It's the tax cuts, Stupid!

[Yonivore]

U.S. one-day individual tax haul at record high (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/us_nm/usa_treasury_taxes_dc_1)

Tax revenues are at an all-time high and, yet, Democrats still want to raise taxes.

Go figure.

[George Gervin's Afro]

U.S. one-day individual tax haul at record high (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/us_nm/usa_treasury_taxes_dc_1)

Tax revenues are at an all-time high and, yet, Democrats still want to raise taxes.

Go figure.



While some of those tax payments come from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed, much of it was owed on income from investments or profits.

"This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.


So the tax cuts benefited the rich..We already know that Yoni..

[Yonivore]

So the tax cuts benefited the rich..We already know that Yoni..
Your point? I've always maintained the tax cuts allowed those receiving them to re-invest that money which, as you pointed out, resulted in better gains on investments and business profits.

And, tell me this GGA, how in the hell do you give a tax cut to someone -- now approaching 49% of the entire population -- that doesn't pay a freakin' dime in federal income taxes in the first place? We're already handing out money in the form of "credits" and "rebates" to people who don't pay income taxes...

Imagine what tax revenues would be if everyone paid their fair share.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The gap between rich and poor grows in the United States.
By David Cay Johnston Published: March 29, 2007


Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.



Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now.

The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

The Bush administration argued that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brookly McLaughlin, the chief spokeswoman at the Treasury Department, said that this year "the share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., she noted, has acknowledged that income disparities have increased, but, along with a "solid consensus" of experts, attributed that shift largely to "the rapid pace of technological change has been a major driver in the decades-long widening of the income gap in the United States."

Others argued that public policies had played a role in the shift. Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor, said the data understated the widening disparity between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country.

He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending. The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928. A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy

Most of the money in this country concentrated in the hands of a few is good right Yoni? I mean Bush's tax cuts worked for everybody right?

[RandomGuy]

(shrugs)

Tax revenues, like all other dollar amounts, go up solely through inflation. While we are talking about the time value of money, even if any given dollar amount goes up by .000001% then you can always claim a "new" record high.

Another good critical thinking thing that should occur to anyone reading this is that there is some CAUSALITY to claiming increased revenues are the result of the tax-cuts.

It rained after taxes were cut, but that doesn't mean that the tax-cuts caused the rain, does it?

The last thing that must also factor in to any evaluation of the efficacy of such things is what are the opportunity costs of those tax cuts?

What was given up for them?

It certainly wasn't spending. So we have tax cuts that were essentially paid for with debt, and that debt must be repaid.

Care to guess where your taxes will go when the time comes to pay back that debt?

[Yonivore]

Most of the money in this country concentrated in the hands of a few is good right Yoni?
This supposes there is a fixed amount of wealth. This is a common misconception of the "wealth re-distribution" idiots.

If there was a fixed amount of wealth to be had, the GDP wouldn't rise, jobs wouldn't be created, and money would -- as you fear -- eventually end up in one place. Fortunately, a person can -- with hard work and determination -- create their own wealth.


I mean Bush's tax cuts worked for everybody right?
Yep. It resulted in higher productivity, more jobs, and an increase in wealth, across the board.

In fact, that line you quoted about "some of those tax payments com[ing] from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed," is probably a result of them failing to adjust their W-4's for the increased wages they received as a result of the wealthy moving their tax cut gains into wages.

As a result of the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, they bought more luxury items built by non-rich people, used more services provided by non-rich people, and gave more in charitible contributions to non-rich people.

Your point again?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep. It resulted in higher productivity, more jobs, and an increase in wealth, across the board.

Increase of wealth for who? We already know the upper income brackets are making a killing but what about the remaining 95%?

[Yonivore]

Increase of wealth for who? We already know the upper income brackets are making a killing but what about the remaining 95%?
Many of them are employed whereas, before the tax cuts allowed for job growth, they were not.

[01Snake]

Increase of wealth for who? We already know the upper income brackets are making a killing but what about the remaining 95%?

Put the pot down and get a better job if you feel that you're getting screwed.

[Crookshanks]

Only a liberal can take the news that the Stock Market set a new record, unemployment is the lowest it's been in what, forever, and tax revenues are at an all time high and turn it into a gloom and doom scenario!

