Boehner:"I Don’t Need To See GDP Numbers Or Listen To Economists"

[Modbert]

You abacus must be missing a few beads.....

Did you watch the video in the OP? If so, you would know where the $600 billion number came from.

 

[Samson]

You abacus must be missing a few beads.....

Did you watch the video in the OP? If so, you would know where the $600 billion number came from.

Actually, I did: I'm not challenging your source, I'm just saying there's a big difference between your $600 B "revenue from taxpayers resulting from a 4% tax increase" and Boe's $115 B/yr "cost to tax payers."

 

[JimH52]

The tax cuts were Bush's, therefore even if they add to the deficit, the GOP sees nothing wrong with them. HYPOCRITES!

 

[Modbert]

Actually, I did: I'm not challenging your source, I'm just saying there's a big difference between your $600 B "revenue from taxpayers resulting from a 4% tax increase" and Boe's $115 B/yr "cost to tax payers."

Costs of extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Upper Income is $678 billion over ten years as the video shows. I don't think I ever said it was $600 billion a year, if I did I made a mistake.

 

[boedicca]

And Doggie - $2.6 Trillion does qualify as the largest tax increase in history, which is what the CBO estimates the 10 year impact of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire to be.

Paying more in Taxes is a Tax Increase. The fact that you feel compelled to play word games right now is an admission that you have lost the argument.

Wrong. What you're doing is framing the bush tax cuts as being in place since the beginning of this country. They were put in place less than 11 years ago. The tax rate will go up to Pre-Bush levels. The $2.6 trillion you're pulling is from over 10 years, not one.

It's still not the biggest tax increase.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Go ahead and look, there are plenty of bigger tax increases in our history on that list. This is not nearly the biggest.

Toro posted a story earlier of when Clinton raised the taxes. His boss in that story is sounding exactly like you.

It is the largest tax increase in history. It's not my problem that you are historically and economically illiterate - as well as severely math challenged.

Even the CBO recognizes that Obamanomics yields the biggest tax increases in history. Tax receipts have trended around 18%-20% of GDP over the past few decades. From the most recent Long Term Budget Outlook (pdf summary at link below)

Under this scenario, the exprration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates. Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades...

Congressional Budget Office - The Long-Term Budget Outlook

 

[Modbert]

It is the largest tax increase in history. It's not my problem that you are historically and economically illiterate - as well as severely math challenged.

Even the CBO recognizes that Obamanomics yields the biggest tax increases in history. Tax receipts have trended around 18%-20% of GDP over the past few decades. From the most recent Long Term Budget Outlook (pdf summary at link below)

Under this scenario, the exprration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates. Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades...

Congressional Budget Office - The Long-Term Budget Outlook

No, what the CBO is saying that total revenues would be 23% of the GDP by 2035, not that it's the biggest tax increase in history. You seem to be confusing overall tax receipt % with increases % wise.

 

[boedicca]

You're wrong. As usual.

The government extracting a higher share of GDP in the form of tax receipts is increasing taxes. Some or most people are paying much more of what they paid before for their total federal tax burden.

In the same analysis, they have a scenario with the Bush Tax Cuts extended, which results in a 19% GDP share for tax receipts. Increasing tax receipts to 23% of GDP translates into 4% of a $15T (in 2010 dollars) economy - a huge tax increase. But given your lack of math sKillZ, I doubt you grok that fact.

 

[Samson]

Actually, I did: I'm not challenging your source, I'm just saying there's a big difference between your $600 B "revenue from taxpayers resulting from a 4% tax increase" and Boe's $115 B/yr "cost to tax payers."

Costs of extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Upper Income is $678 billion over ten years as the video shows. I don't think I ever said it was $600 billion a year, if I did I made a mistake.

No you didn't say one way or another, but that's OK, because the difference between the numbers is still amazing:

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.[/i]


The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

Apparently, the CBO 10 year projection $2.6 T is a tad different than $678 B.

 

[Samson]

But given your lack of math sKillZ, I doubt you grok that fact.

All I know is that I want $8 to produce $6 worth of goods and services, Damnit.

 

[EriktheRed]

House Republican leaders largely avoid mentioning former President George W. Bush in their August recess package to GOP members.

Instead of calling for an extension of Bush’s tax cuts, which House Republican leaders support, they refer to the looming “Democrats’ tax hikes.”

