Talk:Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

First sentence needs to be updated

Right? "This act is set to expire in 2010" -- well it did expire and was renewed and will expire in 2012 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.79.82 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

From the article: "It is interesting to note that in a progressive tax system like that in the United States, the lion's share of taxes are paid by the wealthiest, and that by definition, almost any tax cut must reduce the most the dollar amount of taxes that the wealthy pay."

Taxes are almost never analyzed in absolute value terms, but rather as a percentage or proportion of of one's income. This is a specious counterargument, and is misleading when it conflates progressive tax systems (based on increasing proportional taxation with income) with real dollar amounts that the wealthy would pay. An NPOV alternative should discuss the actual impact on proportional tax rates of this Act, because only the most extremely progressive tax cut could possibly reduce low-income taxes by more dollars than high-income taxes. Nonuthin 14:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Therefore the fact noted is correct. Facts are not POV by definition. By what definition could you call a fact you concede as correct 'specious'? However, the phrase lion's share should be removed to avoid POV though. By the way, if you want to get into POV, the most common criticism of the tax cut is that the largest dollar amount of it goes to the wealthy. The fact stated in the article is simply to answer that criticism, with as you mentioned, that it is nearly impossible to avoid the above in any tax cut. - Taxman 17:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Referencing this fact (that more taxes are paid by the wealthy) makes a straw-man argument of the criticism that the tax cut made tax codes less progressive, thus themselves being regressive tax cuts. It's like answering your neighbor's complaint "Your dog poops on my yard" by saying that all dogs poop. Hope that clarifies a bit. BTW, the reason I haven't changed it to anything better is because I don't have sources specifically proving that the tax cuts are progressive or regressive. But the argument against them is as described. Nonuthin 04:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the article to be more self-consistent. A line relating opponents' criticisms of the tax cuts stating Bush has turned a record surplus into a record deficit has more to do with President Bush's overall policies than with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 and so I removed this line. I also added the necessary language to change the supposition that the tax cuts have reduced economic recession into an NPOV statement of what may have been. Finally, I added the final line which notes that based on what was said earlier in the article it is unlikely the tax cuts have had any real impact on the most recent economic recession. - Dwee

The part stating this does not take into account the fact that the middle classes and the poor also pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, and these have not been reduced under the current administration is incorrect. The payroll taxes may be a fair complaint, but there is no federal sales tax, so indeed the middle classes and the poor do not in fact pay sales taxes to the federal government. They may pay them to state and local governments, but that's completely unrelated to what the federal tax code is like, and in any case Bush has no power to change state or local sales taxes. --Delirium 03:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Don't more changes kick in in 2011?

Do JGTRRA's terms change in 2011? I don't know if it's due to sunsetting or to new terms in the act, but, Fidelity's website shows changes to income tax rates in 2011. It's on a secured page so I can't link to it but I'll paste what it says:

What are the current federal income tax rates?

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JAGTRRA) accelerated the tax reductions made by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) by further reducing the individual tax rates.

Marginal tax rates

2003-2010 10% 15% 25% 28% 33% 35%

2011 + N/A 15% 26% 31% 36% 39.6%

Can anyone say what's going on here? Thanks 68.123.47.165 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Capital gains taxes for those currently paying 5% (in this instance, those in the 0% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled to be eliminated in 2008"

Did this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.60.18 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of tax cut?

The federal deficit dropped from $413 billion in 2004 to $161 billion in 2007. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2009&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=US)

The unemployment rate was 6% in 2003 and dropped to 4.6% in 2007. (http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.219.143 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested text

[1] Article (contested text in bold): "In late July 2010, analysts at Deutsche Bank said letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire would greatly slow economic recovery. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said allowing the expiration would not cause such a slowing. The Obama administration proposed keeping most of the tax cuts while eliminating those for the wealthiest."

Source originally supplied by contesting editor (supporting text in bold): "The cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush and covered those earning more than $250,000...The administration has proposed letting most of the tax cuts stand, but eliminating the ones for the top-tier earners." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a new version, in an attempt to address whatever the other editor's concerns are. Sine ze has not explained what those concerns are ("reverted good faith edits by SummerPhd, sorry but you're wrong, come to a consensus on the discussion page"), I've simply written as close to the source text as possible while keeping it in the context of the article and not stepping into a copyright violation. Hopefully, any further concerns will be more clearly explained.

New version: "In late July 2010, analysts at Deutsche Bank said letting the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire would greatly slow economic recovery. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said allowing the expiration would not cause such a slowing. The Obama administration proposed keeping most of the tax cuts, while eliminating those for top-tier earners." - SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed Senate 51-49. How so?

This bill passed the Senate by a smaller majority than is generally required to pass legislation. At least 60 votes are needed for cloture. How did this bill pass with only a 51-49 majority? Shouldn't there be some mention of this aspect in the article? Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 21:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326040406/http://www.natptax.com/taxact2003.pdf to http://www.natptax.com/taxact2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]