Tax Myths Explored

[Trueblue]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Myth:“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

[Trueblue]

Myth:“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.” — President Bush, July 11, 2006

Reality: Strong revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.

[Trueblue]

Myth:“To keep this economy growing and delivering prosperity to more Americans, we need leaders in Washington who understand the importance of letting you keep more of your money, and making the tax relief we delivered permanent.” — President Bush, October 28, 2006

Reality: Extending the tax cuts without paying for them would be more likely to reduce economic growth over the long run than to increase it.

[Trueblue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601529.html

Bush's Stealth Tax Increase

[Trueblue]

And the biggest tax increase was from----

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.

[AYFR]

Cuts in tax rates on individual and company income nearly always produce more revenue, not less. Just across the Irish Sea, they slashed corporation tax to 12.5 per cent and cut income tax. As a result, their revenues have grown much faster than ours, allowing them to increase their spending on public services twice as quickly as ours for more than a decade.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/28/do2803.xml

Proof from the treasury secretary
http://taxprof.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

MORE EVEN

Let's look at the evidence. The first income tax became law in 1913, the year Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated. From Wilson through Bush, we had fourteen presidents. The misery index, which adds inflation and unemployment, tells us much about economic growth during these fourteen administrations. The three presidents with the lowest misery indexes-Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan-are also the only three who had major tax cuts in their administrations. The average annual Clinton misery index may prove to be an exception to the rule-low in spite of tax hikes-but his presidency isn't over yet.

What's even more remarkable is that in the Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan presidencies, the revenue from income taxes went up sharply after the rates went down. The experiences of these presidents teaches that cutting taxes is dynamic policy with dynamic effects-it changes the way people behave and invest. When this first happened in the 1920s, Coolidge's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, was not surprised. He had predicted it. "It seems difficult for some to understand," Mellon wrote, "that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates."
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=48

EVEN MORE

DYNAMIC SCORING: THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENT

The Laffer curve depicted in Chart 1 demonstrates the links between tax rates, economic performance, and tax collections. As shown in Chart 1, the government collects no revenue if tax rates are set at zero; but a 100 percent tax rate also generates no revenue because it eliminates all incentive to earn income--not to mention what happens when the economy grinds to a halt. Consider what will happen, though, if the government imposes a modest tax rate of, for example, 10 percent. With a low, flat rate, very few people will have an incentive to avoid taxes, so the economy will do well and the government will collect about one-tenth of the income earned.



As tax rates rise, however, taxpayers gradually become discouraged and businesses discover that it is not profitable to employ as many people. These factors combine to reduce earnings--and therefore lead to a reduction in taxable income. Dynamic scoring captures this relationship, but static scoring ignores the changes in income caused by higher tax rates.

As long as tax rates are not excessive, the increase in revenue associated with the higher tax rate exceeds the revenue loss caused by lower levels of income. However, the Laffer curve also demonstrates that there is a point at which the tax rate reaches a revenue-maximizing level. Any attempt to raise tax rates beyond this level will reduce revenues because the fall in taxable income will have a greater impact on tax collections than the higher rate has. Static scoring, once again, is unable to measure this revenue reduction because of the untenable assumption that tax burdens have no impact on economic output.

It is very important to recognize, however, that the revenue-maximizing tax rate is not the growth-maximizing tax rate. Indeed, it is quite likely that there is a large gap between these two tax rates. It is possible, for instance, that the revenue-maximizing rate on labor income is more than 30 percent--particularly for middle-income workers who presumably do not have much discretion over the timing and composition of their remuneration. Yet a 30 percent tax rate will discourage work, saving, and investment. Excessive tax rates also allow more government spending. The combination of these factors explains why lawmakers should seek to keep tax rates below the revenue-maximizing level.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm

[issac the dragon]

The state of Oregon, which I don't live in, should be the single most prosperous state in the union. It taxes coportations $10 a year. You read that right. Ten whole big ones.

[April15]

The state of Oregon, which I don't live in, should be the single most prosperous state in the union. It taxes coportations $10 a year. You read that right. Ten whole big ones.But in fact it is California with a very high tax rate.

[issac the dragon]

Hey, that's true. Oregon may get more prosperous. they're thinking of raising the tax to $30 a year. And no sales tax.

[Wabash]

The state of Oregon, which I don't live in, should be the single most prosperous state in the union. It taxes coportations $10 a year. You read that right. Ten whole big ones.

Yet, they are very anti-business in Oregon, especially in Portland and many companies have left!
That info you post is very misleading...you better start listening to Lars Larsen if you want to know the Real scoop on the govt. anti- buiness agenda!

[Wabash]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Myth:“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

But...cutting spending increases it! So simple a 5th Grader could get it!

Cut spending.............................lower taxes! What a CONCEPT!
Don't believe those Tax and spend liberals...they haven't changed their tune in 40 years!

[issac the dragon]

What did I say that was untrue? Corporations in Oregon are taxed at $10 a year. And there is no sales tax.

[AYFR]

I disagree with the no sales tax part.

How are the prices of things in Oregon?

[issac the dragon]

Not too bad really. You can buy an average 3 bedroom home for around $400 thousand. I think that is comparable to the most of the country. I know it is cheaper in the south. Wages are a lot lower though, in the south. I think it all balances out.

[AYFR]

Not too bad really. You can buy an average 3 bedroom home for around $400 thousand. I think that is comparable to the most of the country. I know it is cheaper in the south. Wages are a lot lower though, in the south. I think it all balances out.

True true, but if the state started raising the taxes for corperations the your stuff would get lots more expensive and the pay would not equal it. IMO

[Wabash]

What did I say that was untrue? Corporations in Oregon are taxed at $10 a year. And there is no sales tax.

It was true...but makes it sound as though Oregon is business friendly and everyone should prosper, it isn't and businesses don't....some do, but not as many as you would expect...

I disagree with the no sales tax part.

How are the prices of things in Oregon?
Well, we keep voting down the sales tax, but property taxes and income tax is high...2nd highest state income tax in the US! Overall not bad thou...cars in the Portland area are the best price and just think...a $20,000 car,or 30K and NO sales tax....home prices vary...see below.......

Not too bad really. You can buy an average 3 bedroom home for around $400 thousand. I think that is comparable to the most of the country. I know it is cheaper in the south. Wages are a lot lower though, in the south. I think it all balances out.

400K is about avg. My son just bought one last year, a bit of a fixer, but very sound and he paid $212,000...3bd. 2 bath, 2 car garage...good sized lot in north Portland...
Down here where I'm at, they avg. about $200-250K
Depending on where you go...as low as $70K to over a million...
Bend has really gotten expensive, so much so, that many old timers have moved out because they can't afford it....I have acreage 35 miles out and it has gone way up...glad I hung on to it!

Food prices are good, still many farms just outside of town with fruits and veggie stands thou........utilities are not bad either...but I use a wood stove in cold weather and my heating bill works out to abot $4 per month...

[Trueblue]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/28/do2803.xml

Proof from the treasury secretary
http://taxprof.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

MORE EVEN


http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=48

EVEN MORE


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm

Oh, well then I'll just disregard the facts. :lol

[AYFR]

Why cahnge whatyou have been doing all this time anyway :wink
I posted facts to dispute your "facts"

[Trueblue]

Why cahnge whatyou have been doing all this time anyway
I posted facts to dispute your "facts"

No, you posted opinions and history to dispute analysis. Take a look at those quotes again.

