[Bush defends his tax plan with what looks like a good counterexample to the "it all goes to the rich" argument. I was wondering where the sleight of hand is. I've snipped it out below]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/10/politics/10ECON.html
New York Times January 10, 2003
Bush Says Tax Proposal Will Be Fair for All Incomes
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 President Bush promoted his tax cut proposal today
as fair to all Americans and accused opponents of the package of
engaging in class warfare.
<snip>
"You hear a lot of talk in Washington, of course, that this benefits
so-and-so or this benefits this, the kind of the class warfare of
politics," Mr. Bush said. "Let me just give you the facts, that under
this plan a family of four with an income of $40,000 will receive a 96
percent reduction in federal income taxes."
<snip>
In his stop at the National Capital Flag Company in Alexandria, Va.,
Mr. Bush emphasized that his plan would create jobs and focused on the
benefits to middle-income workers. Using the example of a married
couple with two children and income of $40,000, he said his plan would
reduce their federal income tax bill to $45 from $1,178, a savings of
$1,133.
<end excerpt>
Okay, so what's the catch? Is there a way in which this couple is so unrepresentative as to be absurd? If so, how?
Michael