Published: Monday, October 16, 2000

A detailed look at tax cuts


David Roberts
It seems the issue of tax cuts is misunderstood. While we watched the debates, we saw Al Gore ripping George W. Bush’s tax plan apart. Nevertheless, I have wisely learned to be skeptical of anything that Gore says. Yet, because Gore continued to spout out numbers I decided to find out the details of Bush’s tax plan. Hopefully, you will be enlightened by my research, thus enabling you to make an informed decision on Nov. 7.

After reviewing both candidates’ Web sites, I came to a not-so-startling conclusion. I have always had my notions about the Bush and Gore tax plans, the Web sites simply confirmed them. Bush’s plan actually does gives tax cuts to all who pay taxes, not just the wealthy, as Gore would have us believe.

Furthermore, Bush’s plan is a fair tax cut. Those who might be considered poor or lower-class would get the largest percentage in tax cuts, assuming that they are even paying taxes. Despite what you’ve heard, most of the poor do not pay taxes anyway. According to Bush’s Web site, a family of four making less than $35,000 will get a 100 percent tax reduction. As the income increases, the tax cut percentage decreases exponentially. Thus, a family of four making $100,000 would receive a paltry 15 percent tax decrease. Friends, this is simple and fair.
However, it is easy to distort, as Gore has proven.

Gore claimed that the wealthiest 1 percent would receive roughly 40 percent of the benefits under Bush’s plan. “How could the government pay for benefits to the wealthy?” Don’t be deceived by the rhetoric. Since when has tax relief been a government program? A tax cut is simply defined as the collection of less revenue by the government. Yet, Gore has tried depict it as a government “program” whose “benefits” would go to the “wealthy.” This is a distortion of truth.

Not only Gore, but all liberals have used class envy to make us jealous of one another. Gore’s assertion that 40-some percent of tax “benefits” go to the top one percent is a classic example. If that seems to be true, it is because the wealthiest one percent carries the major brunt of the tax burden. But it is simpler than that.
Consider that, for the sake of argument, one earns $100,000 and another earns $20,000. If the $100,000 earner is currently paying $25,000 in taxes and receives a 20 percent tax cut, that reduces his tax burden to $20,000. Now, if the $20,000 earner is paying $2,000 in taxes and receives a 100 percent tax cut, he would thus pay zero in taxes. By Gore’s definition, the $20,000 earner has received less “benefits” than the $100,000 earner. Yet, the $100,000 earner is still paying 20 percent of his or her income in taxes whereas the $20,000 earner pays nothing.
What else can be done to “benefit” the $20,000 earner? With regard to tax relief, nothing!

I also perused Gore’s web site for comparison. Unfortunately, his plan was so complex that even I got lost in the gibberish. It was a headache to understand. However, if you think you can comprehend Gore’s plan, then feel free to visit his Web site.

Friends, all your tax questions can be answered at Bush’s Web site, Under his plan, all taxpayers receive fair and well-deserved tax breaks. Do not mindlessly swallow distortions of his plan from the extreme left. It just makes sense.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1