Liberals all confused as to who actually benefited from Bush Tax cuts.

The New York Times and the Huffington Post recently had articles discussing the soon to expire Bush tax cuts. They drone on and on about how the "rich" will benefit from the still low rates of the low and middle class taxes on that portion of their income that qualifies.

Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee.

That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates.

Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained.

In other words, if the tax law is changed (again) the "rich" will see increased taxes, just not by as much. Huh? Of course I have to steal the most excellent point made by the entire article.......

On the other hand, if the "rich" benefit from cuts in those lower brackets, doesn't that mean the Bush tax cuts weren't just for the rich and that lower-income folks benefited from them, too?

Think about it: if these cuts really were just for the rich when they were implemented in 2003, why bother keeping any of them now?

Absolutely delicious. They just can't think that far ahead can they?