |
$3,464 |
||
Difference between 2000 and 2003 tax |
$1,097 |
$2,172 |
These calculations suggest that, contrary to John Kerry and other critics, the Bush income tax cuts have in fact put real money in the pockets of typical American families.
None of this should be taken as a brief for George W. Bush. One of us (Nick Gillespie) is on the record (in the November issue of Reason, on newsstands now!) as declaring that he will not vote for Bush; he has also consistently decried Bush's policies on trade, drug prohibition, gay marriage, public education, and the invasion of Iraq. One of us (Mike Snell) plans a principled vote for the guy who promises not just to cut taxes, but to abolish the income tax altogether.
But the fact remains that Bush's cuts have reduced the amount of income tax we all pay. Though Kerry will certainly suggest otherwise in Friday's debate, the trouble with Bush's budget policy isn't that he cut income taxes. It's that he hasn't cut spending. Indeed, perhaps the strongest case for electing Kerry may be that he will usher in an age of divided government that will restrain federal spending and the various problems that accompany it. That's what happened the last time a Democratic president squared off against a Republican Congress. At least in fiscal terms, the results were pretty good, with discretionary spending increasing only a (relatively!) measly 3.4 percent annually under Clinton. It's a shame that we won't hear Kerry making that sort of argument in the next debate. It's just the sort of thing that might get him a few more votes from limited-government advocates who are disappointed with Bush.
Reason editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie is editor of Choice: The Best of Reason. Mike Snell is a tax consultant specializing in tax planning for small business.
Buy Choice: The Best of Reason
BTW....Thta=That in my previous comment.
Lando
Everyone seems to forget the repercussions of 911. I remember it well as my stocks took a nose dive. Bush put us into recovery, with the tax cut, and spent the money needed to be spent to get us back on the road to recovery. For those who spout about job loss, about increased poverty, about the lack of leadership during this time, I have to wonder where they were while our recession prone economy took a big hit with the advent of 911. We could be in a lot worse place right now had Bush not reacted the way he did. As the economy recovers, the deficit will begin to get paid off, as well as the fact that rarely gets attention....the actual figures fell below the projections. That is an accomplishment that gets lost in the fear mongering of numbers.
Bush's tax cuts were distributed evenly across the board depending on how much taxes you paid. Bush needs to make this point clear. It was a tax cut for everyone who paid taxes in every bracket.
BTTT
bump for later
Bush's tax cuts were the first real cuts for hard-pressed middle-class families since the great Reagan tax cut.
They were an extremely welcome relief last year and will be again this year.
I don't approve of all of Bush's spending plans, but his tax cuts have been fair and real, unlike the usual smoke and mirrors that congress likes to come up with.
Kerry, because he marries wealth and must of the dems, are old world socialists who despise those who acquire wealth, not matter by what means, and assume that they don't deserve it. Most Americans believe that we all can be wealthy and have no problem with those who got there before them.
We need to stop allowing the glib talk about sleazy numbers to be the only perception out there. And, we should be hitting on Kerry humble station with his multiple palaces, extenstive household staffs, employment of alien personal servants, secret residences owned by Terry Grendel Kerry, his personal taxes and all that tax burried in her, yep!, secret records.
How does the Kerry family, wealthy beyond belief, relate to the black and union voters he pretends to relate to?
Bush should also respond immediately and forcefully that he did/t GIVE anyone anything...he RETURNED their money to them.
Join the Democratic Party!! Repeal the 10th Commandment!! <-heavy sarcasm/off->
Bush needs to make this point clear. It was a tax cut for everyone who paid taxes in every bracket.
I agree, he needs to hammer Kerry with the facts.
Of course, to democraps, facts don't matter. "Tax cuts only benefit the rich" is a lie the Kerry people have every intention of selling the sheeple in this country. Unfortunately, there are too many who already believe it.
Thanks for posting this!
For the first time in 20 years of marriage we got ALL our paid in income tax back. Thank you GW.
Thanks for this! I've been trying to find some easy way of explaining this to libs and have failed. (I hate math by the way) But this makes it soooooo eazzzzy!!! I "borrowed" it and passed it on as well.
Cheers!
bump !
We need Kerry to define his version of middle income and rich. Al Gore actually defined a millionaire as "anyone who makes $20,000 a year over his working lifetime." Is middle class/income anyone who works only four years of his working lifetime for $20,000?
Kerry has said he will repeal the tax cut for those making over $200,000. I guess that must be his definition of rich.
The tax cuts helped me. I love to tell people that that start to rant about tax cuts for the rich.
The family of four earning $75K got a 36.4% tax break,
and the same family earning $50K got a break of between 58.4% and 66.1% (depending on whether they itemized or not).
So, as a percentage of their total income...the lower income family got a significantly larger tax break!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.