Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CBO has similar data, as Moody's, with a slightly different approach: Link
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
More ignorance.. If the wealthy paid more in taxes, its because they SPENT THEIR PROFITS, and spending STIMULATES
There is no room for more ignorance than this.
Quote:
And yet the CBO said the revenue increase during the Bush tax cut was hundreds of billions a year. Lets see, should I believe the CBO, or some "economist"?
"As a result, the federal government actually ran deficits from 2002 through 2010 and will incur a deficit in 2011 as well. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period will amount to $6.2 trillion, CBO estimates—a swing of $11.8 trillion from the January 2001 projections."
So much for the revenue increase utopia that conservatives continue to cling onto, despite the evidence.
Quote:
And Obamas stimulus, per the CBO had a NEGATIVE multiplier beginning in 2015, but you supported that as well even though it will REDUCE the GDP
Like I said, you continue to be WRONG.
Not according to CBO. See the first link above.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-23-2011 at 08:10 AM..
More ignorance.. If the wealthy paid more in taxes, its because they SPENT THEIR PROFITS, and spending STIMULATES
And yet the CBO said the revenue increase during the Bush tax cut was hundreds of billions a year. Lets see, should I believe the CBO, or some "economist"?
And Obamas stimulus, per the CBO had a NEGATIVE multiplier beginning in 2015, but you supported that as well even though it will REDUCE the GDP
Like I said, you continue to be WRONG.
Produce the CBO report. I don't believe that's what the CBO said.
It wasn't until 2006 (adjusted for inflation) that government revenue matched government revenue in 2000 -- and that's with population growth and inflation.
Notice the dip in government revenues during the Bush years? All this while GDP was rising:
The two charts above illustrate that the Bush tax-cuts reduced revenue. Had rates not been cut, tax revenue chart slope would have been on the same slope as the GDP chart's slope. How someone can claim that they increased revenue must only be due to ideological tunnel vision.
Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. 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).
The rest of your babble simply ignores the fact that we were in a recession
Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. 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).
The rest of your babble simply ignores the fact that we were in a recession
And I knew it was only a matter of time before you bring out this amusing idea of revenue growth over a cherry picked period. Bush had TWO major tax cut stimulus programs: EGTRRA (2001) and JGTRRA (2003). Having said that, let us look at federal tax revenue over eight years (since you chose four years, I added four years prior), in constant 2005 dollars.
1999: $2.14T
2000: $2.31T
2001: $2.22T
2002: $2.03T
2003: $1.90T
2004: $1.95T
2005: $2.15T
2006: $2.32T
Now would you mind explaining why, despite a larger economy and larger population, would the tax revenue in 2006 barely match a level that was achieved back in 2000? And did you see the link about CBO attributing Bush tax cuts to account for $6.2T in deficits between 2002-2011? Quite a departure from your claims.
You see, denial and lying won't help this country. If you care for it more than you care for political ends.
And I knew it was only a matter of time before you bring out this amusing idea of revenue growth over a cherry picked period. Bush had TWO major tax cut stimulus programs: EGTRRA (2001) and JGTRRA (2003). Having said that, let us look at federal tax revenue over eight years (since you chose four years, I added four years prior), in constant 2005 dollars.
1999: $2.14T
2000: $2.31T
2001: $2.22T
2002: $2.03T
2003: $1.90T
2004: $1.95T
2005: $2.15T
2006: $2.32T
Now would you mind explaining why, despite a larger economy and larger population, would the tax revenue in 2006 barely match a level that was achieved back in 2000?
ITS CALLED A RECESSION
The 2001 tax cuts were designed to stop the recession, the 2003 ones were designed to create jobs and economic growth.
BOTH were successful at their intent
The revenues are a percentage of GDP.. if you want revenues to climb, you GROW THE GDP..
Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. 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).
The rest of your babble simply ignores the fact that we were in a recession
If you read the letter it clearly said, "this analysis shows that the overall increase in revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since 2003 is disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate income tax revenues."
What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that — no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be.
The question asked was the narrow range of 2003 to 2006 -- let's not bother with that huge drop in revenue since the first Bush tax-cut.
You also claim the recession caused the large drop. But the recession was only in 2001. Your explanation doesn't explain why revenues dropped in 2002 and 2003. Moreover, as I have previously shown, GDP was rising all through that period and revenues as a p% of GDP fell (see post# 62.)
What's perfectly clear is that you have a desired outcome but the facts and evidence do not produce that outcome, so you have to dance furiously to provide dishonest answers.
I don't think we were in recession in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Heck, 2006 revenues barely matched a level seen six years earlier... would 2006 also qualify as a recessionary year? Nice. So much for your argument that Bush tax cuts increased revenue.
Quote:
The 2001 tax cuts were designed to stop the recession, the 2003 ones were designed to create jobs and economic growth.
BOTH were successful at their intent
How? 2001 recession was thru, officially, in Nov 2001. But you just claimed that we were in recession in 2002, 2003, 2004... And to think you're among the folks who complain about the Great Depression not being fixed right away.
Quote:
The revenues are a percentage of GDP.. if you want revenues to climb, you GROW THE GDP..
That is a major part of Keynesian stimulus. Having said that, growing GDP doesn't guarantee an increase in revenues. A whole lot more goes into play there. That is why revenues in 2000 were 20.6% of the GDP, whereas revenues in 2006 were 18.2% of the GDP.
"A huge number of people pay far more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. On the other hand, the payroll tax isn't a true "tax" in the sense that it isn't supposed to be a source of revenue for the government - it's supposed to be a contribution to an account that you'll be entitled to withdraw benefits from at a later date. For that reason payroll taxes generally aren't included in discussions about tax cuts: the only way you can get a cut in your contributions is to (a) accept a corresponding cut in benefits, or (b) have your benefits subsidized by somebody else, or (c) reform the entire system." Payroll Tax - Definition
It's insane that we are going here without hesitation. This isn't a tax cut, it's a redirection.
Did anyone realize that the friends of the middle class let The Making Work Pay Tax credit expire for 2011? For anyone not paying attention, that was a refundable tax credit that equaled $800 in 2009 and 2010. Whose kidding who here?
In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns. Most wage earners benefited from larger paychecks in 2009 and 2010 as a result of the changes made to the federal income tax withholding tables to implement the Making Work Pay tax credit.
Boehner has been pointing out that it provides nothing that companies, individuals etc. can plan on. It merely "kicks the can down the road" for a brief time, and the whole fight has to begin again almost immediately.
He has a point.
Anybody?
Brownie points for the donkeycrats in the upcoming elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For anyone not paying attention, that was a refundable tax credit that equaled $800 in 2009 and 2010. Whose kidding who here?