Reality [analysis] wins. Ha!

[AYFR]

History is a fact honey.

You said "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." was a myth and I proved you wrong with history.

It would have worked this time except for that pesky 9/11 incident

[Trueblue]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Myth:“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Myth:“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.” — President Bush, July 11, 2006

Reality: Strong revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.

Only this one is a projection, the others are simply looking at the data.

Myth:“To keep this economy growing and delivering prosperity to more Americans, we need leaders in Washington who understand the importance of letting you keep more of your money, and making the tax relief we delivered permanent.” — President Bush, October 28, 2006

Reality: Extending the tax cuts without paying for them would be more likely to reduce economic growth over the long run than to increase it.

[Trueblue]

History is a fact honey.

You said "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." was a myth and I proved you wrong with history.

It would have worked this time except for that pesky 9/11 incident

Rev, come on! You posted history from decades ago to refute a current analysis.

And where do you get that you proved me wrong? Just bluffing, I guess. :shrug

[Trueblue]

And somebody show me how 9/11 is to blame for the tax cuts not doing what Bush said that they would....

[AYFR]

History facts have prove analysis wrong, anayliss can be wrong facts can not.


Also
Congress keeps breaking the Beltway Book of World Records for spending money, but the government will soon report that the federal budget deficit for the just-completed 2006 fiscal year fell to about $260 billion, says the Wall Street Journal.

What's the secret of this deficit success that you aren't reading much about this election year? It isn't spending restraint. The federal budget expanded to $2.7 trillion last year, a 9 percent increase, or three times the inflation rate. Over the past six years the federal budget has increased by 49.2 percent.
The main cause of the deficit decline -- 90 percent of it, says White House budget director Rob Portman -- is a tidal wave of tax revenue.
Tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years, the largest two-year revenue increase -- even after adjusting for inflation -- in American history.

Where are these revenues coming from?
Corporations, whose tax collections have climbed by 76 percent over the past two years thanks to greater profitability.
Personal income tax payments are up by 30.3 percent since 2004 too, despite the fact that the highest tax rate is down to 35 percent from 39.6 percent.
The IRS tax-return data released last month indicates that a near-record 37 percent of those income tax payments are received from the top 1 percent of earners -- "the rich," who are derided regularly in Washington for not paying their "fair share."

As for the budget deficit, at $260 billion it is now about 2 percent of our $13 trillion economy, well below the 2.7 percent average of the last 40 years, says the Journal. Most states and localities are also afloat in tax collections, and including their revenue surpluses brings the total U.S. public sector borrowing down to roughly 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13205

If Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits begin in 2011. For example,
Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average;
Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation;
Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and
After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation.

However, these benefits become economic losses if Congress fails to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. What is the cost of failing to act? Over one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; over a hundred billion dollars less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; slower savings growth; and so on. The need for Congress to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent is clear.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm956.cfm

[AYFR]

And somebody show me how 9/11 is to blame for the tax cuts not doing what Bush said that they would....

They led to this war and scared people into not spending for a time. The war caused more spending so that even with more revenue it didn' show.

[Trueblue]

History facts have prove analysis wrong, anayliss can be wrong facts can not.

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense. This information looked at the data and analyzed it, how can history go back and prove that wrong?

[Trueblue]

They led to this war and scared people into not spending for a time. The war caused more spending so that even with more revenue it didn' show.

I have done a lot of reading today, and from what I read, that really doesn't account for what happened. It's a convenient story for Bush to spread.

[AYFR]

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:
18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,
18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and
18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]

While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)



Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre–tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]

The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Attempts to debunk solid theories often involve first mischaracterizing them as straw men. Critics often erroneously define supply-side economics as the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They then cite tax cuts that have not fully paid for themselves as conclusive proof that supply-side economics has failed.

However, supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve[8] (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common-sense observations that:
Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;
Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and
Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.

How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which taxpayers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours.[9] Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.



By encouraging investment, lower capital gains taxes increase funding for the technologies, businesses, ideas, and projects that make workers and the economy more productive. Such investment is vital for long-term economic growth.

Because investors are tax-sensitive, high capital gains tax rates are not only bad economic policy, but also bad budget policy.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

The unsustainability of America's long-term budget path is well known. However, a common misperception blames the massive future budget deficits on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In reality, revenues will continue to increase above the historical average yet be dwarfed by historic entitlement spending increases. (See Chart 3.)



For the past half-century, tax revenues have generally stayed within 1 percentage point of 18 percent of GDP. The CBO projects that, even if all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues will stillincrease from 18.4 percent of GDP today to 22.8 percent by 2050, not counting any feedback revenues from their positive economic impact. It is projected that repealing the Bush tax cuts would nudge 2050 revenues up to 23.7 percent of GDP, not counting any revenue losses from the negative economic impact of the tax hikes.[11] In effect, the Bush tax cut debate is whether revenues should increase by 4.4 percent or 5.3 percent of GDP.

Spending has remained around 20 percent of GDP for the past half-century. However, the coming retirement of the baby boomers will increase Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending by a combined 10.5 percent of GDP. Assuming that this causes large budget deficits and increased net spending on interest, federal spending could surge to 38 percent of GDP and possibly much higher.[12]

Overall, revenues are projected to increase from 18 percent of GDP to almost 23 percent. Spending is projected to increase from 20 percent of GDP to at least 38 percent. Even repealing all of the 2001 and 2003 cuts would merely shave the projected budget deficit of 15 percent of GDP by less than 1 percentage point, and that assumes no negative feedback from raising taxes. Clearly, the French-style spending increases, not tax policy, are the problem. Lawmakers should focus on getting entitlements under control.


Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. Accordingly, Chart 4 shows little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.

Chart 5 shows the nearly perfect correlation between GDP and tax revenues. Despite major fluctuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. Table 1 shows that the top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 percent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP.[13]


Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases. America cannot substantially increase tax revenue with policies that reduce national income.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim.

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 billion.[14] (See Table 2.) These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and minimizing any new revenues.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" represent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior.


The Keynesian fallacy is that government spending injects new money into the economy, but the money that government spends must come from somewhere. Government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy, so all the new spending just redistributes existing income. Similarly, the money for tax rebates—which are also touted as a way to inject money into the economy— must also come from somewhere, with government either spending less or borrowing more. In both cases, no new spending is added to the economy. Rather, the government has just transferred it from one group (e.g., investors) in the economy to another (e.g., consumers).

Some argue that certain tax cuts, such as tax rebates, can transfer money from savers to spenders and therefore increase demand. This argument assumes that the savers have been storing their savings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings, thereby financing businesses investment, or deposit the money in banks, which quickly lend it to others to spend or invest. Therefore, the money is spent by someone whether it is initially consumed or saved. Thus, tax rebates create no additional economic activity and cannot "prime the pump."

This does not mean tax policy cannot affect economic growth. The right tax cuts can add substantially to the economy's supply side of productive resources: capital and labor. Economic growth requires that businesses efficiently produce increasing amounts of goods and services, and increased production requires consistent business investment and a motivated, productive workforce. Yet high marginal tax rates—defined as the tax on the next dollar earned—serve as a disincentive to engage in such activities. Reducing marginal tax rates on busi*nesses and workers increases the return on working, saving, and investing, thereby creating more business investment and a more productive workforce, both of which add to the economy's long-term capacity for growth.

