Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

GOP “Budget” Would Tax the Poor & Cost More Than Obama Plan

The GOP “Budget to Nowhere” infamously included no numbers (and charts that showed nothing!) and a tax giveaway to the rich that is TRIPLE that of the Bush tax giveaways.  So,  the good folks at Citizens for Tax Justice crunched the numbers of their “plan” to cut the top tax rate to 25% (for everyone making $100,000 or more) and to make everyone who makes less pay 10%.  They conclude that over 25% of Americans, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under the GOP plan than under Obama’s budget.  The richest 1% of Americans, by contrast, would pay $100,000 less per year than under Obama’s plan.  The resulting lost revenue would increase the deficit $300 billion more than Obama in 2011 alone!

So, that’s the Republican idea:  Increase taxes on the poor, who can least afford them. Give tax bonuses to the rich and, in the name of “fiscal responsibility,” greatly grow the federal deficit. 

See the whole report here. WARNING:  Actual numbers involved.

March 28, 2009 - Posted by | economic justice

9 Comments

  1. How can poor people pay more taxes if poor people (and most of the middle class) don’t pay income taxes at all. The Republican plan calls for tax cuts to employers, that way they can employ more people.

    Remember individuals are not the only ones who pay taxes. If you raise taxes on business they they will pass it on in the form of higher prices and lower wages. Higher taxes on business (AKA the richest taxpayers) are just a back-door tax on the poor.

    This “source” you list wants to to raise taxes on corporations and also keep them in the USA. Newsflash! if you raise corporate taxes they will move oversees. If they move oversees the Americans they hired will loose there jobs.

    The logical conclusion is to lower taxes on corporations keep them stateside so they can employ more Americans.

    Comment by edwin drood | March 28, 2009

  2. OK so I just read the CTJ’s critique of the GOPs budget. They leave out any mention of the Earned Income Credit. As Im sure you know (yeah right) the EIC prevents anyone who cannot be claimed as a dependent and makes less than 48K (56K married) from having to pay income tax. That pretty munch covers anyone who the CTJ considers poor. Even if they were right the only ones getting a tax increase would be dependents who have a part time job. EIC is why people who make less than 50K a year can get A $2000 refund without having to pay one dime in taxes.

    Comment by edwin drood | March 28, 2009

  3. Apparently, the GOP “Budget” would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (Ronald Reagan’s one good idea for helping poor people).

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | March 28, 2009

  4. Actually, most of the middle class DO pay taxes and a greater percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich. And the rich cheat on their taxes (23%) more than the rest of us (7%).

    The Republican “plan” to cut taxes on corporations has been tried since Ronald Reagan. It has ALWAYS resulted in huge deficits and never stopped those same corporations from moving businesses overseas. This “plan” got us right where we are, Mr. Drood. Anyone who takes these kinds of things seriously after the last eight years must be insane.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | March 28, 2009

  5. No the GOP don’t want to give tax rebates to people who filed EIC. Its hard to give a rebate to someone who doesn’t have to pay taxes in the first place. Republicans wanting to eliminate EIC is fiction.

    Comment by edwin drood | March 28, 2009

  6. history has proved lower taxes result in higher income for the government. Sadly higher income to the government also results in more spending (way more). Why go back 8 years you only have to go back 2. We were doing fine until the Dems got congress.

    Comment by edwin drood | March 28, 2009

  7. Get serious, Drood. Bush blew the surplus that Clinton built up in ONE YEAR and then gave us record deficits and doubled the debt. We were NOT doing fine until the Dems got Congress.

    That anyone still believes such absolute nonsense is proof of insanity. Can I recommend a good psychologist for you?

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | March 29, 2009

  8. With the numbers that “the experts” are throwing around, I seriously doubt that most people comprehend the economic quagmire that we are in at the moment. And Obama wants to spend our way out of it. Logic tells me that at some point the golden goose is going to expire ! And just so you know I voted for BHO.

    Comment by Paul | March 29, 2009

  9. Paul, it is certainly valid to vote for someone, but then disagree with them. I not only voted for Obama, but volunteered for his campaign, but I disagree with him on Iraq (not fast enough withdrawal), Afghanistan (against his escalation), civil rights (he should assign a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush war crimes) and some of his approach to the economy (I think he should nationalize the banks). I DEFINITELY think we would be better off in spending our way out of the recession if Bush hadn’t run up this huge deficit. It makes things harder. But spending our way out is the only way to recover for the long term: We have to invest in schools that have been neglected for years; we have to invest in the cap & trade system and in new technology that will get us green energy; we have to repair our long neglected infrastructure; we have to get universal healthcare if we are EVER to compete on an even playing field economically; we have to become an industrial nation again. A banker said recently that Obama and Congress were “picking on them” and they are “the largest industry in the nation.”

    They aren’t being “picked on,” they are being treated too leniently. The financial sector is NOT an industry because they don’t produce anything. They exist to finance those that do produce–but instead have tried to create money out of nothing and given us an incredible mess. And the fact that the financial sector is larger than any industries in the U.S. is a big part of the problem.

    Does spending our way out of this entail risks? YES. But that’s how we did it in the Great Depression. It’s classical Keynesian economics. The key is to spend on the right things. If it works and is combined with tough new financial regulations, we will stop being part of a “boom and bust” bubble economy and start actually making things again. And Obama’s budget does entail plans to cut the deficit in half in 4 years–something the GOP “Budget” doesn’t because it doesn’t estimate deficits or anything else.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | March 29, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: