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.
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.
ReplyDelete