Yet some propose demand-side tax cuts to "put money in people's pockets" and "get people to spend money." The 2001 tax rebates serve as an example: Washington borrowed billions from investors and then mailed that money to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, this simple transfer of existing wealth caused a temporary increase in consumer spending and a corresponding decrease in investment but led to no new economic growth. No new wealth was created because the tax rebate was unrelated to productive behavior. No one had to work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. Simply redistributing existing wealth does not create new wealth.

In contrast, marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989.[15] More recently, the 2003 tax cuts helped to bring about strong economic growth for the past three years.

Policies which best support work, saving, and investment are much more effective at expanding the economy's long-term capacity for growth than those that aim to put money in consumers' pockets.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.


Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.


Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house*holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.


In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]

Conclusion
The 110th Congress will be serving when the first of 77 million baby boomers receive their first Social Security checks in 2008. The subsequent avalanche of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs for these baby boomers will be the greatest economic challenge of this era.

This should be the budgetary focus of the 110th Congress rather than repealing Bush tax cuts or allowing them to expire. Repealing the tax cuts would not significantly increase revenues. It would, however, decrease investment, reduce work incentives, stifle entrepreneurialism, and reduce economic growth. Lawmakers should remember that America cannot tax itself to prosperity.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm


:rev

[AYFR]

Your myths are now debunked

[Trueblue]

I notice that the source on that first article is the WH.

The main cause of the deficit decline -- 90 percent of it, says White House budget director Rob Portman -- is a tidal wave of tax revenue.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Check out Figure 1 at the link.

[Saguaro]

The Heritage foundation is a conservative think tank

[Trueblue]

One more time:

Myth:“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

How did the President's own Treasury Department come to this false conclusion, Rev?

[Trueblue]

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves had already been rejected by the Administration’s own leading economists. Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.” Mankiw compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

[AYFR]

I notice that the source on that first article is the WH.



http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Check out Figure 1 at the link.I did now you check this chart out
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart2_lg.gif

Sadly this is the real problem, run away spending (Bush's the Reps and the Dems fault here)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart3_lg.gif

The Heritage foundation is a conservative think tank

And Robert Greenstein (founder of The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) was appointed by Bill Clinton and worked under Carter

In 1994, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. [1] Prior to founding the Center, Greenstein was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the United States Department of Agriculture under President Jimmy Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenstein


Just for fun
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart4_lg_1.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart5_lg_1.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/table_1_lg_1.gif

:whistle
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart6_lg.gif

[Yellowdogtexan]

The heritage foundation is a bunch of neocons who are idiots. Lets look at some facts. http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htmAfter adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago.

By contrast, five and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 10 percent. And at this point in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues were 11 percent higher than their level at the end of the previous business cycle.[6]

Furthermore, the performance of the economy during the current business cycle has been slightly weaker overall than the economy’s average performance over the comparable period of other business cycles since the end of World War II. Investment growth during the current business cycle has been below the historical average, even though some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts have been specifically targeted at investment. Employment and wage and salary growth have been especially weak during the current business cycle.[7] If tax cuts are crucial to economic growth, then the current business cycle — with its large tax cuts — should strongly outperform previous business cycles. Instead, it has performed more poorly than average.
Now lets look at what some of bush's own economists say about tax cuts paying for themselves. While serious economists are divided on the question of whether and under what circumstances tax cuts are good for the economy, there is no such debate on the question of whether tax cuts pay for themselves. Economists from across the political spectrum reject the latter assertion.

In recent testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13]

Commenting on President Bush’s claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”[14]

The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.Cappy may be stupid enough to buy the claims of snake oil salemen but he is not a serious economist. Here is some nice quotes from the CBO and bush's own economists http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400806.htmlI'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."

How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.

Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office.

In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up.Finally I point that bush's own treasury department has admitted that tax cuts will not pay for themselves. http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-06bud.htmThe Treasury analysis concludes that making the President’s tax cuts permanent — and paying for the tax cuts with future reductions in spending — may ultimately increase the level of economic output (national income) in the long run by as much as 0.7 percent. (An increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent — the Treasury’s best-case scenario — in 20 years would represent an increase of about 4/100ths of one percentage point in the annual growth rate of the economy.)

Even if an increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent ultimately were to result from making the tax cuts permanent (the Treasury analysis concedes that the effect would be much smaller if the tax cuts are not paid for by cuts in spending[5]), and were to occur much sooner than Treasury seems to assume (it is not clear what the Treasury means by long-run, but it probably is considerably more than 10 years), the effect of this assumed additional economic growth would be to offset only a tiny fraction of the cost of the President’s tax cuts. For instance, a 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion.[6] If new revenues equaled as much as 20 percent of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury’s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion. That amount represents less than 10 percent of the $314 billion that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates extending the tax cuts will reduce revenues in 2016 (not counting the effects of extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief).

Thus, even if the Treasury’s most optimistic assumptions are accepted (and the dynamic effect is assumed to happen much more quickly than even Treasury seems to assume), the cost of the tax cuts in 2016 — taking into account “dynamic” effects — would still be more than 90 percent of the cost of the tax cuts under the standard cost estimates.bush's own treasury department is clear that even under the best of circumstances, tax cuts lose money for the federal government.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a good review of a book that takes apart supply siders http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070910&s=chait091007American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane. The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda. Notions that would have been laughed at a generation ago--that cutting taxes for the very rich is the best response to any and every economic circumstance or that it is perfectly appropriate to turn the most rapacious and self-interested elements of the business lobby into essentially an arm of the federal government--are now so pervasive, they barely attract any notice. ...

But what sets the supply-siders apart from sensible economists is their sheer monomania. You could plausibly argue that, say, Reagan's tax cuts contributed around the margins to the economic growth of the 1980s. But the supply-siders believe that, if it were not for Reagan's tax cuts, the economic malaise of the late '70s would have continued indefinitely. They believe that economic history is a function of tax rates--they insisted that Bill Clinton's upper-bracket tax hike must cause a recession (whoops), and they believe that the present economy is a boom not merely enhanced but brought about by the Bush tax cuts.

It doesn't take a great deal of expertise to see how implausible this sort of analysis is. All you need is a cursory bit of history. From 1947 to 1973, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of nearly 4 percent a year--a massive boom, fueling rapid growth in living standards across the board. During most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy flourished anyway. None of this is to say that those high tax rates caused the postwar boom. On the contrary, the economy probably expanded despite, rather than because of, those high rates. Almost no contemporary economist would endorse jacking up rates that high again. But the point is that, whatever negative effect such high tax rates have, it's relatively minor. Which necessarily means that whatever effects today's tax rates have, they're even more minor.
Again this is an excellant book dealing with the stupidity of supply side economics.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Professor Krugman has a great piece in the NYT on why supply side economics is silly and does not work. http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-wheres-my-trickle.htmlFour years ago the Bush administration, exploiting the political bounce it got from the illusion of success in Iraq, pushed a cut in capital-gains and dividend taxes through Congress. It was an extremely elitist tax cut even by Bush-era standards: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that more than half of the tax breaks went to Americans with incomes of more than $1 million a year.

