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.
You know what your cut-n-pastes from right wing kook sites don't impress me much.
How about a report from a GOP controlled Congress and a Libertarian think tank.
In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates" that casts doubt on the idea that tax cuts ultimately improve the government's fiscal situation. Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). Even in the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.[7]
Critics at the libertarian Cato Institute have charged that to support these calculations, the paper assumes that the 10% reduction in individual tax rates would only result in a 1% increase in gross national product, a figure they consider too low for current marginal tax rates in the United States.[8
So July 21, 2008; Page A12 wallstreet journal was to new for you?
The 2001 tax cut will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery
Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax increase featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.
So July 21, 2008; Page A12 wallstreet journal was to new for you?
Oh, I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that Bush has engineered a massive redistribution of wealth upward along the income scale. The super-rich indeed did very well in his first term for sure. According to the IRS Statistics of Income tables, the share of all income earned by the top 1% went from 18.2% to 21.8%. That was a 20% increase in four short years. Meanwhile, the average effective tax rate paid by the top 1% fell from 25.2 cents per dollar to 21.4 cents per dollar. That's a 15% cut. More income, lower taxes per dollar on that income. That sound like a deal you would have taken? But never mind...I guess you got a check for 300 bucks or some such. They took care of you real good, huh.
But what about the rich guy? What did he get? Well, the poorest guy in the top 1% saw his income go from $323,861 to $402,354. That's an absolute increase of 24%. And his taxes? Well, they went from $81,581 all the way up to $86,063. Poor baby...that's a tax savings of $15,290 that was handed to him. That comes to only about 50 times what you got...
Last edited by saganista; 08-18-2008 at 09:44 PM..
I guess the US treasury wasn't good enough either...
In FY 2006, the U.S. government operated with $2.407 trillion in revenue. The U.S. FY 2008 Budget for FY 2008, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), forecasts revenue to grow to $3.307 trillion by 2012, providing enough to balance the U.S. budget. Revenue is forecast to consume 18.3% of GDP, remaining at the same levels of FY 2006 and FY 2007. (Source: OMB Budget FY 2008, Summary Tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html - broken link) Table S-1. Budget Totals)
Oh, I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that Bush has engineered a massive redistribution of wealth upward along the income scale. The super-rich indeed did very well in his first term for sure. According to the IRS Statistics of Income tables, the share of all income earned by the top 1% went from 18.2% to 21.8%. That was a 20% increase in four short years. Meanwhile, the average effective tax rate paid by the top 1% fell from 25.2 cents per dollar to 21.4 cents per dollar. That's a 15% cut. More income, lower taxes per dollar on that income. That sound like a deal you would have taken? But never mind...I guess you got a check for 300 bucks or some such. They took care of you real good, huh...
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Your grasping at straws.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
I guess the US treasury wasn't good enough either...
OMB is not part of Treasury. It is an executive office operated by the White House. Do you know what projections are? Ever built a baseline?
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.
