Yesterday, I linked to a report that shows how, for the 2003 tax cut . . . a tax cut that will save a friend of mine $800,000 a year in taxes on $3.2 million he gets in dividends each year . . . the average tax reduction for 88% of all taxpayers will be $4.
Clearly, my friend is not included in that 88%. But 118 million other taxpaying households are – perhaps yours is one of them – and the most any of them will get from the 2003 tax cut in 2006 is $100 . . . with an average, as I say, of $4.
Several of you asked how this is possible.
Bob McIntyre of the Center for Tax Justice, explains: ‘The 2003 Bush tax cut has much less of an effect in 2006 than earlier because by 2006, the only provision of the bill is the cut in taxes on dividends and capital gains. By 2006, other changes either would have taken effect anyway, or expire.’
It’s as almost as if the average voter was tricked (mis-led?) into accepting a small soon-to-evaporate tax cut in return for granting the wealthiest people in the country a giant long-term cut. If I were a typical taxpayer – Democrat or Republican – I’d be furious. Fortunately, I’m rich (in a very minor way) so this worked out fine for me. Yet somehow I think President Bush has it all wrong, with desperately sad consequences for our country.
