It must be tough being a Republican these days, even in Livingston County.
How else to explain the recent email that Livingston County Republicans are circulating?
It includes a chart of the effects of the Bush tax cuts on people of various income levels. A single person with a $30,000 annual income, with no children, taking the standard deduction, received a $401.25 tax cut, amounting to 12.7 percent, from George Bush. But a married person with a $125,000 annual income got a tax break from Bush of $3,964, or 16.92 percent.
In other words, the wealthier person got a tax cut that's one-third bigger than the less-well-off person.
The email goes on to add that John McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent (which, of course, is different from what the straight-talker said originally because he actually opposed them. The email, of course, doesn't say that.)
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem a little, oh, I don't know, unfair for the rich guy to get a bigger tax cut than the poor guy? And given that there are a lot more people at the bottom end of the income scale than at the top, does it make a lot of sense to be admitting that so freely?
But I guess if your presidential candidate thinks it's a great idea to run off to Iraq (laying the groundwork for that 100-years' war he wants to fight there?) while the national economy is going through a meltdown, you need to have something to brag about.
In that case, bragging about tax cuts for the rich is about as good as you can do.
1 comment:
So, what you're saying is: "Don't you dare reduce my taxes, unless it is at the same percentage as everyone else. It's not relevant that they paid a higher percentage to begin with!" Okay, got it. I'll take the tax cut.
Post a Comment