PDA

View Full Version : So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?



Nbadan
10-15-2010, 12:25 AM
Idiocy is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results...

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
David Cay Johnston

Johnston received a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for exposing tax loopholes and inequities. He now teaches the tax, property and regulatory law of the ancient world at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management. He is the author of two bestsellers on taxes, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. His next book, The Fine Print, will be published in 2011.


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes.

In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years.

Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data.

Now that we have looked at the whole eight-year period, what does the new data show about 2008, the worst recession ear since the 1930s, show when compared to the peak year of 2007, when the average taxpayer made $63,096, which was 2.5 percent more than in 2000.

In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more.

Now surely some will say that it is not fair to saddle George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cuts with the economic figures from 2001 and 2008. The first would be on the theory that President Clinton should be charged for that year (just as Bush should be charged with 2009, the first year of the Obama administration). The second is on less solid ground, but let's consider it for the sake of argument.

Just measuring the second through seventh years we find that total income was still nearly $2 trillion lower than if 2000 level income continued. Stacking the deck in President George W. Bush's favor does not change the awful performance or even soften it much.

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.

One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s.

Now let's look at wages, the source of most people's income. In 2008 the average taxpayer made $58,000. That was $5,100 less than in 2007, a decline of 8.1 percent.

The number of taxpayers reporting any wages in 2008 was 1.26 million fewer than in 2007, a scary figure when you consider that most people do not expect to be out of work for an entire year and that the population grew by more than a percentage point. In August 42 percent of the unemployed -- 6.2 million people -- had been out of work for 27 weeks or more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The average for all jobless workers was 33.6 weeks of unemployment, the equivalent of going from New Year's Day through August 23 without a paycheck.

The number of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 with any wage income fell in 2008 by 1.8 million. Because married couples file many tax returns, this means more than 2 million people who worked in 2007 earned no wages in 2008.

Total wages in 2008 fell by nearly 4 percent, compared with a year earlier, for the 87 percent of Americans whose total income was less than $100,000. Since 2000, population grew more than wages.

Those reporting negative incomes quadrupled from less than 600,000 in 2000 to nearly 2.5 million in 2008. Their losses worsened slightly from -$64,000 on average to -$66,000.

The number of workers earning $500,000 or more in total income also fell, by just under 100,000 (or nearly 12 percent), but their average wage of $718,000 is still more than the average American earns in a decade at 2008 levels.

The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.

In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.

The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166.

TAX (http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument)

boutons_deux
10-15-2010, 12:30 AM
Trickle Down, Baby! That's What I'm Talkin About

Winehole23
10-15-2010, 12:32 AM
Second verse, same as the first. Will you start calling them the Obama tax cuts when Obama puts his name on the extension?

Nbadan
10-15-2010, 12:34 AM
Obama only wants to extend the cuts for those earning less than $250K...

DJ Mbenga
10-15-2010, 12:35 AM
im still waiting for reagans trickle down

Winehole23
10-15-2010, 12:38 AM
@Dan:

Yep. He does. If Obama can't get it done in the lame duck he'll have to do a deal with the other side to get a bill.

Winehole23
10-15-2010, 12:40 AM
im still waiting for reagans trickle downIt was more of a pee-on. If you weren't the one peeing, you got peed on.

Nbadan
10-15-2010, 12:43 AM
@Dan:

Yep. He does. If Obama can't get it done in the lame duck he'll have to do a deal with the other side to get a bill.

I still think that the Dems have a outside chance to hold both houses....I'm not convinced by the small sampling sizes in most polls...when you increase the sampling size, Dems do much better...

Winehole23
10-15-2010, 01:00 AM
Prediction is a bitch... but I'll go out on a limb and say blue team's cruisin for a bruisin.

What you're saying could happen, but it's a low possibility. Like the GOP picking up 80, even 90 seats in the house. (That's the upper range of Nate Silver's projection.)

Nbadan
10-15-2010, 01:08 AM
Whatever amount of seats they pick up they will call it a victory, so winning some seats is a poor indicator of a clear GOP victory.....the real measure will be will they take control of one or both houses and I just don't see them taking the Senate, the House is a tossup...

Winehole23
10-15-2010, 01:15 AM
A tossup huh? Sure you're not still spinning?

boutons_deux
10-15-2010, 06:07 AM
Nate Silver and other polls have the overall races much closer than the pimping and wishful thinking of Fox Repug Propaganda, Repugs, and resident assholes

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/democratic-polling-improves-in-key-senate-races-lengthening-g-o-p-takeover-odds/

fyatuk
10-15-2010, 06:45 AM
The Bush tax cuts did they jobs when they came into existence. The problem is the upper level cuts should have been repealed back in 2005 or so.

And I say the Senate will keep a Dem majority, but they'll lose a few seats (pretty much a given, I can't see them losing enough seats to lose the majority in the Senate). The House will end up practically tied.

I'd still prefer a split congress. Republican controlled House, Democrat controlled Senate.

RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 09:48 AM
The lack of Republican rebuttal is deafening, if unsurprising.

angrydude
10-15-2010, 09:52 AM
bush's tax cuts just fueled spending. not a good way to get overall economic health if you keep deficit spending.

But cutting taxes is more of a moral issue than an economic one. Republicans should make argument more, but sadly, it escapes them.

TeyshaBlue
10-15-2010, 09:59 AM
The lack of Republican rebuttal is deafening, if unsurprising.

When I'm granted a research budget and access to the tables of data he's using, none of which are identified btw, I could perhaps counter some of his points.
That he has salient points is not in dispute. But when you predicate your discussion on a manufactured premise, "Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.", then rebuttal becomes problematical. Either I'm failing to grok the meaning of that statement, or it has no meaning whatsoever outside of convenient relativism. There seems to be a myriad of conditional pivots within that sentence. I'm leaning towards the former...he might be making a point and I'm simply missing it.

boutons_deux
10-15-2010, 11:26 AM
bush's tax cuts just fueled spending. not a good way to get overall economic health if you keep deficit spending.

But cutting taxes is more of a moral issue than an economic one. Republicans should make argument more, but sadly, it escapes them.

What's moral about deep tax cuts for the super wealthy while raising taxes (Reagan's soc sec hike) for the non-wealthy?

What's moral about deep tax cuts for the wealthy while telling (mostly frustrated seniors who can't find work anyway) that they can't retire/touch SocSec for 2 more years?

What's moral about deep tax cuts for the wealthy and wasting $700B/year on military while telling seniors they'll be more poor due to higher co-pays and higher deductibles.

Repugs make a moral argument? They could but it would be laughable.

Yonivore
10-15-2010, 05:23 PM
So, where in that article did he compare the effect of the tax cuts on federal receipts and then, further, compare that to changes in federal spending?

Winehole23
10-16-2010, 06:09 AM
Did you, Yoni? What were your results?