In today's "It Took You Long Enough To Figure It Out" segment, the New York Times is seriously worried that if the only Bush tax cuts that expire in January are those for the wealthiest Americans, the rich still win.
Not surprisingly, Jackie Calmes' piece on Wednesday also referred to extending existing law as "tax cuts," a neat little trick the Left employ to give the appearance new cuts are being discussed when in fact the only thing on the table is whether what's on the books will continue to be so.
But facts aren't important in this debate. Scaring folks into believing rich people are taking money away from them is:
Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
What Calmes was doing here was explaining to most of the likely ill-informed Times readers - after all, they probably only get their "news" from this propagandist source! - that marginal tax rates go up with income and that higher wage earners pay at those same lower rates on their initial earnings that qualify.
As such, they pay ten percent on earnings up to a defined amount, then fifteen percent up to another, then 25 percent, etc.
As the President is proposing extending all of the Bush tax cuts except the ones on the two top brackets, those in these upper brackets would still benefit by the lower rates applied to the lower brackets:
Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee.
That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates.
Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained.
Of course, the other way of putting this is that if the President gets his way, those making over $1 million a year on average would see their taxes rise by $93,700; those making between $500,000 and $1 million on average would see their taxes increase by $10,800.
Can't you just hear all the cheering from the nicer neighborhoods in America?
To give you an idea of how the far-left views this, the Huffington Post offered its readers the following headline and picture to get them to read Calmes' piece:
This is from a woman that believes income and taxes have nothing to do with a business owner's decision to hire more employees.
So, what do you expect?
On the other hand, if the "rich" benefit from cuts in those lower brackets, doesn't that mean the Bush tax cuts weren't just for the rich and that lower-income folks benefited from them, too?
As always, this ironically inconvenient truth was lost on Calmes just as it is Obama, the Democrats, and a media that have been misrepresenting this from the day it was first proposed.
Think about it: if these cuts really were just for the rich when they were implemented in 2003, why bother keeping any of them now?
If the poor and middle class are going to benefit from them being extended, doesn't that mean they benefited when these cuts were first implemented, and that these weren't just tax cuts for the rich?
Of course, if the Times and its colleagues were honest about this in 2003, maybe Americans would have a far different view of the Bush tax cuts - but that would be too much like journalism for these shills.