Under the heading “Job Creation,” Republicans call the expiring tax cuts, set to lapse at the end of this year, a Democratic plan “on increasing taxes by $3.8 trillion.”


The scarce references to Bush come as Democrats attempt to tie the Republican Party to the 43rd president three months before the midterm elections

The only mention of the ex-president occurs when House Republicans compare his record to President Obama’s. And the message they express is essentially that Bush’s record on spending was bad, but Obama’s is much worse.

Republicans focus on tax cuts for recess - TheHill.com

 

[boedicca]

But given your lack of math sKillZ, I doubt you grok that fact.

All I know is that I want $8 to produce $6 worth of goods and services, Damnit.

How about a job that pays $50,000 a year and cost $500,000 in Stimulus Funds?

 

[Samson]

But given your lack of math sKillZ, I doubt you grok that fact.

All I know is that I want $8 to produce $6 worth of goods and services, Damnit.

How about a job that pays $50,000 a year and cost $500,000 in Stimulus Funds?

Even better.

Could I spend all day looking at Octoporn?

 

[boedicca]

That would have to be a government job, then.

 

[Modbert]

Apparently, the CBO 10 year projection $2.6 T is a tad different than $678 B.

Actually, it's not really. It would cost all taxpayers $2.9 trillion over 10 years for the Bush Tax Cuts. The $678 billion is only the upper income figure. Boe's number of $2.6 Trillion includes all taxpayers.

 

[boedicca]

IOW, let's raise taxes on the people who run small businesses so that unemployment can stay above 9%

Nice.

 

[topspin]

He'll no you can't. John is a wide stance pussy.

 

[Samson]

Apparently, the CBO 10 year projection $2.6 T is a tad different than $678 B.

Actually, it's not really. It would cost all taxpayers $2.9 trillion over 10 years for the Bush Tax Cuts. The $678 billion is only the upper income figure. Boe's number of $2.6 Trillion includes all taxpayers.

I'm not sure how a Tax Cut would Cost Taxpayers.

Since Taxes are their Revenue, A Tax Cut would Cost the Government.

So, when you say, "It would cost all taxpayers $2.9 trillion over 10 years for the Bush Tax Cuts," What makes more sense is:

Without the Bush Tax Cuts all taxpayers will PAY $2.9 trillion over 10 years.

Regardless ($678,000,000,000/$2,900,000,000,000)= 678/2900 => 7/29 or a little less than 1/4...

a 25% difference over 10 years

On an annual basis, the 4% difference in taxes collected with or without "The Bush Tax Cut" is a pitiance compared to the total budget. Obviously, it it more a political tool than an economic remedy.

 

[oreo]

what is wrong with his point...it was more about jobs and he believes in listening to the people about job losses rather than stats or so called experts....

you're really losing it on trying to get these petty gotcha moments on repubs modbert

Yeap--and this administration is working "against" private sector job creation. That's all Boehner needs to know--and he does know it. Stats are stats--and listening to the American people and specifically one single stat --"consumer confidence" tells you the rest.

Right now--there are very few people in this country that feel "confident" about getting a job--or keeping the one they have.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nope, not strawman. You say "tax the rich" as if the rich aren't already being taxed. You're acting as if Obama wants to kill the rich with tax rates. Pre-Bush levels, less than 10 years ago tax rates. Y'know, when the country actually was doing great!

you said 20%....that is a strawman....i never said that

the country was doing well during bush as well....the HOUSING market was unsustainable....i take it you failed to read my thread about the rich spending less and it harming the economy....one of the reasons is because they are unsure if they are going to have to pay more taxes...

raising taxes is going to do nothing but make the federal government bigger, we need the economy and people's bank account larger

The rich continue to spend lavishly, and put the rest in tax free overseas accounts.

Not much, ANYMORE!!!!!

​

"The US government has begun a criminal investigation into whether clients of HSBC are evading tax by putting money in undeclared bank accounts in Singapore and India, widening a crackdown on offshore secrecy that began with a successful prosecution of Switzerland's UBS." (Phil Gramm's latest-employer!!)

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nonsense. Most people who make over $200K or $250K, which is the level of income subject to the highest tax increase ever, are not spending lavishly and sheltering their income overseas. Most are actually working upper middle class or small business owners.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin​