Let's raise Capital Gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000 (versus, claim, New Jersey)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

You main fallacy is that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. There is no empirical evidence that the claim is true and plenty of evidence that the claim is false.

lets examine this "evidence" shall we?

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Not even Mitch McConnell makes that claim. McConnell said, there is "No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue." He wasn't saying it increased it; he said it didn't diminish it. But even that's wrong.

There we have it.. Mitch McConnell's opinion is now your evidence? Really? dont make me laugh

Originally Posted by MTAtech

When the tax-cuts were passed, the CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "

They PROJECTED a decrease in revenues, but when they were asked to analize the ACTUAL results, they said the exact opposite.

Tell me MTwhich is more accurate, someone guessing what will happen, or someone reporting on WHAT DID
Federal Tax Revenues from 2003 to 2006
As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1).

Originally Posted by MTAtech

How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018.

Thats because you dont understand the difference between a tax cut, which IS NOT A COST, and an EXPENSE. Thats YOUR problem

Originally Posted by MTAtech

How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

Wow, more opinions and not facts. Left wing evidence. I can find even more people to say just the oppposite but I thought we wanted to discuss facts. Tell me why you choose to pick and choose these statements as valid, but discount other statements as outright lies made by the Bush administration? Selective partisan bs is what I suggest might explain it

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The bottom-line is that the Bush tax-cuts cut revenue: In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. In 2003, these amounts were $1,782.53 billion and $11,142.1 billion. In other words, GDP rose 12% and federal revenues fell 12%.,

AND HERE YOU ARE DISPLAYING YOUR COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE.

The Bush tax cuts to generate revenues werent passed until 2003.. Why the hell would you look at 3 years prior?

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Federal revenues eventually rose, to take out the 2000 peak in 2005 (2007 in real terms,) but this doesn't mean much. Revenues eventually catch up due to GDP growth and population growth regardless of policy. The economy grows 4-6% most years, unadjusted for inflation, so naturally the general trend of taxes is to rise about 4-6% each year. Being unable to return to a previous peak for five years, despite this built in trend strongly suggests tax cuts reduced revenue, ceteris parabus.

Looking at it graphically we see that after each of the Bush tax-cuts, revenue dropped. How anyone can deny this and claim that the tax-cuts increased revenues is astounding. In mid-2003, federal revenue was lower than in 1999.:



What this really does prove is that Paul Krugman wasn't exaggerating when he wrote last Friday,

Why dont we examine the complete picture. Lets compare revenues next to the GDP because you left wing kooks dont seem to understand tax revenues go down as a result of GDP dropping.

EXPENSES SKYROCKETED, thats the purpose of the debt.. NOT TAX CODES. The tax revenue is the same % that its been for SEVENTY YEARS, and you us to suddenly believe that THE SAME REVENUES is responsible for increased debt..

Give it a break.

[TheLists09]

Increase the taxes on investments (the double tax isn't enough as currently constituted). Take more money out of investments and companies to give to government. Make more jobs. Sounds great!

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points

Receipts as a percentage of GDP, by year, over a longer term:
1993: 17.5
1994: 18.0
1995: 18.4
1996: 18.8
1997: 19.2
1998: 19.9
1999: 19.8
2000: 20.6
2001: 19.5 <- First Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA)
2002: 17.6
2003: 16.2 <- Second Bush Tax Cuts (JGTRRA)
2004: 16.1
2005: 17.3
2006: 18.2
2007: 18.5
2008: 17.5
2009: 14.9

Now, you may be in love with receipts making it past 18% of the GDP for couple of years, but that happens to be merely an average over about a half century. What do you think the average has been since 2001?

Source

[Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Me giving you a mortgage does not generatqe tax revenues. BORROWED MONEY IS TAX FREE

The issuing of mortgages generates economic activity.

The reason for this is -- as you've acknowledged on other threads -- the Fed prints money out of thin air whenever banks lend. This is the primary driver of money creation in our monetary system.

If I remember correctly you told me that this "was obvious" and that "everyone knows it." Apparently you don't grasp the ramifications of the policy.

Tell me Cletus, why do you hate the poor and want their taxes raised by reversing their tax cuts?

Bush tax cuts benefit the ultra-rich more than anyone else, by lowering their capital gains rates. Capital gains primarily go to the wealthy.