Needless to say, administration economists produced various misleading statistics designed to convey the opposite impression, that the tax cut mainly went to ordinary, middle-class Americans. But they also insisted that the benefits of the tax cut would trickle down — that lower tax rates on the rich would do great things for the economy, helping everyone.

Well, Friday’s dismal jobs report showed that the Bush boom, such as it was, has run its course. And working Americans have a right to ask, “Where’s my trickle?”

It’s true, as the Bushies never tire of reminding us, that the U.S. economy has added eight million jobs since that 2003 tax cut. That sounds impressive, unless you happen to know that a good part of that gain was simply a recovery from large job losses earlier in the administration’s tenure — and that the United States added no fewer than 21 million jobs after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich, a move that had conservative pundits predicting economic disaster.

What’s really remarkable, however, is that four years of economic growth have produced essentially no gains for ordinary American workers.

Wages, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated: the real hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, the most widely used measure of how typical workers are faring, were no higher in July 2007 than they were in July 2003.

Meanwhile, benefits have deteriorated: the percentage of Americans receiving health insurance through employers, which plunged along with employment during the early years of the Bush administration, continued to decline even as the economy finally began creating some jobs.

And one of the few seeming bright spots of the Bush-era economy, rising homeownership, is now revealed as the result of a bubble inflated in part by financial flim-flam, which deceived both borrowers and investors.

Now you know why 66 percent of Americans rate economic conditions in this country as only fair or poor, and why Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy almost as strongly as they disapprove of the job he is doing in general.

Yet the overall economy has grown at a reasonable pace over the past four years. Where did the economic growth go? The answer is that it went to the same economic elite that received the lion’s share of those tax cuts. Corporate profits rose 72 percent from the second quarter of 2003 to the second quarter of 2007. The real income of the richest 0.1 percent of Americans surged by 51 percent between 2003 and 2005, and although we don’t yet have the data for 2006, everything we know suggests that the income of the rich took another upward leap.

The absence of any gains for workers in the years since the 2003 tax cut is a pretty convincing refutation of trickle-down theory. So is the fact that the economy had a much more convincing boom after Bill Clinton raised taxes on top brackets. It turns out that when you cut taxes on the rich, the rich pay less taxes; when you raise taxes on the rich, they pay more taxes — end of story.

But it’s not just trickle-down that has been refuted: the whole idea that a rising tide raises all boats, that growth in the economy necessarily translates into gains for the great majority of Americans, is belied by the Bush-era experience.

As far as I can tell, America has never before experienced a disconnect between overall economic performance and the fortunes of workers as complete as that of the last four years.Professor Krugman is correct in that supply side economics do not work and the rest of America is still waiting for their trickle.

[AYFR]

We could do this for days BUT history stands clear. Tax cuts DO increase revenue.

[Yellowdogtexan]

We could do this for days BUT history stands clear. Tax cuts DO increase revenue.You are so wrong that it is sad. Tax cuts and in particular the bush tax cuts did not result in increased revenues. The crap you posted is crap and it is clear that you have a weaker understanding of economics than cappy. Again, the FACTS are that tax cuts do not increase tax revenues and only idiots like bush are making this claim. bush's own treasury department and bush's own economics do not back bush on this claim and in fact reject such claim. bush and the idiots in his party repeat this myth because they are idiots.

Reverend, you evidently know as little about economics as you do about the early history of your church (my former religion). I will be glad to educate you about economics just as I had to educate you about the history of the early church.

No responsible economists believes that tax cuts increase revenues. As quoted above
Commenting on President Bush’s claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”[14]I know a great deal about the economics of tax cuts and will be glad to provide the Reverend with an education here.

[Yellowdogtexan]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.” Mankiw compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.” this is a great quote and accurately describes the economics here. :ydt

[Trueblue]

We could do this for days BUT history stands clear. Tax cuts DO increase revenue.

You are wrong, again. I posted this before, here it is again.

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves had already been rejected by the Administration’s own leading economists. Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.” Mankiw compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

[Trueblue]

To stimulate the economy, tax cuts should go to those who spend most of their income, and that is not what the Bush tax cuts did.

[AYFR]

You are so wrong that it is sad. Tax cuts and in particular the bush tax cuts did not result in increased revenues. The crap you posted is crap and it is clear that you have a weaker understanding of economics than cappy. Again, the FACTS are that tax cuts do not increase tax revenues and only idiots like bush are making this claim. bush's own treasury department and bush's own economics do not back bush on this claim and in fact reject such claim. bush and the idiots in his party repeat this myth because they are idiots.

Reverend, you evidently know as little about economics as you do about the early history of your church (my former religion). I will be glad to educate you about economics just as I had to educate you about the history of the early church.

No responsible economists believes that tax cuts increase revenues. As quoted above
I know a great deal about the economics of tax cuts and will be glad to provide the Reverend with an education here.
BS past the past shows that tax cuts have stimulated the economy and increased revenue. THe sites I posted proved it and proved you wrong. You are the one with a weak understanding of the economy. BTW you taught me nothing about my religion. YOu left because you apparently did not understand it.
To stimulate the economy, tax cuts should go to those who spend most of their income, and that is not what the Bush tax cuts did.

They did go to them.

[Trueblue]

BS past the past shows that tax cuts have stimulated the economy and increased revenue. THe sites I posted proved it and proved you wrong. You are the one with a weak understanding of the economy. BTW you taught me nothing about my religion. YOu left because you apparently did not understand it.


They did go to them.

You live in bizarro world.

Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, according to Bush's economists.

And the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the upper classes.

[Yellowdogtexan]

BS past the past shows that tax cuts have stimulated the economy and increased revenue. THe sites I posted proved it and proved you wrong. It is you who is WRONG. Again, the Department of the Treasury has officially agreed that the bush tax cuts have not and will not pay for themselves. Your sources are crap and you know less about economics than you do about the history of your own religion. No responsible economists including those working for bush believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. bush's own economists do not believe this and have testify to the contrary. Again it is you who believe in the rantings of a“snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure."

[Lone Laugher]

I just think it is funny that some people believe posting a clearly partisan article on a particular subject serves as some sort of "proof".

[Yellowdogtexan]

To stimulate the economy, tax cuts should go to those who spend most of their income, and that is not what the Bush tax cuts did. They did go to them.And the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the upper classes.TB is correct here and The Reverend is as normal WRONG. :ydt Look up the concepts of marginal propensity to save and marginal propensity to consume. The bush tax cuts mainly went to the upper tier of taxpayers who have the highest marginal propensity to save and the lowest marginal propensity to consume. Therefore such tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and compared to the targeted tax cuts that Al Gore had proposed back in 2000 which would have gone to the middle class and would have really stimulated the economy.

The Reverend, you know less about economics than you do about the early history of your church. TB is correct here and you are WRONG. :ydt

[AYFR]

First lets take on TB's lie that the tax cuts dont help the middle class.
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/fact-sheet/TaxReliefKit2007_web_.pdf
I couldn't also help but notice that teh TREASURY says that
The economy is stronger today because of the timely tax relief measures enacted during President Bush's administration. The success of the President's economic program, including tax relief, can be seen throughout the economy.
Economic growth has averaged more than 3.3 percent during the last two years.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/fact-sheet/TaxReliefKit2007_web_.pdf

Also a newer one here

This one shows even more growth.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js2377.htm


So that takes care of YDT lies as well. You might want to take economics again and ask for a refund for you last class.


