Orbius - You seem to lack a basic grasp of how the different levels of tax cuts at different levels of society work. You also are exhibiting crass classism and envy of those better off than you.
First, tax cuts only can give back taxes paid. Since higher income (rich is relative depending on where in the country you live, I define rich as being able to comfortably live off of investments without working) people pay higher taxes, they will definition gain more absolute dollars back from tax cuts. Lower income people receive relatively more dollars back as etech's posts have already shown.
Unless you want to change the US to a much more socialist country with even more income distribution from one group to another group, tax cuts in and of themselves will give more money to higher income people.
The proposed tax cuts will give the most benefit (in absolute dollars) to working high income couples and to owners of small businesses. Take my personal circumstances, for example. My wife is an MD and I am a fairly high level Finance executive making a decent salary. We are hit by the marriage tax penalty. Even though our incomes are fairly high, we also live in the Silicon Valley area and just bought a house last year. We are not rich relative to the area we live.
When the marriage tax penalty us rescinded, we will gain a decent amount of $$$ from it. I will take the extra income and invest it in three areas i) college fund for my daughter, ii) paying my mortgage off faster (I have an aversion to debt, even tax subsidized debt), and iii) retirement savings (I already contribute the max $ amount allowed to my 401(k), so I need the limits raised to really be able to do much more here). My wife will pay her student loans off faster (so she can stop working and raise our current child and the one or two more we're planning on having).
Like you said, we're rich and we're just putting the savings "in the bank". Let's examine the consequnces of the "banking" actions we're planning on doing. By investing, I am creating a higher demand for stocks. This will either contribute to helping stop the current decline or start to push the stock market higher. This will create a wealth effect and increase consumer confidence. It makes the IPO market better and this can lead to more jobs.
As my wife and I pay off debt, it increases the money supply that the banks have to loan to others who need it. Increased supply of cash available to loan means lower rates for everyone. In the long term, the higher investment gains in my 401(k) will lead to higher income in the future which will be taxed as I withdraw it. Look as it as me extending my current salary well past my retirement date.
The really rich already pay little or no tax. They have most of their wealth tied up in stocks (which only trigger taxes when they are sold which the really wealthy rarely have to do) and they tend to live off of interest coming from tax free sources such as treasury bills. They also already are using structures such as generation skipping trusts to protect themselves against estate taxes (although they are intersted in reform here).
Small business owners typically are hit by the estate tax. This creates a big roadblock for them to allow their family to benefit as much as they should fromt ehri ahrd work. The estate tax also hits farmers pretty hard.
Lower income people will get a big payback relative to their current income. It would be nice if they invested the savings for the future (even if it were in the form of buying a house). Chances are that they'll spend it or reduce debt incurred from past spending. It will make a big difference to their standard of living while the the tax changes for the "rich" will make little difference to them.
The important thing is not just the tax cuts, it is controlling government spending.
I will also add that if you're accusing etech of falling for the "Republican" spin, you are swallowing the "Democrat" spin hook, line, and sinker.
Michael