Tax Cuts and Who Should Receive Them

ABP has some thoughts on the fight over who should get the next round of tax cuts:

Both plans have good things in them, but we prefer that of the House GOP. The top 1% of wage earners are the job creators, and already pay about 35-40% of the total income taxes collected. Since they pay the greatest percentage of taxes, it's only fair that they get the benefit of the cuts. Since the creation of jobs (mainly by those "top 1%) and the cuts on capital gains and stock dividends in the 2003 bill are a major part of the reason tax receipts are up by almost $275 billion, they should stay.

However, the Senate has a point that the AMT is going to hit many people it was never intended to hit. The income threshold in some places could be just $100,000, which is not a lot in some areas of the country. For example, in New York City that's the combined salary of a cop and a teacher.

The one thing I don't get from the House is protecting people in illegal tax shelters. I mean, they're illegal right? I think however, many people are in them because large accounting firms told them it was OK. Still, that's no excuse.

I agree with the sentiment that at least they're arguing about who gets the cuts instead of giving them at all. That said, the GOP has a chance to give a substantial middle-class cut that would be a mighty club to wield during the '06 elections.

I further concur that the top 1% do indeed create the jobs, but the chance to set the Republicans up for '06 while simultaneously forcing the Donks to go on record either for or against a middle-class cut doesn't come along often.

Perhaps you recall that the Donks were screaming about instituting a middle-class cut instead of one benefiting the "wealthiest 1%". Let's hit them where they live. They will have to vote up or down and they will commit political suicide if they oppose a true middle-class cut.