http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3562552.stm

So the trade deficit is up.

The Federal Deficit is massive.

The economic growth is slow, even with massive stimulus and low interest rates.

The rich are paying less and the middle class are paying more taxes

And the stock market is in the duldrums below 10,000

The Bush economic plan has failed!!!!

"The rich are paying less and the middle class are paying more taxes."

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

I see that the top 1% actually saw their average tax rate increase from 27.45% to 27.50%.

Top... 1% 27.45 - 27.50 .... +.05.... income floor....292K
Top...5% 24.42 - 23.68 .... -.74.... income floor....127K
Top..10% 22.34 - 21.41 .... -.93.... income floor....92K
Top.. 25% 19.09 - 18.08 .... -1.01.... income floor....56K
Top.. 50% 16.86 - 15.85 .... -1.01....income floor....28K
.
Now when you consider that the average for the top 50% and the top 25% are inclusive of the top 1%, 5% and 10% averages, you can deduce that the person in the 28K (top 50% floor) to 56K (top 25% floor) bracket got the biggest tax cut percentage.

These are real average tax rates rather than tax shares. But, I believe that it soundly refutes the argument that the tax burden is shifting to the middle (that could only be happening if the income was shifting to the middle) or Kerry's "tax cut for the wealthiest Americans" argument.

I don't see the bottom 50% who pay 3.97% of the total taxes. I wish that I could because I would like to check to see if 39.4 million low income families were truly taken off the tax rolls as I've heard.

No it did not fail, actually it was a great success:

"CEO pay hikes double
Corporate Library survey finds median raise for S&P 500 CEO was 22.18% in 2003.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The CEO's at the nation's largest companies saw their raises more than doubled in 2003 as the median raise handed out by S&P 500 companies to their top executives was 22.18 percent, according to a study by The Corporate Library. "
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/28/news..._pay/index.htm
If it's not a success I don't know what is.


Of course adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell by 9.2 according to the new IRS data. But increasing the income of all Americans was not part of the Bush's economic plan to begin with.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UG4M7VMHG1.DTL

We're turning the corner!

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

I see a looming problem here. Since middle America is making less, they are paying less taxes (9.2 drop). You know what that means!!!!!

THIS FACT MEANS THE RICH WILL EVEN HAVE TO PAY EVEN MORE TAXES.

In light of this, we must reduce the tax burden to the rich and get it back on the backs of the middle class.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

We would not want them squeezed.

Perhaps the rich should not be taxed at all if they are the ones who are stimulating this marvelous economy.

__________________
Those who define have the power. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...heney.ssl.html

Your spreadsheet doesn't even include years past 2001 when the tax cut became effective.

So are you saying the congressional budget office is wrong:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in635936.shtml

But why show a chart that actually includes the current years since the tax cut because it doesn't hold true with your fantasy land where Bush has actually accomplushed something.

Bush has accomplished something. He has made the rich richer and Halliburtan richer, and killed tens of thousands of people who did nothing against the United States and taken down a country that did not attack or even threaten to attack or has any links to any attacks against the United States. The economy is dragging, even with MASSIVE stimulus in the form of MASSIVE deficit spending and the fed cutting interest rates to the bone. Talk to any economist (that was my magor) and they will tell you that the stimulus in this economy absolutely should make it grow. So the fact that it is barely growing is certainly NOT an accomplishment. And all those debts racked up are going to be a drag on the federal government in the future.

And if you want to dispute this, use some facts not fantasies. For instance, how is the over $300 BILLION in just interest paid to finance the national debt a good thing for this country. Rather than a weight to be carried by the country that was given to it by the more recent past Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II).

I mean, which would be better:
a) Spend a coule hundred BILLION on education or the envirnment or crime control or the defending the nation against terrorism.
b) Spending it in interest payments to mostly foreign countries.

Bush's economic policies are giving the government less money to spend on the country and more to pay in interest payments in the future. And that is a FACT.

I cited an irs website. The latest stats are for 2001. Everything in the CBO is estimates and projections. Since you seem to think that everything you read on the liberal propaganda cbsnews is fact, perhaps I can enlighten you.

You said, "Your spreadsheet doesn't even include years past 2001 when the tax cut became effective."
THE BUSH TAX CUT BECAME EFFECTIVE IN 2001. FACT If you want a chart for 2002 and 2003, you will have to wait.

CBS: The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.
THE TRUTH: The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33.4 percent in 2001 to 28.4 percent this year, a decline of 14.9 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 11.5 percent.
Now that I have shown CBS to be lying, we can move on to the CBO's real numbers.

Appendix A, page 15 states that the average income for the top quintile (20%) fell by 10.5%, from 202K in 2000 to 182K in 2001. Could this possibly be the reason they paid less taxes? Economically, the rich were hurt the most by 9/11 because of the stock market. The 4th quintile (60-80%) saw their income fall by about 1 % and the rest by less than 1%.

And I don't think it takes a CPA to realize that, if you are talking about shares, if anyone's share goes down, someone else's share must go up. The total is always 100%.

You cannot talk about tax shares, without including income shares. The top 60 % according to CBO Table A-2, will have an income share of 87.3%. They assume that the shares stay the same. So I have to compare the irs data which says that the income share in 2001 for the top 50% is 86.19% The irs does not use quintiles, but the comparison is still valid, although the numbers for 2001 are real and the numbers for 2003 are projected. This strongly suggests that the INCOME IS SHIFTING DOWN.
Don't send out any more liberal propaganda websites without checking the source. They lied and if you want proof you will have to download the pdf file to your computer and read it. http://www.cbo.gov/MoreRecentlyReleased.cfm

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.