Just for shits and grins more proof to debunk your so called facts.
The President¡¦s Tax Relief is Working

« America¡¦s economy is strong and getting stronger. More Americans than ever own their homes. More businesses are investing. Indicators of manufacturing activity are the highest in the last two decades, and economic growth in the second half of 2003 was the highest in almost 20 years. Stock market wealth has increased by more than $4 trillion over the past 12 months, and more than 365,000 jobs have been added in the last five months. Because of the continuing effects of President Bush¡¦s tax relief, workers will continue to keep more of what they earn in the future, and small businesses will be better able to invest and grow. The President¡¦s policies are helping to put the economy on a path to sustained growth and job creation, but we cannot rest until every American who wants to work can find a job.

« Over the past three years, President Bush has proposed and signed into law three separate tax relief measures, resulting in significant tax relief for millions of American families and businesses. Failure to extend the President¡¦s tax cuts permanently would dramatically increase the burden on American taxpayers in future years. For example:
In 2005, the increased child credit, additional marriage penalty relief, and expanded 10-percent bracket will shrink, increasing the tax burden on a family of four earning $40,000 by $915;
In 2006, allowable small business expensing will shrink from $100,000 to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America¡¦s small businesses;
In 2009, the top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 35 percent, while the tax on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future; and
In 2011, the tax rate relief, new 10-percent tax bracket, death tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past three years will sunset, resulting in tax increases for every American man or woman who pays income taxes.

« The cumulative effect of tax relief on the economy has been strong, laying the groundwork for increased economic growth and job creation. According to the Treasury Department, by the last quarter of 2003, the tax relief signed by President Bush had:
Reduced the unemployment rate by nearly 1 percentage point below where it would have been otherwise;
Increased the jobs available to Americans by as many as 2 million; and
Increased real GDP by as much as 3 percent.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1185.htm


What is needed is NOT more taxes but less spending

[AYFR]

The Reverend, you know less about economics than you do about the early history of your church. TB is correct here and you are WRONG. :ydt
BTW YTD the only debate we had about Christianity was you called them thieves and I disagreed and I was right while you still are wrong. BTW as for my church you know nothing about it because you have no Idea which church I go to. That shows just how wrong you are.

[Trueblue]

First lets take on TB's lie that the tax cuts dont help the middle class.
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/fact-sheet/TaxReliefKit2007_web_.pdf
I couldn't also help but notice that teh TREASURY says that

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/fact-sheet/TaxReliefKit2007_web_.pdf

Also a newer one here

This one shows even more growth.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js2377.htm


So that takes care of YDT lies as well. You might want to take economics again and ask for a refund for you last class.


Just for shits and grins more proof to debunk your so called facts.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1185.htm


What is needed is NOT more taxes but less spending

Shit and grin all you like, you are posting press releases now. Does this sound like objective analysis to you?

Over the past three years, President Bush has proposed and signed into law three separate tax relief measures, resulting in significant tax relief for millions of American families and businesses. Failure to extend the President¡¦s tax cuts permanently would dramatically increase the burden on American taxpayers in future years.

Seriously? Does that sound like analysis, or does that sound like a puff piece for the President?

And about this-

First lets take on TB's lie that the tax cuts dont help the middle class.

I know you're mad at me, but please address what I actually said.

And the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the upper classes.

[AYFR]

I did address what you posted yo said that the middle class wasn't getting any help and I posted The tax relief kit which wasn't a press release.
It says that families making 40,000 a year (middle class) will get a 2,052 tax relief.

The first two link WERE NOT press releases sorry but TB you are wrong here.
Stop being dishonest here.

[AYFR]

It is funny that when you post a press release it is fact but when I do it it is opinion

Not to mention that I am posting STRAIGHT from the Treasury web site and you are going through a middle man. One that happens to have worked under Clinton and Carter :gasp BOTH DEMOCRATS and he is saying that a Reps tax cuts don't work I just can not hold back my shock.

[Trueblue]

I did address what you posted yo said that the middle class wasn't getting any help and I posted The tax relief kit which wasn't a press release.
It says that families making 40,000 a year (middle class) will get a 2,052 tax relief.

The first two link WERE NOT press releases sorry but TB you are wrong here.
Stop being dishonest here.

This is stupid. I'm not being dishonest, and I didn't lie, and you're only saying that because somebody said it to you.

Those articles are written like press releases and not like analysis. Read them.

And one more time, the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the rich. That's what I said, and it's the truth.

[Trueblue]

It is funny that when you post a press release it is fact but when I do it it is opinion

Not to mention that I am posting STRAIGHT from the Treasury web site and you are going through a middle man. One that happens to have worked under Clinton and Carter :gasp BOTH DEMOCRATS and he is saying that a Reps tax cuts don't work I just can not hold back my shock.

I don't know of a press release that I posted. I posted analysis.

And I posted Republican economists saying that tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. Do you disagree? Do you think that the tax cuts paid for themselves?

[Saguaro]

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts

To help pay for federal tax cuts, many programs that served the working poor were reduced or eliminated as the deficit grew. This report shows that the amount of money millions of Americans now pay to cover such expenses as child care, housing and college education is greater than the amount they saved through the tax cuts.

TODAY: Hundreds of thousands of people across the nation who qualify for assistance are on waiting lists or get turned away when they apply for help with child care, meals and utility bills.

MONDAY: A housing program that replaces dilapidated buildings has been cut, rent subsidies frozen and a public housing crime prevention program eliminated, leaving thousands of poor living in squalor, unsafe conditions or homeless.

TUESDAY: Even as the country lost jobs during the past two years, $600 million was cut from job-training programs designed to provide skills for the unskilled or unemployed. Federal financial aid grants have been frozen even as tuition has spiked at U.S. colleges

DETROIT — The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending.

The affected programs — job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services — provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

A six-month Detroit News investigation showed that as a result of the withering government assistance, working poor and destitute Americans are increasingly likely to be placed on waiting lists for help, receive reduced services, or be denied service entirely.

The News, after interviewing scores of people across the United States and examining thousands of pages of federal and state financial records, determined the loss of services cost many poor Americans more money than they saved from the tax cuts.

In many cases, the poorest lost services and got no tax cut at all.

The analysis of the three Bush tax cuts is based in part on estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The poorest 20 percent of workers, who earn on average $16,600 annually, will get a tax break of $250 this year, which is less than 2 percent of their income. That amounts to about 68 cents a day.

By comparison, the richest 1 percent, with average incomes topping $1.1 million, will receive $78,460 in tax cuts this year. That is nearly 7 percent of their income.

For the poor, inequities of the Bush tax cuts are further exacerbated by the long-standing disparities in the Social Security tax, which has increased nine times since 1977.

Earnings are taxed for Social Security at a rate of 6.2 percent on income up to $87,900. But there is no Social Security tax on income above that amount. For America’s poorest workers — those who struggle to make ends meet — every dollar is subject to the Social Security tax.

The richest 10 percent, who make on average $288,800, will pay less than 2 percent of their income for Social Security.

In fact, while most workers pay into Social Security all year, millionaires — who pay less than half a percent — would be finished paying it by the first four weeks of the year.