No it doesnt

Yes it does. Payroll taxes are on wages, and they are capped so high-income people don't have to pay as much. Payroll taxes are structured to be a tax mostly on wage-earners.

The Bush tax cuts were FAR MORE THAN JUST CAPITAL GAINS. Why do you only focus on part of it?

The primary impact of the Bush tax cuts were to lower capital gains rates and to reduce revenue flowing to the U.S. government. This forced us to rely more on deficits to fund government.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by pghquest

AND HERE YOU ARE DISPLAYING YOUR COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE.

The Bush tax cuts to generate revenues werent passed until 2003.. Why the hell would you look at 3 years prior?

You have perfected the art of the flim-flam to a science. You seem to exclude the first Bush tax-cut of 2001 because it doesn't make your case. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I use 3 years prior because... well, that was just before the first Bush tax-cut happened.

Your chart tells nothing because it goes back to the 1930s -- making recent movements seem small. The fact is that the Bush tax-cuts lowered revenue as a p% of GDP. Bruce Bartlett quantifies it here (pssst, this isn't his opinion it's research):

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

Those two points coincide with the two Bush tax-cuts.

The fact is that while GDP had risen 12%, government revenue fell by 12%. Had the Clinton rates been in effect, government revenue would have risen by 12% along with GDP. That's a 24% variance that can't be just brushed off because it doesn't support your Alice in Wonderland alternate reality, where cutting taxes yields more revenue. Perhaps in that universe denying medicine cures disease too and starving people makes them gain weight? But none of your claims are reality in our universe.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

The issuing of mortgages generates economic activity.

The reason for this is -- as you've acknowledged on other threads -- the Fed prints money out of thin air whenever banks lend. This is the primary driver of money creation in our monetary system.

If I remember correctly you told me that this "was obvious" and that "everyone knows it." Apparently you don't grasp the ramifications of the policy.

The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.(1) As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Bush tax cuts benefit the ultra-rich more than anyone else, by lowering their capital gains rates. Capital gains primarily go to the wealthy.

Poor people are going to drive the economy? You do know the effective rate on lower income capital is 0, right?

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Yes it does. Payroll taxes are on wages, and they are capped so high-income people don't have to pay as much. Payroll taxes are structured to be a tax mostly on wage-earners.

To pay for things like SS. I'm fine with uncapping them and means testing those on SS. A multimillionaire isn't going to need SS while retiring to their beach house in the Cayman Islands.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

The primary impact of the Bush tax cuts were to lower capital gains rates and to reduce revenue flowing to the U.S. government. This forced us to rely more on deficits to fund government.

The primary impact was to get the economy going again. The fact that it was coming to a screeching halt is very evident in the post where I provided 28 years of capital activity. The other times that are evident of economic slowdown were 1980, 1990 and 2008.

[MTAtech]

These two graphs illustrate the problem with the Bush tax-cuts. Even though GDP rose federal revenue dropped:





It should be obvious to anyone. After each Bush tax-cut, even though GDP rose, revenue dropped. However, some will deny reality because it's more soothing to deny the facts than challenge the validity of their ideology.

[box_of_zip_disks]

The majority of my income comes from capital gains and I'd be more than happy for it to be taxed at the normal income tax rate. I didn't do anything to earn that money other than have some money in the first place; it won't really affect my standard of living or net wealth either way.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

These two graphs illustrate the problem with the Bush tax-cuts. Even though GDP rose federal revenue dropped:





It should be obvious to anyone. After each Bush tax-cut, even though GDP rose, revenue dropped. However, some will deny reality because it's more soothing to deny the facts than challenge the validity of their ideology.

You lefties would call it "stimulus" is Obama had done it. Actually, come to think of it, he did do it.

Why is that so hard to understand? The economy would have gone into a much longer recession had nothing been done. The claim that

"the Clinton rates been in effect, government revenue would have risen by 12% along with GDP"

looks at the economy as being static, which it isn't of course.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by box_of_zip_disks

The majority of my income comes from capital gains and I'd be more than happy for it to be taxed at the normal income tax rate. I didn't do anything to earn that money other than have some money in the first place; it won't really affect my standard of living or net wealth either way.

Especially if you leave it there, untouched. Take it out, look at the tax bill, and only an insane person would be dumb enough to do it twice with an increase from 15% to say 39.6% (which is where taxes are going to go since the Obama/Bush tax cuts are going to expire sine we have a limp- "super committee").