NPR: FactWatch: Extending the Bush Tax Cuts

FactWatch: Extending the Bush Tax Cuts

From the speech:
"We have other work to do on taxes. Unless the Congress acts, most of the tax relief we have delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800."

Analysis:
The president's use of averages is misleading and masks who actually benefits most from his tax cuts. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the middle 20 percent of Americans will receive 11 percent of the Bush tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, while the top 1 percent will receive 36 percent. That means the middle 20 percent would lose about $540 a year in tax breaks if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed. The top 1 percent would lose an average of $34,000 a year.

- John Ydstie

10:08 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

And what your misleading analysis fails to point out is that the top 1% of income earners pay 39.4% of all the taxes while earning only 21% of all adjusted gross income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

And here is a shock from NPR - CTJ is a liberal tax organization.

Sent by FinanceBuzz | 10:40 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I agree that this is not the time to let the tax cuts expire. However, under what basis can we make them "permanent". The country's debt needs to be payed at some point and it is unfair to future generations of American to pass our spending to them.

Sent by TJ | 11:10 PM ET | 01-28-2008

How much more "liberal" can one get than to bankrupt the country squandering 535 billion borrowed dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Blue Bloods get rich selling war materials to the US gov't, and they never send their kids to fight for Chevron/ Texaco, Exxon/ Mobile, Lockheed/ Martin, etc.

Sent by Winston McGill | 11:36 PM ET | 01-28-2008

and while the top 1% definitely do pay the majority of taxes, people seem to forget they are also making more in a month than most people make working 40 hours a week in a year. Oh poor poor millionare. Let's make a deal. You can tax 75 percent of my income, if you'll pay me 10 million a year, I think I will still be able to keep the heat on.

Sent by Matt | 12:23 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I can't believe how incredibly arrogant it is for our President to press for a permanent tax CUT as the world is whirling in economic free fall, and we are further in debt than we've ever been in our history! I must admit that I was amazed that he even brought the subject up. He is leaving such a mess for the next President (Democrat!!!!) and it's so not fair so incredibly stupid. How can anyone miss this????

Sent by Christina Daly | 12:55 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Maybe Mr. Ydstie needs to check his "facts." I usually enjoy NPR's fact check segments, but this time you've included way too much opinion. You are doing a disservice to your listeners in this instance. I think this factcheck link should help.

http://www.factcheck.org/dean_wrong_on_bush_tax_cut.html

The President's $1800 average may be meaningless, but so is $34000 to a millionaire... or a $540 average that includes a bunch of people that don't even pay taxes.

It would have been much more informative for Mr. Ydstie to tell us how many more people at the bottom will have to pay taxes if we were to repeal the tax cuts. Also, maybe we could have learned what the average increase would be for those families making under $100k (excluding those that don't actually pay taxes).

And while we're at it, could NPR outlaw the meaningless terms "rich", "middle income", and "poor". Let's start putting some numbers to these words.

Sent by Chad | 9:02 AM ET | 01-29-2008

If the goal is a robust economy, the best action the US Government can do is to not spend more money than us tax payers given them. Balanced check book fiscal responsibility sends a much, much stronger signal to the financial markets than anything. It seems the spinners want us to focus on the level of taxation in the USA rather than on the more adult issue of checkbook responsibility. Every time some wants to cut taxes or add a new entitlement, we need to cut them short and say "your starting point is a balanced checkbook, right?" If they don't say yes, then all they want to do is get government services and have the next generations pay for them, which is "taxation wiitlements, etc.) and make those who couldn't vote yet (or ever born yet) pay for those services.

Signed, an adult citizen of the US

Sent by Russ White | 9:26 AM ET | 01-29-2008

my comments was cut off. The ending should read: ... which is "taxation without representation." It would be interesting for some one to research the rationale put forward in the supreme court briefs concerning allowing the government to operate in debt. I can't imagine they envisioned a population bubble (baby boomers) voting for government services (defense, social programs, etc.) and make those who couldn't vote yet (or even born yet) pay for those services. So the "level of taxation" issue isn't the big tax issue, a balanced checkbook is.

Sent by Russ White | 9:44 AM ET | 01-29-2008

It is analysis such as this that seems to minimize the importance of $540 per year that causes people to dismiss NPR as "liberal" That will pay for my homeowners insurance. It is right to point out that wealthier taxpayers get more money back -- but to imply that the rest of us therefore would just as soon have the tax cuts expire is wrong.

Sent by Charlie Atkinson | 11:20 AM ET | 01-29-2008

It's unpatriotic to ask, seek, talk about or request tax reductions in this time of major troop deployment. Support the troops with real finical funds. Tax cutters want the troops to pay for the war when they return. That's not supporting the troops, that's being unpatriotic.

Sent by dan | 3:02 PM ET | 01-29-2008

According to 2003 statistics,
GDP was approximately $10 trillion, and tax revenue was $1.95 trillion.
Doing the math, if the top 1% paid 39.4% of taxes and accounted for 21% of the income, that top 1% is paying approximately 37% of their income in taxes. I personally don't think that this is an unfair amount. With the budget deficit and national deficit as they are, I think that eliminating these tax cuts (read: deficit spending) would be a wise choice.

Sent by John Ellis | 4:59 PM ET | 01-29-2008

It is wrong and immoral to keep the tax cuts. If we want to spread freedom and have our entitlements we should be moral enough adults to pay for them ourselves and not give the bill to the returning soldiers, as Dan says, AND to the children of the soldiers. This isn't a liberal or conservative position it is an adult position. What are the folks Charlie is referring to willing to give up? and remember it needs to total $750+ Billion per year (not counting the debt). When I ask this question it usually takes the form of cutting sometime they don't use and even then, it doesn't total $750+ Billion per year.

Sent by Russ White | 6:02 PM ET | 01-29-2008

The title is Factwatch. Your analysis should start with "What the president said is a fact but is misleading....."
By the by, the analysis is also misleading.

Sent by George | 12:59 PM ET | 01-31-2008

We are by no means wealthy, but having each worked 2 jobs our entire adult lives and putting some of our savings in stocks - the 5% capital gains tax benefits this retired MIDDLE American couple. I'm sick of all the benefits going to the people willing to make welfare a way of life!

Sent by Mae Wener | 7:29 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:	» List of local stations (PDF)
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.