For taxpayers who earn more than $87,900, it amounts to an estimated $85 billion break.

Meanwhile, the Bush tax breaks for the richest 10 percent this year alone will total $148 billion.

That is twice as much as the government will spend on job training, $6.2 billion; college Pell grants, $12 billion; public housing, $6.3 billion; low-income rental subsidies, $19 billion; child care, $4.8 billion; insurance for low-income children, $5.2 billion; low-income energy assistance, $1.8 billion; meals for shut-ins, $180 million; and welfare, $16.9 billion.

The reduction in government assistance that accompanied the tax cuts couldn’t come at a worse time.

The number of Americans living in poverty has risen 10 percent since 2000, after falling in the late 1990s. Nearly 36 million Americans — one in eight — now live in poverty and tens of millions more are considered working poor.

The economy has lost nearly a million jobs — 241,000 in Michigan alone — since it slid into recession in March 2001.

That has increased the demand for government programs from millions of Americans who are now more likely to know hunger, homelessness and chronic need.

America’s working poor — its secretaries, cooks, laborers, clerks and others — are finding it difficult to meet even basic needs.

For the poor, child care and housing can consume more than 80 percent of their income. And 45 million Americans, most of them low-income, have no health insurance.

Housing in many cities is so unaffordable that although 39 percent of the homeless work, they can’t pay for even a substandard apartment, according to a 2003 survey by the country’s mayors.

Compounding the problem, massive budget shortfalls have forced states to pare back their contributions to federal programs. At the same time, charitable contributions declined.

Those mired in poverty, hoping to wean themselves from public assistance, have received little help from Congress in their struggle to earn a living wage. Government is now offering job training to fewer people than in years past.

Nearly 6 percent of all U.S. workers earn minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.

Based on a 40-hour workweek, the annual minimum wage of $10,700 places a single parent of two well below the poverty level. Minimum wage earners got very little under the Bush tax cuts. Key social program cuts have left them with fewer places to turn for help.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm

[Trueblue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12_2.html

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members on both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.

They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.

"Are the rich paying their fair share?" asked one GOP aide. "Yeah. They're paying more."

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

Congressional Republican aides said the CBO analysis has its limitations. For instance, it assumes that the beneficiaries of business tax cuts passed in 2002 and 2003 are the taxpayers who own stocks, bonds and other stakes in the businesses that received the reductions. But that analysis does not consider new workers hired because of the tax cuts, or higher wages that may have been granted because of the boost to the bottom line.

It also does not reflect that during the 1990s, the tax rates on lower-income households fell considerably due to an expansion of the earned income tax credit and other forms of low-income relief. In that sense, GOP aides said, tax cuts for the wealthy were overdue.

Besides, Holt said, looking narrowly at the distribution of tax cuts ignores the broader benefits -- such as investment, consumer spending, and job creation -- that flow from leaving more money in people's hands and that are spread far more evenly through the economy.

"Tax relief is about fairness, but it's also about economic growth," he said. "So the president's tax relief was both fair and effective, when it comes to bringing us from recession to growth."

But Republicans predicted that Kerry will make the report a major political event, and Furman said the results will be too stark to spin.

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before," he said.

[AYFR]

This is stupid. I'm not being dishonest, and I didn't lie, and you're only saying that because somebody said it to you.

Those articles are written like press releases and not like analysis. Read them.

And one more time, the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the rich. That's what I said, and it's the truth.
First it was you that kept calling me dishonest, second that PDA is not a press release it is a fact, thirf you are wrong about the tax cut being aimed at the rich. You really must hate the rich.
I know that you arre wrong by the FACT that I am middle class and that I benefited.

The House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted last night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class, along with an array of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that would be his fourth in four years.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45603-2004Sep23.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff87.pdf

I don't know of a press release that I posted. I posted analysis.

And I posted Republican economists saying that tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. Do you disagree? Do you think that the tax cuts paid for themselves?
Yes I do disagree with him. Less taxes means more money for people which means more spending and more investing which strenghtens the economy.

The problem isn't the tax cuts it is the increased government spending. And paying for this war,

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts

To help pay for federal tax cuts, many programs that served the working poor were reduced or eliminated as the deficit grew. This report shows that the amount of money millions of Americans now pay to cover such expenses as child care, housing and college education is greater than the amount they saved through the tax cuts.

TODAY: Hundreds of thousands of people across the nation who qualify for assistance are on waiting lists or get turned away when they apply for help with child care, meals and utility bills.

MONDAY: A housing program that replaces dilapidated buildings has been cut, rent subsidies frozen and a public housing crime prevention program eliminated, leaving thousands of poor living in squalor, unsafe conditions or homeless.

TUESDAY: Even as the country lost jobs during the past two years, $600 million was cut from job-training programs designed to provide skills for the unskilled or unemployed. Federal financial aid grants have been frozen even as tuition has spiked at U.S. colleges

DETROIT — The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending.

The affected programs — job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services — provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

A six-month Detroit News investigation showed that as a result of the withering government assistance, working poor and destitute Americans are increasingly likely to be placed on waiting lists for help, receive reduced services, or be denied service entirely.

The News, after interviewing scores of people across the United States and examining thousands of pages of federal and state financial records, determined the loss of services cost many poor Americans more money than they saved from the tax cuts.

In many cases, the poorest lost services and got no tax cut at all.

The analysis of the three Bush tax cuts is based in part on estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The poorest 20 percent of workers, who earn on average $16,600 annually, will get a tax break of $250 this year, which is less than 2 percent of their income. That amounts to about 68 cents a day.

By comparison, the richest 1 percent, with average incomes topping $1.1 million, will receive $78,460 in tax cuts this year. That is nearly 7 percent of their income.

For the poor, inequities of the Bush tax cuts are further exacerbated by the long-standing disparities in the Social Security tax, which has increased nine times since 1977.

Earnings are taxed for Social Security at a rate of 6.2 percent on income up to $87,900. But there is no Social Security tax on income above that amount. For America’s poorest workers — those who struggle to make ends meet — every dollar is subject to the Social Security tax.

The richest 10 percent, who make on average $288,800, will pay less than 2 percent of their income for Social Security.

In fact, while most workers pay into Social Security all year, millionaires — who pay less than half a percent — would be finished paying it by the first four weeks of the year.

For taxpayers who earn more than $87,900, it amounts to an estimated $85 billion break.

Meanwhile, the Bush tax breaks for the richest 10 percent this year alone will total $148 billion.

That is twice as much as the government will spend on job training, $6.2 billion; college Pell grants, $12 billion; public housing, $6.3 billion; low-income rental subsidies, $19 billion; child care, $4.8 billion; insurance for low-income children, $5.2 billion; low-income energy assistance, $1.8 billion; meals for shut-ins, $180 million; and welfare, $16.9 billion.

The reduction in government assistance that accompanied the tax cuts couldn’t come at a worse time.

The number of Americans living in poverty has risen 10 percent since 2000, after falling in the late 1990s. Nearly 36 million Americans — one in eight — now live in poverty and tens of millions more are considered working poor.

The economy has lost nearly a million jobs — 241,000 in Michigan alone — since it slid into recession in March 2001.

That has increased the demand for government programs from millions of Americans who are now more likely to know hunger, homelessness and chronic need.

