Screwing those who aren’t rich
“As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.
Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor.”
Yes, you read that right. The Bush administration has apparently decided that when they say they’re for cutting taxes (which, in case you haven’t noticed, they’ve said a lot) what they mean is that they want to cut taxes for the rich and shift more of the burden onto the poor. One of they ways they’re trying to justify this idea is by contending that the Social Security taxes (which poorer people do pay) aren’t, well, really taxes at all, because in theory you get the money back after you retire. As one economist points out though, if you want to go down that road then pretty much everyone gets some sort of value back from the taxes they pay, whether it’s better roads or an education for their kids, so does that mean the money they pay isn’t really a tax.
What this really is, of course, is the Republican party deciding it is in a position to shamelessly pander to the rich, and it’s disgusting.
Read the whole article here [registration required].
