I'm starting this thread to respond to a comment made on the "Kerry Only" thread. I didn't want to debate the issue on that one, so I'll make my argument here as to why I disagree with the assertion made there, i.e., Kerry will work for the middle class.
My question would be "Based on what?" It is a matter of record and easily verified that Kerry voted against tax cuts in 2001 & 2003, tax cuts that benefit the middle class. And before you say "No, the tax cuts only benefit the rich!!", lets take a look at the numbers.
The numbers below are using taxable income, and are based on a couple filing jointly, no children. If there are children, throw in an additional $400 per child in tax cuts for the lower incomes (under $100,000), and the percentages will be even more advantageous to the lower incomes in the examples.
$40,000: 2000 tax bill: $6004 2003 tax bill: $5304 11.6% cut
$50,000: 2000 tax bill: $8307 2003 tax bill: $6804 18% cut
$60,000: 2000 tax bill: $11,107 2003 tax bill: $8626 22% cut
$70,000: 2000 tax bill: $13,907 2003 tax bill: $11126 25% cut
Guess what happens when you go above $100,000? Based on claims made by Kerry and his proponents, you would expect that the percentage of taxes cut would increase, correct? You would be wrong.
$100,000: 2000 tax bill: $22,293 2003 tax bill: $18,614 16% cut
$200,000: 2000 tax bill: $55,048 2003 tax bill: $47,445 13.8% cut
$500,000: 2000 tax bill: 170,667 2003 tax bill: $150,206 11.6% cut
Add 2 kids to the equation, and you get this:
$40,000: 24.9% cut
$50,000: 27% cut
$60,000: 29.5% cut
$70,000: 25.7% cut
So would someone please explain to me why I should believe that Kerry, who voted against the cuts that have helped the middle class, would suddenly start fighting for the middle class?
My question would be "Based on what?" It is a matter of record and easily verified that Kerry voted against tax cuts in 2001 & 2003, tax cuts that benefit the middle class. And before you say "No, the tax cuts only benefit the rich!!", lets take a look at the numbers.
The numbers below are using taxable income, and are based on a couple filing jointly, no children. If there are children, throw in an additional $400 per child in tax cuts for the lower incomes (under $100,000), and the percentages will be even more advantageous to the lower incomes in the examples.
$40,000: 2000 tax bill: $6004 2003 tax bill: $5304 11.6% cut
$50,000: 2000 tax bill: $8307 2003 tax bill: $6804 18% cut
$60,000: 2000 tax bill: $11,107 2003 tax bill: $8626 22% cut
$70,000: 2000 tax bill: $13,907 2003 tax bill: $11126 25% cut
Guess what happens when you go above $100,000? Based on claims made by Kerry and his proponents, you would expect that the percentage of taxes cut would increase, correct? You would be wrong.
$100,000: 2000 tax bill: $22,293 2003 tax bill: $18,614 16% cut
$200,000: 2000 tax bill: $55,048 2003 tax bill: $47,445 13.8% cut
$500,000: 2000 tax bill: 170,667 2003 tax bill: $150,206 11.6% cut
Add 2 kids to the equation, and you get this:
$40,000: 24.9% cut
$50,000: 27% cut
$60,000: 29.5% cut
$70,000: 25.7% cut
So would someone please explain to me why I should believe that Kerry, who voted against the cuts that have helped the middle class, would suddenly start fighting for the middle class?