America’s working poor — its secretaries, cooks, laborers, clerks and others — are finding it difficult to meet even basic needs.

For the poor, child care and housing can consume more than 80 percent of their income. And 45 million Americans, most of them low-income, have no health insurance.

Housing in many cities is so unaffordable that although 39 percent of the homeless work, they can’t pay for even a substandard apartment, according to a 2003 survey by the country’s mayors.

Compounding the problem, massive budget shortfalls have forced states to pare back their contributions to federal programs. At the same time, charitable contributions declined.

Those mired in poverty, hoping to wean themselves from public assistance, have received little help from Congress in their struggle to earn a living wage. Government is now offering job training to fewer people than in years past.

Nearly 6 percent of all U.S. workers earn minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.

Based on a 40-hour workweek, the annual minimum wage of $10,700 places a single parent of two well below the poverty level. Minimum wage earners got very little under the Bush tax cuts. Key social program cuts have left them with fewer places to turn for help.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm
That is not due t the tax cuts but the increased spending
Beside if you make that little they either take no or very little taxes out and you get them all back plus some.

What would really hurt the poor is a "fair" tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[Trueblue]

First it was you that kept calling me dishonest, second that PDA is not a press release it is a fact, thirf you are wrong about the tax cut being aimed at the rich. You really must hate the rich.
I know that you arre wrong by the FACT that I am middle class and that I benefited.

Yes, I have called you dishonest when you wouldn't admit something about the Geneva Conventions. You are also being dishonest when you misrepresent what I've said about these tax cuts and the upper classes.

Those PDAs are written in a very "Go Bush" manner. I'm sorry if you can't see the bias, but I can.

I don't hate the rich, and I assume that you are saying that out of frustration, rather than expressing an actual opinion. I've said nothing that can be construed as hatred for any economic group.

For the fourth time, please address what I actually said instead of what you would like to argue. I said that the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the rich. What part of that sentence is too difficult for you to understand?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45603-2004Sep23.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff87.pdf


Yes I do disagree with him. Less taxes means more money for people which means more spending and more investing which strenghtens the economy.

The problem isn't the tax cuts it is the increased government spending. And paying for this war,


That is not due t the tax cuts but the increased spending
Beside if you make that little they either take no or very little taxes out and you get them all back plus some.

What would really hurt the poor is a "fair" tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

So Bush's own economists say that tax cuts don't pay for themselves in increased revenue, but you disagree. :shrug

[Saguaro]

The "fair tax" is not at all fair

[Saguaro]

Having to pay taxes on Dr visits, dental visits will be extremely hard on the middle class

[Saguaro]

I will leave this TB's capable hands ..night

[AYFR]

I said that the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the rich. What part of that sentence is too difficult for you to understand?

Hmm soulds like when I asked you to answer my guestions, Besides I did address you statement.
Here
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-pol...t2007_web_.pdf
and here

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-pol...t2007_web_.pdf

So Bush's own economists say that tax cuts don't pay for themselves in increased revenue, but you disagree.
You keep mistaken me for a Bushie. Bush has been wrong a lot, but his tax cuts I agree with.

[AYFR]

The "fair tax" is not at all fair

No it isn't

[Trueblue]

I will leave this TB's capable hands ..night

I can't take anymore, actually.

I said that the tax cuts were primarily aimed at the rich. What part of that sentence is too difficult for you to understand?

Hmm soulds like when I asked you to answer my guestions, Besides I did address you statement.
Here
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-pol...t2007_web_.pdf
and here

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-pol...t2007_web_.pdf


You keep mistaken me for a Bushie. Bush has been wrong a lot, but his tax cuts I agree with.

You keep distorting what I said. You attributed some words to me, falsely, and called them a lie. You keep saying that I have said that the tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class, when what I have said for the fifth time now is that they were primarily aimed at the rich. What part of that sentence is too difficult for you to understand?

I don't care if you are a Bushie. What does that matter to me?

[Trueblue]

And as for your questions, you answered my questions with "I don't know, it doesn't matter". Then you demanded that I answer your questions. Now imagine if I had answered your questions "I don't know, it doesn't matter". :lmao

I hope everybody here, from now on, answers any question you have with those words. :lol

[AYFR]

I can't take anymore, actually.



You keep distorting what I said. You attributed some words to me, falsely, and called them a lie. You keep saying that I have said that the tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class, when what I have said for the fifth time now is that they were primarily aimed at the rich. What part of that sentence is too difficult for you to understand?

I don't care if you are a Bushie. What does that matter to me?

Ok sorry TB they may have been aimed primarily at the rich but that doesn't change the fact that they helped the middle class and the economy.


As for the Bushie part that in response to this.
So Bush's own economists say that tax cuts don't pay for themselves in increased revenue, but you disagree.
It sounded to me like you thought that I agreed with Bush and his Admin 100% of the time

[Trueblue]

Ok sorry TB they may have been aimed primarily at the rich but that doesn't change the fact that they helped the middle class and the economy.


As for the Bushie part that in response to this.

It sounded to me like you thought that I agreed with Bush and his Admin 100% of the time

Wow, thanks for addressing what I actually said.

[AYFR]

Your welcome, and now it is time for bed, I have been up since 4 am

[Yellowdogtexan]

First lets take on TB's lie that the tax cuts dont help the middle class.I did not think that it was possible but it appears that you have even less knowledge about economics than cappy (which is a very sad comment). You are making a strawman argument that is not only false but is really intellectually dishonest. TB never said that the tax cuts did not provide some marginal benefit to the middle class. You have some real issues with your reading comprehension if you want to make such a claim and in fact I find this claim to be dishonest and a flat out lie. The tax cuts were designed to and primarily benefited the upper income tax brackets.

Read the posts. The bulk of the bush tax cuts went to the upper 2% of the population and the middle class got a smaller amount. As a result the tax cut did not provide the same stimulas as would the targeted tax cuts proposed by Vice President Gore. Read the materials posted but supply side economics have been shown to be bogus and supply side economics does not work.

[AYFR]

I did not think that it was possible but it appears that you have even less knowledge about economics than cappy (which is a very sad comment). You are making a strawman argument that is not only false but is really intellectually dishonest. TB never said that the tax cuts did not provide some marginal benefit to the middle class. You have some real issues with your reading comprehension if you want to make such a claim and in fact I find this claim to be dishonest and a flat out lie. The tax cuts were designed to and primarily benefited the upper income tax brackets.

Read the posts. The bulk of the bush tax cuts went to the upper 2% of the population and the middle class got a smaller amount. As a result the tax cut did not provide the same stimulas as would the targeted tax cuts proposed by Vice President Gore. Read the materials posted but supply side economics have been shown to be bogus and supply side economics does not work.
You need to keep reading YDT that issue between ME AND TB has been resolved, again sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. One of these days you are going to do that and someone is going to take that nose right off your face.

[Lone Laugher]

"You need to keep reading YDT that issue between ME AND TB has been resolved, again sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. One of these days you are going to do that and someone is going to take that nose right off your face."-----Rev


Oooh...SNAP! You got a special key on your keyboard that'll do that?

[AYFR]

Didn't say that I was going to do that, he is not worth the effort it would take.

