I see this as somewhat of a hot-button issue, and, in my estimation, one which the Democrats bandy about regularly, and which is swallowed by an awful lot of people without much question. It's true that most tax cuts benefit the rich, depending on a couple of factors, such as what you define as rich, and what percentage of the overall tax burden these rich people shoulder in the first place. According to some figures I saw recently, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 32% of all federal taxes, and the top 10% is responsible for paying 62% of all federal taxes. Figure it out - the other 90% of taxpayers pay only 38% of the taxes. Also, that ten percent that pay the 62% qualify as being rich because they make $75,000 a year. So, those of you who are reading this and make 75K a year may be surprised to find out that you are rich. I'm sure that some would contest this definition of rich - actually, I remember hearing about five years ago that the top 2% of taxpayers made 100K a year, and were considered to be in the rich category. Allowing for some latitude in the figures, what the Democrats are saying is that if you make between 75-100K a year, you're rich. But, if you're paying the lion's share of taxes, it's no wonder that, in dollar terms, you'll benefit more from a tax cut than will someone making around 25K a year. If you earn less, you pay lots less taxes, so your dollar amount is bound to be less from a tax cut, although proportionally or percentagweise I'd wager that it's the same (i.e., if you pay 20K a year in taxes and get 10% back, you get 2K back; if you only pay 2K in taxes, you'll get only $200 back - this is an illustrative example only, and does not pretend to use actual tax cut figures, but hopefully it gets the point across). Anyway, the Dems sure like to twist things around and get a knee-jerk reaction on this one.

I don't hold this against him, he's a liberal and liberals believe that all tax relief should go to lower income people, because they are the ones who need financial relief. They generally take their tax cut money and spend it quickly giving the economy a short term (and usually very small) shot in the arm. If you want to generate long-term job growth and higher GDP, not many poor people invest in new businesses and/or new technologies. The Kennedy (1962) and Reagan (1981-1983) tax cuts generated long-term growth and resulted in a very strong and vibrant economy. Those tax cuts were primarily aimed at the very highest marginal tax rates. What do you want from your tax cuts?

We all would have loved a great big tax cut, I'm sure. And I - along with many others - do feel that the tax cut we got didn't do much for anyone but the wealthy.