You see, Yoni, the tax revenues weren't the "right" kind and they came from the "wrong" people and from the wrong kind of jobs!

[01Snake]

Basically, if you make over $100K a year, you're the devil. :lol

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Yoniwhore doesn't realize that all that news don't mean much to the common worker. Tell the good news to Joe Blow who has to pay up the ass for gas and other necessities.

[01Snake]

Yoniwhore doesn't realize that all that news don't mean much to the common worker. Tell the good news to Joe Blow who has to pay up the ass for gas and other necessities.

Wait, should I be getting free gas??
:lol

[Extra Stout]

(shrugs)

Tax revenues, like all other dollar amounts, go up solely through inflation. While we are talking about the time value of money, even if any given dollar amount goes up by .000001% then you can always claim a "new" record high.

Another good critical thinking thing that should occur to anyone reading this is that there is some CAUSALITY to claiming increased revenues are the result of the tax-cuts.

It rained after taxes were cut, but that doesn't mean that the tax-cuts caused the rain, does it?

The last thing that must also factor in to any evaluation of the efficacy of such things is what are the opportunity costs of those tax cuts?

What was given up for them?

It certainly wasn't spending. So we have tax cuts that were essentially paid for with debt, and that debt must be repaid.

Care to guess where your taxes will go when the time comes to pay back that debt?
I notice nobody responded to the erudite post. Tougher to pick apart.

[2centsworth]

I notice nobody responded to the erudite post. Tougher to pick apart.
please. His math, or lack thereof, is almost not worth a response.

[2centsworth]

Tax revenues, like all other dollar amounts, go up solely through inflation

this has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read from someone who suppossedly knows something about finance and economics.

[2centsworth]

So the tax cuts benefited the rich..We already know that Yoni..

you're missing the point completely. Your goal of collecting more tax revenue has been accomplished.

You're just disappointed that your goal wasn't accomplished while at the same time punishing the "rich".

[Bob Lanier]

Only a liberal can take the news that the Stock Market set a new record, unemployment is the lowest it's been in what, forever, and tax revenues are at an all time high and turn it into a gloom and doom scenario!
That's untrue.

[Yonivore]

I notice nobody responded to the erudite post. Tougher to pick apart.
I have RG on ignore and you can draw a causal relation between cutting taxes and increased federal receipts by showing the money not taxed was used to produce wealth that was taxed elsewhere; not so with tax cuts and rain...unless, of course the windfall is used in a cloud-seeding project.

[JoeChalupa]

Only a conservative, allegeldy, republican like Rudy can take the next presidential election and turn it into a gloom and doom scenario!!!

[JoeChalupa]

Placing someone on ignore is childish.

[Yonivore]

Placing someone on ignore is childish.
I know you are but what am I? :wakeup

Making unrelated, innocuous statements about the legitimate use of forum options is childish.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Basically, if you make over $100K a year, you're the devil. :lol


No Never said that but to equate the stock market setting records to insuating that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest. Your not ignorant.

[Yonivore]

No Never said that but to equate the stock market setting records to insuating that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest. Your not ignorant.
To claim anyone is saying "that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest."

[George Gervin's Afro]

To claim anyone is saying "that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest."


So your admitting that economy may not be good for everyone? All of your whoring of the Bush policies had me fooled..


'slam dunk'..

[Yonivore]

So your admitting that economy may not be good for everyone?
It never is good for everyone but, that has less to do with policy than personal choice.


All of your whoring of the Bush policies had me fooled...
That's because you're an idiot that doesn't pay attention to what is being said.



'slam dunk'..
If you say so.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It never is good for everyone but, that has less to do with policy than personal choice.


That's because you're an idiot that doesn't pay attention to what is being said.



If you say so.


yoni-bush-whore..I like that.

[Yonivore]

yoni-bush-whore..I like that.
Whatever greases your chute, pardner.

[gtownspur]

George Gervins Brazillian Wax is a more suitable name.

[smeagol]

You pussies complaining about the US economy. Do you know how good you guys have it?

[RandomGuy]

Tax revenues, like all other dollar amounts, go up solely through inflation


this has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read from someone who suppossedly knows something about finance and economics.

