Gore repeated over and over criticizing Bush that "30% of his tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1%"
This is a highly misleading statement and let me show you how by using the Springfield from the Simpsons as an example.
Monty Burns 10,000,000 taxed at a 39.60% tax rate = total tax burden of 3.96 million and a 3% tax cut would give him back 300,000 dollars.
60 families like the Simpsons / Flanders', make an average of 45,000 / yr. this is taxes at the middle class rate of 28% = individual family burden of 12600, and total of 705,600 in total taxes from the "middle class" of springfield. We'll give them TWICE the tax break, a 6% tax cut. This gives individually 2700 back, and altogether they get back 162,000 (60 * 2700 dollars)
39 families such as Nelson Munsks' parents, Cletis the slack jawed yokel, etc. say make an average of 22000 a year. Their tax rate is 15% On average, their tax burden would be 3300. We'll give them a 10% tax cut to help out the most needy residents of Springfield.... which will save each of them 2200 dollars. Total money saved by the working poor of springfield: 85800
So my tax plan, which gives a 3% cut to "wealthiest 1% of springfield" , a 6% tax cut to the "middle class" , and a 10% tax cut for the "working poor" of spring field is in totally worth:
300,000
162,000
+ 85800
---------------
547800
So in essence, my half million dollar tax incentives package gives 54% (300,000 = 54% of 547800 ) of the dollars to the wealthiest 1% of springfield. But percentagewise, I am cutting the middle a lower class by a much larger percentage to reduce their tax burden.
BY DEFINITION - ANY TAX CUT IS GOING TO GIVE A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF DOLLARS GIVEN BACK TO THE RICH IN A PROGRESSIVE TAX BASIS. The rich pay more, and thus unless the tax cut does not reduce the top percentage at all, there will be a "large" percentage of dollars allocated to the upper tax bracket in comparison to the population.
even if we go back to a 2% tax cut for Mr. Burns, taking his benefit down to 200,000...
200, 000
162,000
+ 85800
-----------------
447800
The tax plan would STILL give 44% of the "dollars" to the "Wealthiest 1%" of springfield.
so finally we give in to say Mr burns only deserves 1% .
100,000
162000
85800
-------------
347800
This finally gets to a level of 28% of the dollars going back to the "Wealthiest 1%". But to GET here, we are now giving the middle class a 6 times larger taxcut (1% vs 6%) and 10 times larger taxcut for the lower class. Flat out... this is not pandering to the wealthy. This is still a progressive tax, and a very generous cut to the middle and lower classes. Gore owes America and Mr Bush an apology. He is appealing to the lowest common drive and dividing the people of this country... class warfare at its worst. Mr. Gore is deliberately wordsmithing to paint Bush as an aristocrat and baiting America into a battle of rich vs. poor.
That's why Bush called it fuzzy math... but now you see why he could not outright deny the 30% number. It is most likely true unless there is almost NO taxcut for the upper bracket.
Back when I was little, I hated doing chores. Once, walking into the den after my chores were supposed to be done, my mother asked if the sheets were on my bed. I proudly smiled and answered, "Yes.. the sheets are on my bed." My parents were very unhappy when they found that the sheets were sitting on my bed... neatly stacked in a pile at the end. One can be totally accurate in the choice of words to describe a situation... but fail to accurately portray what is REALLY going on. When I was little, my parents expected better of me, and reinforced that after the incident. We should expect better from our candidates. Neither should be allowed to pull this crap.
"30% of his tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1%"..= "the sheets are on the bed"
This is a highly misleading statement and let me show you how by using the Springfield from the Simpsons as an example.
Monty Burns 10,000,000 taxed at a 39.60% tax rate = total tax burden of 3.96 million and a 3% tax cut would give him back 300,000 dollars.
60 families like the Simpsons / Flanders', make an average of 45,000 / yr. this is taxes at the middle class rate of 28% = individual family burden of 12600, and total of 705,600 in total taxes from the "middle class" of springfield. We'll give them TWICE the tax break, a 6% tax cut. This gives individually 2700 back, and altogether they get back 162,000 (60 * 2700 dollars)
39 families such as Nelson Munsks' parents, Cletis the slack jawed yokel, etc. say make an average of 22000 a year. Their tax rate is 15% On average, their tax burden would be 3300. We'll give them a 10% tax cut to help out the most needy residents of Springfield.... which will save each of them 2200 dollars. Total money saved by the working poor of springfield: 85800
So my tax plan, which gives a 3% cut to "wealthiest 1% of springfield" , a 6% tax cut to the "middle class" , and a 10% tax cut for the "working poor" of spring field is in totally worth:
300,000
162,000
+ 85800
---------------
547800
So in essence, my half million dollar tax incentives package gives 54% (300,000 = 54% of 547800 ) of the dollars to the wealthiest 1% of springfield. But percentagewise, I am cutting the middle a lower class by a much larger percentage to reduce their tax burden.
BY DEFINITION - ANY TAX CUT IS GOING TO GIVE A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF DOLLARS GIVEN BACK TO THE RICH IN A PROGRESSIVE TAX BASIS. The rich pay more, and thus unless the tax cut does not reduce the top percentage at all, there will be a "large" percentage of dollars allocated to the upper tax bracket in comparison to the population.
even if we go back to a 2% tax cut for Mr. Burns, taking his benefit down to 200,000...
200, 000
162,000
+ 85800
-----------------
447800
The tax plan would STILL give 44% of the "dollars" to the "Wealthiest 1%" of springfield.
so finally we give in to say Mr burns only deserves 1% .
100,000
162000
85800
-------------
347800
This finally gets to a level of 28% of the dollars going back to the "Wealthiest 1%". But to GET here, we are now giving the middle class a 6 times larger taxcut (1% vs 6%) and 10 times larger taxcut for the lower class. Flat out... this is not pandering to the wealthy. This is still a progressive tax, and a very generous cut to the middle and lower classes. Gore owes America and Mr Bush an apology. He is appealing to the lowest common drive and dividing the people of this country... class warfare at its worst. Mr. Gore is deliberately wordsmithing to paint Bush as an aristocrat and baiting America into a battle of rich vs. poor.
That's why Bush called it fuzzy math... but now you see why he could not outright deny the 30% number. It is most likely true unless there is almost NO taxcut for the upper bracket.
Back when I was little, I hated doing chores. Once, walking into the den after my chores were supposed to be done, my mother asked if the sheets were on my bed. I proudly smiled and answered, "Yes.. the sheets are on my bed." My parents were very unhappy when they found that the sheets were sitting on my bed... neatly stacked in a pile at the end. One can be totally accurate in the choice of words to describe a situation... but fail to accurately portray what is REALLY going on. When I was little, my parents expected better of me, and reinforced that after the incident. We should expect better from our candidates. Neither should be allowed to pull this crap.
"30% of his tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1%"..= "the sheets are on the bed"
Facebook
Twitter