NYT: Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments

[Pirate Smile]

Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share goes to each income group have not been known.

-snip-
The analysis found the following:

¶Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html?hp&ex=1144209600&en=ed5dcc7b9ba7ff36&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[AX10]

1. Oh gee, this wasn't obvious?

:eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Honey, we can afford that second plasma t.v. we always wanted.

[unblock]

3. man it sucks to be rich in this country!

virtually everybody pays 20-25% of their income in total tax.

the rich only get that number reduced pay 10% of their income. they don't even get to have their income cut in half!

and all those lucky duckies who barely earn enough to owe $600 in taxes got a $300 tax cut! THEY got a 50% cut in total taxes! it isn't fair!

:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

4. Oh wow I am so shocked no really I am truly really shocked uh huh uh huh.

Ok no I'm not.

[badgervan]

5. OUCH

Sure reminds me of France, right before the revolution. shrub: "let them eat mcnuggets!"

[ewoden]

6. There's that NYT Right on time with the big story. . .

"This just in...Lincoln was assassinated"

[pitohui]

7. wow what was their first clue

one of those studies like smart kids tend to be nerds (a study released last week)

[Moderator]

8. kick

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

9. Study: Bush tax cuts making rich richer

CNN Money:

Report: The wealthiest Americans are reaping huge gains from reduced taxes on investment income.
April 5, 2006: 7:54 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - President Bush's tax cuts for investment income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

The Times analyzed IRS figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

According to the study, taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million reduced their investment tax bill by an average of about $500,000 in 2003, and their total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.

The newspaper's tax cut analysis showed that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

And the savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.

Congress is now debating whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.

Opponents told the newspaper the cuts are too generous to those who already have plenty. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when "we're in a war; we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare; we've got record deficits."

[endarkenment]

10. Will our Democratic Leadership step up on this issue?

Our will they run and hide, pissing themselves in fear again, when the mediawhores trumpet 'class warfare' at them at the bidding of the rovian attack machine?

It is class warfare, the only problem is that our side refuses to fight.

[atreides1]

14. I don't know

Maybe the powder isn't dry enough yet!

[shoelace414]

11. 2/3'rds of our economy is consumer spending

so why should we give tax cuts to people that would invest instead of giving tax cuts to those that will spend and create jobs that way.

[leftyladyfrommo]

12. These numbers didn't surprise me - but it goes to show that

we were right all along - the whole thing was for the wealthy. And those of us in the middle have been cut out again.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. Hi, Mr. Mojo Risin -- welcome to DU!

Thanks for this post, which I've nominated for Greatest page. Do you have a link for the article?

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

17. Thank for the welcome

Sorry bout not posting the link.

It appears someone has already got it up.

[dubyaD40web]

15. Don't forget to include a link and

shorten your post to only 4 paragraphs.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/money/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/?cnn=yes

[LynnTheDem]

16. NO WAY!!! That study is just a bunch of libruls trying to make bush

look bad!!!

No really!

:sarcasm:

Welcome to DU, Mr. Mofo. :hi:

[gratuitous]

18. Shocker!

What have we been saying for the last five years? Paul Krugman has done yeoman's work on this issue, but it's been largely ignored by a media dominated by the very folks reaping such huge benefits from the tax cuts. And, of course, the first person quoted in the article is someone who thinks that not only is this just fine, but it needs to go even further. Because the Bush administration's anemic job numbers aren't low enough, and he makes the unsupported assertion that more wealth in fewer hands will somehow create more jobs.

Oddly enough, the reporter doesn't seem to know that.

[shrike]

19. Mr. Obvious visits Washington again

Someday I expect a news story on something I don't already know.

[redqueen]

20. How can conservatives continue believing this stimulates the economy?

The vast majority of the jobs created are in other countries...

So why exactly should hard-working Americans go on funding the leisure class's investments, again?