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.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Wrong again, per the CBO the 2003 tax cuts generated more money both in real dollars, and as a % of GDP. Your excuse blaming population growth and inflation, wouldnt explain why tax revenues would grow as a % of gdp as well. Care to try again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
But even in non-adjusted figures, there was no miracle with the Bush tax-cuts. Revenue fell and it took until 2007 to regain the same revenue that existed in 2000:
The Bush tax cuts to grow revenues and the economy wasnt passed until 2003, why would you talk about 2000 unless you were trying to be dishonest?
I don't care what the debt is as long as the economy is growing fast enough to cover the interest on the debt(and it is).
The question is, can it grow fast enough to pay the interest alone, it's like making the minimum payment on a credit card. Unless we pay on the principal, the interest payment will be eternal.
The question is, can it grow fast enough to pay the interest alone, it's like making the minimum payment on a credit card. Unless we pay on the principal, the interest payment will be eternal.
some of the posters seem to forget that interest payments are money DIVERTED from having a healthy economy. the higher the interest payment, the more the diversion. of course, the wealthy LOVE it because they are the beneficiaries of the interest payments.
for the rest of america, it signals a further decline in productivity and a demand for inflation from the government-neither of which are good for the average american, or the risk of outright collapse if things get bad enough.
we will remember this period in history-but not fondly.
You are just outright lying.
In 2002 before the tax cuts were passed, the top 1% paid 33.71% of all taxes, In 2007 before the crash, they paid 40.42% of all taxes, and even in 2009 they paid 36.73% of all taxes.
Taxes on the top 5% went from paying 53.8% to 58.66%, while the taxes on the poor dropped from paying 2.89% of all taxes to 2.25% of all taxes in the same time period
Spare me the dishonesty claims until you can post facts and not babble your left wing kook theories based upon absolutely nothing of substance.
It is you, sir, who is being dishonest. Total amount of taxes on the rich rose because income on the rich skyrocketed, so naturally they pay more taxes.
Don't believe it? From the CBO data, via a recent report, here are the income shares of the top 1 percent and the rest of the top quintile:
The CBO concluded:
Quote:
The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.
There has been no rise in the share of the 81-99 group, while the top 1%'s income group rose 25%, since 1979.
To conclude that taxes raised increased due to tax-cuts, and use the share of taxes paid by the rich as evidence, while ignoring that the rich's income has soared, is an obvious trick. It would be astounding if the richest share did not rise, since that's the only group in which income did rise.
Thus, in the last few pages I discredited two zombie memes, namely, 1) lowering taxes brings in more revenue; 2) the rich are oppressed.
The fact that income inequality has risen dramatically since the nation has enacted tax policies that favor the rich has brought on a slew of deniers. But it's becoming more and more difficult to deny the obvious:
It doubled the amout of US debt it holds in the past year. No one wants to buy US debt. How long before a sheet of toilet paper is worth more than that federal reserve note in your wallet?
In its latest monthly report, the Federal Reserve said that as of Sept. 28, it owned $1.665 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. That was more than double the $812 billion in U.S. Treasury securities the Fed said it owned as of Sept. 29, 2010.
Meanwhile, as of the end of this September, entities in mainland China owned $1.1483 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to data published today by the U.S. Treasury Department. That was down slightly from the $1.1519 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities the Chinese owned as of the end of September 2010, according to the same Treasury Department report.
Wrong again, per the CBO the 2003 tax cuts generated more money both in real dollars, and as a % of GDP. Your excuse blaming population growth and inflation, wouldnt explain why tax revenues would grow as a % of gdp as well. Care to try again?
The Bush tax cuts to grow revenues and the economy wasnt passed until 2003, why would you talk about 2000 unless you were trying to be dishonest?
OK. I will try again, as you didn't get it the first time.
As you can see, revenue dropped after the Bush 2001 tax-cuts, didn't rise in 2004 and rose thereafter, due to the housing boom, but never re-gained the p% of GDP prior to the 2001 tax-cuts.
You claimed "the 2003 tax cuts generated more money...as a % of GDP" FALSE:
You claimed "the 2003 tax cuts generated more money... in real dollars..." FALSE:
Moreover, and to further what I said previously, in real 2005 dollars (adjusted for inflation) income tax revenue took until 2007, with population growth*, to exceed the 2000 levels.
The claim that the Bush tax-cuts resulted in greater income tax revenue is a zombie lie (no matter how many times it's killed, it gets up to be repeated by the right-wing) but it's simply not true.
Well folks. We passed $15,000,000,000,000 in debt today!
Am I wrong or did Obama campaign partly on reducing the wasteful spending, deficit and debt Bush was guilty of?
Gee, I wonder who will be tasked with paying it all back?? Will it be the bottom 45% who ZERO income taxes, or will it be those of us in the middle class or just millionaires? Obviously it will just be the top 1% who will pay it back, the rest of us will see lower taxes, free 0bamaCare, free college tuition, tax rebates for electric cars and lots of other free stuff. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
OK. I will try again, as you didn't get it the first time.
As you can see, revenue dropped after the Bush 2001 tax-cuts, didn't rise in 2004 and rose thereafter, due to the housing boom, but never re-gained the p% of GDP prior to the 2001 tax-cuts.
This is a silly exercise, your charts are based purely on dollar amounts for tax receipts, and ignore any and all other factors.
Our nation's $15 trillion economy and what leads to increased tax revenue is more dynamic then just a few percentage points on the federal tax rates. You cannot point to increases and gains and make the got'cha claim that it was due solely to X.
Even with the hated Boooosh tax cuts, the top 10% see anywhere from 35-55% of their total income and wealth going to state and federal government in the form of taxes.
Tax revenue to the federal government, as a percentage of the nation's GDP, has been fairly steady at about 16%-18% regardless of what our federal tax code has been. so don't tell me that the Boooosh tax cuts breached some mythical barrier for federal tax rates, and that is why revenue dropped.
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.
FED surpases China as largest holder of US debt
