Obama's 2011 Tax Cut Was UNFAIR to the Poor

[mikegriffith1]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

 

[Norman]

To be honest, I am still grappling with what's the unfairness in letting people keep more of the money they earned? Can someone explain?

 

[mikegriffith1]

So when you see or hear liberals claim that 80%/82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going to the rich, just keep in mind that they getting those misleading percentages by only counting the gross dollar amounts. As I show in the OP, using this misleading approach, you can make Obama's 2013 payroll tax cut seem grossly unfair to the poor.

 

[Slade3200]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

How much did it save for the millionaires and billionaires?

 

[deanrd]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

Unfair to the poor?

Then Republicans should be thrilled. All of their policies are unfair to the poor.

Then again, he could have been blackmailed. We've seen the GOP do that again and again.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

 

[BluesLegend]

To be honest, I am still grappling with what's the unfairness in letting people keep more of the money they earned? Can someone explain?

Apparently its only fair if the rich pay more and those who pay no taxes get the money taken from the rich.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

Besides beating that damn horse to death you neglected to consider, probably on purpose to inflate the difference, that the wage base changed in each of those years per this table changes the complete field covered with your bullshit. There was a cut off for higher earners you conveniently ignored;
Year...Wage Base
2014....$117,000
2013....$113,700
2012....$110,100
2011....$106,800
~~ Contribution and Benefit Base ~~

You "modified" the numbers for both JoeD & JoeE without consideration of the cut off noted for each year and that blows your false and calculating conclusion out of the water, Chump!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So when you see or hear liberals claim that 80%/82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going to the rich, just keep in mind that they getting those misleading percentages by only counting the gross dollar amounts. As I show in the OP, using this misleading approach, you can make Obama's 2013 payroll tax cut seem grossly unfair to the poor.

You posted bullshit in the OP and now you double down with your flawed propaganda? You showed erroneous information in the OP. What bloody chutzpah and pomposity!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

How much did it save for the millionaires and billionaires?

#Avoiding_the_point

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

 

[edthecynic]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

How much did it save for the millionaires and billionaires?

$2,000, just like Joe D and E, the OP is lying scum.

 

[edthecynic]

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

Even more ironic is the fact that the 47% who paid no taxes before Tramp's tax cuts for the rich will get no tax cut, you can't get a cut below zero. Now when the lying scum GOP say everyone will see more money in their take home pay each week, that is a typical lying by half truth.

The 47% will see more take home pay each week because Tramp jiggered the withholding tables, so whatever increase they got each week, their refund that they get when they file April 15th will be that much smaller. Everything from the GOP is always smoke and mirrors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

 

[Slade3200]

Since judging tax cuts by their gross dollar amounts is the liberal approach to judging all tax cuts signed by conservative presidents, let us apply that same approach to Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut--so we can see how misleading it is. Using that approach, we can say that most of Obama's tax cut did not go to low-income people but to the well-off and affluent! Ha! Let's see:

Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points, from 6.2% to 4.2%. Let us examine who saved the most money per year:

Joe A who earned $20K per year saved $400.
Joe B who earned $50K per year saved $1,000, 250% more than Joe A!
Joe C who earned $100K per year saved $2,000, 500% more than Joe A!
Joe D who earned $150K per year saved $3,000, 750% more than Joe A!
Joe E who earned $200K per year saved $4,000, 1,000% more than Joe A!

Obama's 2011 tax cuts ended in 2013. Let's see who saved how much over the course of those three years:

Joe A saved $1,200.
Joe B saved $3,000.
Joe C saved $6,000.
Joe D saved $9,000
Joe E saved $12,000.

The money saved by those five people added up to $31,200, and $27,000 of it went to Joe C, Joe D, and Joe E. In other words, 86% of Obama's tax cut went to people who made over $100K per year, and only 14% of it went Joe A and Joe B. Totally unfair!

Clearly, Obama's tax cut was heavily weighted to the well-off and the affluent, not to the poor and low-income folks!

You see how silly, dishonest, and misleading this comparison is? This is what liberals are now doing with the Trump tax cuts. This is how they come up with the claim that 82%/85%/90% of the Trump tax cuts are going "to the rich."

How much did it save for the millionaires and billionaires?

#Avoiding_the_point

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

I wasn’t avoiding the point, I was asking a simple question. Your response to my question was actually avoiding giving an answer

 

[mikegriffith1]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uh, actually they *are* getting an 'unfair share.' Mike, you never ever, anymore than Baiamonte have won this discussion.

You never will.

 

[Siete]

To be honest, I am still grappling with what's the unfairness in letting people keep more of the money they earned? Can someone explain?

no - just keep grappling.

robbing Peter to pay Paul should keep you busy for decades .. it has so far.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The alt right and the corporatists are so resentful and unhappy that the middle class got any break.

They believe it all should of gone to the corporations.

 

[Siete]

The alt right and the corporatists are so resentful and unhappy that the middle class got any break.

They believe it all should of gone to the corporations.

Trump will be like Reagan and raise taxes 11 times, then gradually roll back the original big tax cut about 50% trying to balance his spending.

RW's are so F'n stupid they never notice.

 

[Slade3200]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?