:oops

You have a very valid point there. The sentence should have read:

"Tax revenues, like all dollar amounts, would go up solely though inflation, all other things held equal."

It was not my intention to imply that tax revenues go up ONLY through inflation. There are MANY other factors that go into revenue growth.

The intention of the post was simply that of pointing out how the original post was misleading.

To be able to say for any certainty whether the revenue growth means anything, you would have to have revenue growth adjusted for inflation.

Not adjusting for the time value of money is a VERY common mistake/trick.

[RandomGuy]

I have RG on ignore and you can draw a causal relation between cutting taxes and increased federal receipts by showing the money not taxed was used to produce wealth that was taxed elsewhere; not so with tax cuts and rain...unless, of course the windfall is used in a cloud-seeding project.

It is only logical that SOME growth can be attributed to the tax cuts.

What you CANNOT do, as Yoni does, is attribute ALL growth to the tax cuts.

What Yoni DID NOT tell you is the COST of those tax cuts. Since he has me on ignore, I can call a spade a spade. Yonis is a partisan hack.

Are tax cuts good? Yes, IF done right.
Were these done right? No.

The thing about Bush estimations is that they are then taken up by the party faithful as gospel, without those blind faithful questioning whether the underlying assumptions make sense.

Here is what the brookings institution had to say in 2002 about those assumptions:

The official baseline budget ignores the long-term costs of retirement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and government pensions. It assumes that real discretionary spending will fall by 1 percent per year on a per-person basis, and that all expiring tax provisions will expire as scheduled, even though they are usually routinely extended. Finally, the budget assumes that 35 million taxpayers will face the AMT in 2010, which few people believe will occur
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb101.htm
Three years after that:


Economy pays price for Bush's tax cuts
Since 2001, changes in tax law have cost the federal government $929 billion, including $860 billion in direct cost and $69 billion in interest.1 Proponents of these tax cuts promised stronger economic gains than were typical of the past, but that did not occur.2 Unfortunately for most Americans, almost every broad measure of economic activity—GDP, jobs, personal income, and business investment, among others—has fared worse over the last four years than in past business cycles.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20051026


The Tally So Far

The three rounds of tax-cut legislation (in 2001, 2002, and 2003) account for a substantial share of the nation’s current deficit.

The tax cuts would reduce revenues by $276 billion in 2004, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. Further, the interest costs associated with the enacted tax cuts would equal $20 billion, using Congressional Budget Office assumptions. The total cost would therefore be $297 billion, or 2.6 percent of the economy (or GDP).
Using these estimates, the cost of the tax cuts account for more than half of the 2004 deficit, which CBO estimates to be $477 billion or 4.2 percent of GDP. Based on these estimates, the deficit would have been 1.6 percent of GDP without the tax cuts.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
Lie, spin, repeat.

Yoni must work for the Bush administration somewhere, because he so frequently uses many of the same misleading tactics.

[RandomGuy]

Let me know if there are any other half-truths that need pointing out. ;)

[xrayzebra]

You pussies complaining about the US economy. Do you know how good you guys have it?

I certainly do. Our economy is sizzling. Lowest
unemployment rate in years, taxes are low, government
income is up. Corporate profits are great.

People risk death to come here to work and live.

But you would never know this by reading our MSM.
According to them and most on this board we are just
one day away from being on the street.

[101A]

2004 Deficit?

I thought we were talking about current revenues into the treasury?

The economy is stronger now; maybe because of the tax cuts, maybe not. But to post information about a 3 year old deficit is somewhat disingenuous, and misleading.

[2centsworth]

Not only that RG, but you should name your resources. However, it doesn't really matter because it can be argued that from 2000-2002 this country was on the verge of economic collapse and without the TAX STIMULUS we would be an awfully worse shape today. To assume the government lost tax revenue because rates were once higher is to assume the state of the economy would be where it is today without the tax cuts. We can certainly argue that point, but IMO I'm shocked how far our markets have recovered since 2000-20002.

Remember the adage "A bigger percentage of nothing is still nothing".

[RandomGuy]

2004 Deficit?

I thought we were talking about current revenues into the treasury?

