4.1% of a million dollars is $41,000. That's the difference between the highest bracket in 2000....

and the highest bracket after Bush RAISED that bracket AND LOWERED the rate in 2003.

When you hear arguments that suggest allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is somehow "Class Warfare", just remind that asshole making the argument that it isn't warfare that is taking place or that is in the future, but warfare the rich HAVE ALREADY WON!

During Clintons last full year in office, the highest tax bracket for a single person was income ABOVE $288,350 and the amount of tax on money made above that amount was 39.6%. By 2003 the highest bracket was $380,409 and the rate was 35%

In other words, during Clintons last full year in office, the money made between $132,600 and $288,350 was taxed at 36% and money made ABOVE 288,350 was taxed at 39.6%. So for the one single dollar made above 288,350, the tax was $.391. Thirty nine point one cents.

When this is translated into millions...and that's the kind of income we're really talking about here - it's $39,100 more in taxes under Clinton's last year than Bush in 2003, give or take a bit. IN 2002, the highest bracket was raised to $382,967 then lowered to the figure I quoted above. And note it was raised every single year after that until 2007

The difference between paying $391,000 out of a million or $350,000 out of a million.

FORTY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. From a million.

If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and therefore costing a multi million dollar annual salary another $41,000 (which means they get to KEEP a mere $609,000 of each million instead of $650,000) causes such a person so much distress that they contemplate ruining the lives of thousands of employees or other such nonsense, all I have to say is this;

JUST BUY THE GOD DAMNED USED 200 FOOT FEADSHIP YACHT INSTEAD OF THE BRAND NEW 220 FOOTER AND GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY, YOU RICH FUCKING PRICK.


Source for the info (make note of the "inflation adjusted" tables and the "nominal" tables. I may have screwed up my figures above by looking at the two different tables and quoting them in the wrong place. But the point is still valid. Please forgive my inaccuracies.)