[Yellowdogtexan]

BTW YTD the only debate we had about Christianity was you called them thieves and I disagreed and I was right while you still are wrong. .:lol:lmao:rofl The fact that you are insisting that you won that round is amusing and gave me a good laugh. :lol:lmao:rofl If you remember the only authority that you had for your position relied on a christian so-called scholar who defended the theft of concepts by claiming pagan religions plagiarized christianity. Evidently the similarities between christian theology and othe pagan religions are due to Satan using time travel to plant these similiar religions back in time to make christianity look bad later in history. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paganrising.html#aA typical fundamentalist apologetic sleight of hand is to claim that it was the pagan mysteries who copied the Christian story. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel quoted a fundamentalist apologist stating that "given the timing involved" it should be the pagans who plagiarized Christianity. [12] Neither Strobel nor his chosen scholar, gave any further evidence for their claim.
Yet this claim is demonstrably false- for a couple of reasons:

It is well known that these mystery religion preceded Christianity by at least a few centuries. The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as early as the fifth century BCE. The Egyptian myth of Osiris dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE). The Persian Sun-God Mithras was mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245 BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE. [13]

The way the early church fathers defended against the mystery religions showed that they knew these pagan myths antedated the Christian ones. Justin Martyr (c160-165) claimed that the devil plagiarized Christianity by anticipation with the pagan religions in order to lead people from the true faith. He claimed the myth of the virgin birth of Perseus, an ancient Greek legend that preceded Christianity, was pre-copied by the "deceiving serpent" (Dialogue with Trypho: 70). Similarly he asserted that the cultic rites of Mithraism had a diabolical origin (Apology 1:66). Tertulian (c160-c225) made the same claim: that it was the devil that provided this "mimicry". That the church fathers would resort to the absurd theory of pre-mimicry (i.e. the copy coming before the original) means that they could not make the claim that the pagan mystery religions copied from Christianity! Why couldn't they? Because it must have been well known to them and to their audience which came first! The use of time travel is a great way to explain plagiarism. This theory makes as much sense as your claim that tax cuts always increase federal revenues (a claim that you have appear to have abandoned given how silly and WRONG your claim was).

The fact that the only sources that you quoted on that threat think that time travel explains the plagiarism is amusing and shows that economics is not the only area where you are always WRONG. Again, to make it simiple, the claim that tax cuts increase revenues and that the bush tax cuts in particular have increased revenue are lies and myths. Only idiots believe these claims.

[Yellowdogtexan]

You need to keep reading YDT that issue between ME AND TB has been resolved, again sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. One of these days you are going to do that and someone is going to take that nose right off your face.It will have to be done by someone intelligent enough to read and understand their own sources (you really should read and understand your own sources before posting them). As bush is famous for saying, Bring it On. Judging from your lack of understanding of even simple economics, it will be amusing to see someone with your so-called skills try.

As for this thread your claim is still wrong and you are arguing from a false premise. Ok sorry TB they may have been aimed primarily at the rich but that doesn't change the fact that they helped the middle class and the economy. The bulk of the tax cuts went to the rich and as noted elsewhere in this thread, supply side economics do not work. I note that you do not want to deal with economic concepts such as propensity to consume and save. As noted by the materials posted on this thread, the bush tax cuts have not and will not pay for themselves and any claim to the contrary is wrong. According to the materials that I read, only about 15% of the tax cut was paid for by a claimed increase in the economy and so the federal govt. lost a great deal of revenues due to these tax cuts.

[AYFR]

YTD you are wrong but I don't have the patience to try and teach you economics.

[Wabash]

Didn't say that I was going to do that, he is not worth the effort it would take.

That's for damn sure!!

YTD you are wrong but I don't have the patience to try and teach you economics.

Ya, sheep aren't to smart anyway!

[Yellowdogtexan]

YTD you are wrong but I don't have the patience to try and teach you economics.You must know the subject in order to teach it. You are the one who keep on repeating the stupid claim that tax cuts pay for themselves which shows that you clearly do not understand the issue. I would love to see you try to teach the subject but I urge you to read the footnotes. Again, you do not want to make a fool of yourself like you did on the religion thread by not realizing that the one source that you quoted was based on a christian so-called scholar who was claiming that satan went back in time to make it look like pagan religions were the ones who copied christianity (that was truly very amusing).

Again to quote bush, BRING IT ON. I would love for you to try debate this topic since such efforts would only expose your lack of knowledge about economics. Again, please try to read the footnotes so that you avoid the amusing mistake that occured on the religion thread

[AYFR]

As for the religion thread I never said that I believed about the "time" theory. I was posting that they did not steal anything. People brought their ideas with them. That is intergration not theft. You never did answer my question either. Since you believe that way about Christianity do you think that the US was founded on theft as well.

[Yellowdogtexan]

As for the religion thread I never said that I believed about the "time" theory. I was posting that they did not steal anything. People brought their ideas with them. That is intergration not theft. You never did answer my question either. Since you believe that way about Christianity do you think that the US was founded on theft as well.You should read the footnotes of the only source that you actually used. That source is based on the works of a christian so-called scholar who justified the plagiarism by christanity by claiming that the pagan religions really plagiarized christianity. It was so funny to see you use a source that you have not read or understood.

As for the US, it is clear that our government is based on concepts stolen or taken from the greeks, the English and a number of countries. The difference is that our founders gave credit to many of the concepts that they used or borrowed including to John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Thomas Hobbes.

[AYFR]

You must know the subject in order to teach it. You are the one who keep on repeating the stupid claim that tax cuts pay for themselves which shows that you clearly do not understand the issue. I would love to see you try to teach the subject but I urge you to read the footnotes. Again, you do not want to make a fool of yourself like you did on the religion thread by not realizing that the one source that you quoted was based on a christian so-called scholar who was claiming that satan went back in time to make it look like pagan religions were the ones who copied christianity (that was truly very amusing).

Again to quote bush, BRING IT ON. I would love for you to try debate this topic since such efforts would only expose your lack of knowledge about economics. Again, please try to read the footnotes so that you avoid the amusing mistake that occured on the religion thread

You are wrong about Christianity but you are wrong so often that I guess that is normal


Basic economiss says that if you have more you invest and spend more thus increasing the economy. Tax cuts leave more in the peoples and businesses pockets allowing them to invest more, create new jobs, and spend more.

Now I know that you will spend more time insulting me, and attacking the sources but do try and stay focused. (Just to get past all of tht you will say that my sources are biased and not accurate while yours never have any bias and never wrong, then you will call me stupid and ignorant bucause you can't debate without insults) Now that is settled maybe you can debate like a civilized person for the first time since you came to TPA.


First lets have a history lesson
A Short History: Tax Cuts Work
If we look at the U.S. economy, three historical examples are the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of the 1960s, and the Reagan cuts of the 1980s. The U.S. federal income tax, established with the enactment of the 16th amendment in 1913, began with a top marginal rate of 7 percent. This quickly escalated to 77 percent by 1918. During the Harding-Coolidge administrations the top marginal rate was reduced to 25 percent by 1925. Economic output nearly doubled over the following four years, and unemployment fell sharply.

During the Depression and World War II tax rates rose steadily, with the top marginal rate reaching 94 percent by the end of the War and remaining at 90 percent or more well into Kennedy's term. Kennedy pushed for tax cuts, which were enacted in 1964 after his assassination. The top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. What followed was a major expansion in the economy. Real gross domes