The economy is stronger now; maybe because of the tax cuts, maybe not. But to post information about a 3 year old deficit is somewhat disingenuous, and misleading.

Hmm.

Hadn't really thought of it that way.

I will try to get some current figures then.

Even so, the amount of debt PLUS INTEREST that the shortfalls have caused is not inconsequential. Older figures show the same picture as newer ones. How much interest have we forked over because of that extra borrowing in the last 6 years?

"Borrow and spend" is what gets normal people in lots of trouble and will get us collectively in the same trouble.

Looking over CBO data, it looks like the budget deficit has abated somewhat in the last couple of years, lead by a doubling of revenue from corporate income taxes.

2004 budget deficit was about $568 BILLION dollars
2005 budget deficit was about $493 BILLION dollars
2006 budget deficit was about $434 BILLION dollars.
Cumulative total NEW debt......$1495 BILLION dollars, or if you prefer: $1.5 TRILLION of new debt.

Remember kids, all of that money has to be paid back eventually.
Pay for it now or pay interest on it for 20 years and THEN pay it back.

[2centsworth]

Hmm.

Hadn't really thought of it that way.

I will try to get some current figures then.

Even so, the amount of debt PLUS INTEREST that the shortfalls have caused is not inconsequential. Older figures show the same picture as newer ones. How much interest have we forked over because of that extra borrowing in the last 6 years?

"Borrow and spend" is what gets normal people in lots of trouble and will get us collectively in the same trouble.

Looking over CBO data, it looks like the budget deficit has abated somewhat in the last couple of years, lead by a doubling of revenue from corporate income taxes.

2004 budget deficit was about $568 BILLION dollars
2005 budget deficit was about $493 BILLION dollars
2006 budget deficit was about $434 BILLION dollars.
Cumulative total NEW debt......$1495 BILLION dollars, or if you prefer: $1.5 TRILLION of new debt.

Remember kids, all of that money has to be paid back eventually.
Pay for it now or pay interest on it for 20 years and THEN pay it back.
correct, but the way to pay for that is for the government to collect more taxes. So the questions should be over the next ten years would the governement collect more tax revenues by increasing taxes, cutting taxes, or leaving it status quo?

The analysis should definitely be made over atleast 10 YEARS.


BTW, I'm way more interested in you responding to the following http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65210

[Yonivore]

correct, but the way to pay for that is for the government to collect more taxes. So the questions should be over the next ten years would the governement collect more tax revenues by increasing taxes, cutting taxes, or leaving it status quo?

The analysis should definitely be made over atleast 10 YEARS.


BTW, I'm way more interested in you responding to the following http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65210
How 'bout they cut spending?

Wouldn't that pay for it as well?

[RandomGuy]

How 'bout they cut spending?

Wouldn't that pay for it as well?

Yes indeed it would.

Getting us out of Iraq immediately would do wonders for being able to cut back unnecessary spending. ;)

[01Snake]

Yes indeed it would.

Getting us out of Iraq immediately would do wonders for being able to cut back unnecessary spending. ;)

So would deporting all the illegals and cutting back welfare.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So would deporting all the illegals and cutting back welfare.


or stop pouring billions into the unecessary war

[Yonivore]

or stop pouring billions into the unecessary war
You still wouldn't be in any better shape. I won't call it a drop in the bucket but, it's not much more than a cupful in a bucket. Cutting entitlements is the only thing that would significantly change the outlook.

[RandomGuy]

You still wouldn't be in any better shape. I won't call it a drop in the bucket but, it's not much more than a cupful in a bucket. Cutting entitlements is the only thing that would significantly change the outlook.

This statement VASTLY underestimates the real costs of this war, most of which won't be seen in Iraq spending bills.

Consider:

Lost productivity of KIA (remember most of them had 3+ decades of earning ahead of them)

Lost productivity of wounded and discharged.

Lost productivity of war veterans through a host of stress related causes (PTSD, etc).

The MASSIVE amount of extra health care that must be bought for active duty and veterans because of the tens of thousands of wounded. (20000+ if memory serves, but please look it up for yourselves to make sure)

The massive wear and tear on equipment that is being used up at an alarming rate. Operational costs are the only thing that go on the official tab, but replacement costs get hidden in the rest of the defense appropriations.

