RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Came across this interesting tidbit on tax cuts(3 posts)

Came across this interesting tidbit on tax cutsLive Steam
Jul 10, 2003 6:19 PM
Looks like Clinton liked taxing the "poor" more than the rich. I guess it makes sense, since he planned on getting rich in the White House, he set up a tax structure that would benefit himself after leaving office :O)

Distributional Analysis of the Clinton June 1997 Tax Plan
Citizens for Tax Justice has completed a detailed distributional analysis of the effects of the tax cut plan proposed by President Clinton on June 30, 1997. The analysis finds that the Clinton plan differs sharply from the tax bills recently passed by the House and Senate, with far more of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan going to the middle income ranges, and far less going to the highest income taxpayers.



About 57% of the net Clinton tax cuts would go to families in the middle and fourth income quintiles. This compares to only 18% under the House tax plan and 21% under the Senate plan.
Taxpayers in the bottom 40% of the income scale would receive, on average, no benefit from Clinton's proposed tax cuts. Those in the bottom 20% would pay higher taxes, and those in the second 20% would pay about the same as now. The small income tax cuts in these groups are more than offset by higher excise taxes, primarily on airline tickets and cigarettes. In this regard, the Clinton plan is similar to its congressional counterparts.
The top 5% of taxpayers would receive 13% of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan. In contrast, the House plan offers 56% of its tax cuts to the top 5%, and the Senate plans offers 53%.
Unlike the congressional tax plans, the Clinton plan does not threaten to bust the budget after 2002. The House and Senate tax plans threaten to bust the budget not only in fiscal 2002 but to an ever-increasing extent in later years. Because the Clinton plan lacks the back-loaded, fast-growing provisions of the House and Senate plans and does not rely on optimistic estimates regarding capital gains taxes, the Clinton plan does not share this defect.

http://www.ctj.org/html/clinton2.htm
Figures don't lie but liars figure. Mark TwainSpoke Wrench
Jul 11, 2003 5:49 AM
At least Clinton's budget didn't postpone the economic burden onto our children and grandchildren did it? Remember? The most significant issue back then was what would be the most responsible way to deal with the budget surplus.
i thought it was already well established by some hererufus
Jul 11, 2003 8:32 AM
that the lower income groups don't pay taxes anyway, so what's the problem?