This doesn't even consider the future terrorist attacks that will happen because Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists that it wouldn't have been otherwise.

Failed businesses of National Guard and Reserve members whose tours and call ups kill their ability to run their small businesses.

I would say a bit more than a "drop" in the bucket.

[01Snake]

This statement VASTLY underestimates the real costs of this war, most of which won't be seen in Iraq spending bills.

Consider:

Lost productivity of KIA (remember most of them had 3+ decades of earning ahead of them)

Lost productivity of wounded and discharged.

Lost productivity of war veterans through a host of stress related causes (PTSD, etc).

The MASSIVE amount of extra health care that must be bought for active duty and veterans because of the tens of thousands of wounded. (20000+ if memory serves, but please look it up for yourselves to make sure)

The massive wear and tear on equipment that is being used up at an alarming rate. Operational costs are the only thing that go on the official tab, but replacement costs get hidden in the rest of the defense appropriations.

This doesn't even consider the future terrorist attacks that will happen because Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists that it wouldn't have been otherwise.

Failed businesses of National Guard and Reserve members whose tours and call ups kill their ability to run their small businesses.

I would say a bit more than a "drop" in the bucket.

God God! We better never engage in another war.

[boutons_]

Iraq will run over $1T, IF the US takes care of the vets correctly. As we've seen recently and going back to VN and Gulf War, vets are generally fucked over.

[smeagol]

Remember kids, all of that money has to be paid back eventually.

Not if you are Argentina :lol

[xrayzebra]

Iraq will run over $1T, IF the US takes care of the vets correctly. As we've seen recently and going back to VN and Gulf War, vets are generally fucked over.


Lose this war and you haven't even started to address
the cost of the war. But how would you know. All you
know is Bush sux.

Oh and I am a vet and I wasn't or have been used as
you described.

[smeagol]

it doesn't really matter because it can be argued that from 2000-2002 this country was on the verge of economic collapse

Put down the crack pipe. The country was in the verge of a recession, nothing more. Economic collapse is what happened in Mexico in 1994, in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and in Argentina in 2002.

Give me a break!

[xrayzebra]

Put down the crack pipe. The country was in the verge of a recession, nothing more. Economic collapse is what happened in Mexico in 1994, in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and in Argentina in 2002.

Give me a break!

S how do you spell corruption. That is what really happened
in Mexico, Russia and Argentina.

[RandomGuy]

God God! We better never engage in another war.

Not what I am saying at all.

I AM saying that we need to be a bit more honest about what wars cost.

[RandomGuy]

Not if you are Argentina :lol


Heh, very good case in point for what happens when you DON'T pay off the debt. (shudders)

[01Snake]

Not what I am saying at all.

I AM saying that we need to be a bit more honest about what wars cost.

Fair enough.

[RandomGuy]

Lose this war and you haven't even started to address
the cost of the war. But how would you know. All you
know is Bush sux.

Oh and I am a vet and I wasn't or have been used as
you described.

The real cost of the Iraq occupation will be paid for by increased terrorist activity, even IF Iraq becomes stable.

Remember that National Intelligence Estimate?

Iraq has become an Al Qaeda cause celebre' world wide. Even if we stay and somehow pull a "win" and a stable democratic Iraq out of our asses, we have FAILED in our primary stated goal of "fighting terrorism", because they will twist ANY pullout as a victory, AND will have had YEARS of bad publicity to bash us with in their recruiting drives. :depressed

[01.20.09]

We will be paying for Iraq for decades to come.

[boutons_]

No one can show that tax cuts pay for themselves.

To show any effect that tax cuts had on the economy, the tax-cut-independent business cycle would have to be factored out to leave the tax-cut effects.

When taxes were much higher in to 1940s to 60s, the economny grew tremendously anyway, and the income/national wealth distribution was more fair.

[BradLohaus]

This was on Drudge today.

http://www.thestreet.com/_breitbart/funds/followmoney/10353243.html?cm_ven=BREITBART&cm_cat=Free&cm_pla=Feed&cm_ite=Feed&puc=breitbart

Tax revenues were high during the dot-com bubble as well. I wonder what they'll call this world-wide all encompassing bubble in the future. The dollar bubble I'd suppose.