Proof Bush TAX Cuts INCREASED Revenues!

[Polk]

I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.

Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.

If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.

can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.

Well give us an example when it was tried by an Administration and failed.

I will give you the complete list of those who did it, and you tell us where it failed to soonafter help generate record Federal Tax Receipt and record GDP.:

Harding

JFK

Reagan

Bush


Now, if you can't answer, why not remain on the sidelines when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

i'm pretty sure i just demonstrated to you that it mathematically doesn't work out.

but let's put it in real terms.

if i cut tax rates from 90% to 45% i've increased the take home of every person by 550%. That could result in enough growth in the economy to increase revenue. But let's say i started at 9% and cut to 4.5%. I cut the tax rate in half, but people's take home would only increase by $4.50 per $100 earned. Do you see that increase doubling the gdp?

Pretty same to assume you won't get an answer to that question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you are conveniently forgetting that the Bush tax cuts ARE STILL IN PLACE.

If you think it's appropriate to give the tax cuts credit for all the year over year revenue increases since the Bush tax cuts were put in place,

then it's only fair and appropriate that the Bush tax cuts get the blame for all the year over revenue decreases since the tax cuts were put in place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

After the Reagan 1981 tax cut,

revenues fell in 82 and 83,

and the deficit doubled.

Tax cuts occasionally appear to increase revenues only because of their timing. The simple mathematical fact is that in a long term growing economy tax revenues will increase by default, even if the rates are never changed.

It's like doing a rain dance a week before the rainy season starts, and then claiming the rain dance made it rain.

 

[healthmyths]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Proof Bush TAX Cuts INCREASED Revenues!

...For the high-roller$/1%ers!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0]Maddow: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[ogibillm]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

we are in agreement. your return on either increasing or decreasing taxes would diminish the higher or lower you went.

so now we just need to figure out where the elusive 'sweet spot' is.

 

[Toro]

The OP fails at econometrics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

Reversing Clinton's policies, abandoning PAYGO, and going on another tax cuts, borrow, and spend cycle did not give us a better economy in the '00's than we had in the 90's.

What was the point of Bush and the Republicans 'fixing' things that weren't broke?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

There are no serious proposals on the table to raise income tax rates anywheres beyond what they were in the 90's, in fact,

the main proposals leave most marginal rates LOWER than they were in the nineties.

 

[healthmyths]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

we are in agreement. your return on either increasing or decreasing taxes would diminish the higher or lower you went.

so now we just need to figure out where the elusive 'sweet spot' is.

Well that's what the Laffer curve was all about! at some point above 10% tax and less then 50% that fluctuates with situations i.e. WWII for example took most production/GDP war bonds..

 

[healthmyths]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

Everything you wrote is TRUE! Can NOT be refuted!
You raise taxes you will collect MORE! Never been a question about that!

But the issue is at what point will you be killing the golden goose? Or in other words if 35% is not enough why not 50% Why not 90% as it was until Kennedy reduced and why?

Because when you thwart businesses especially from the ambitions of making more money the Extremely wealthy people aren't hurt obviously!
But it is those below that level. Small businesses especially that report income personally and as a result their businesses which do the 40% hiring are discouraged from providing jobs which now pay 40% of the taxes to the government in the form of payroll taxes!

When the pie is NOT encouraged to grow, then the only solution is to increase percentages and that becomes the snowball known as Greece/Spain...etc...
Increasing taxes reduces incentives.

So yes I agree you can raise taxes and increase revenue.
But which is better... raising revenue by increasing the size of the pie or your position increase the size of the slice i.e. raise percentage and NOT be concerned about the size of the pie!

Reversing Clinton's policies, abandoning PAYGO, and going on another tax cuts, borrow, and spend cycle did not give us a better economy in the '00's than we had in the 90's.

What was the point of Bush and the Republicans 'fixing' things that weren't broke?

GEEZ How many times do I have to repeat this litany of events that occurred? Where in th f...k were you in the 2000s?

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $166 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

NOT BUSH's fault agree??

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) $2 trillion in losses meant $66 billion a year in reduced TAX payments from 2003 and beyond GONE!
2 145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

NOT BUSH's fault Agree???

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
NOT BUSH's fault agree??
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
1) $1 trillion in losses meaning $33 billion a year in reduced tax revenues!
2) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita

YET how many people seemingly forget those 3 events costing over $8 trillion which is being written off against taxes today.

Even idiot conservatives calling Bush spending like a drunken sailor NEVER seem to recognize that
A) All of the above $8 trillion meant LOST TAX REVENUE Just as SANDY now will have ...look for the NYSE losses in the billions!!!
B) All of the above costs 850,000 jobs... just like SANDY will but everyone blames Bush!
C) Finally all of the above EVENTS were NOT CAUSED BY BUSH JUST AS SANDY IS NOT Obama's FAULT!

BUT watch EVERYONE forgets those events and what the AFFECT there was on the USA and BLAME BUSH???

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

How did the Bush tax cuts cause revenue to decrease between 2007 and 2008?

 

[Polk]

The OP fails at econometrics.

The OP fails at a lot of things.

 

[healthmyths]

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

How did the Bush tax cuts cause revenue to decrease between 2007 and 2008?

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.


the President's warning saying:
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on
him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected,
As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

 

[lukelk]

How many times have we heard.."Bush Tax cuts cost revenue..." On the contrary ... here are the facts!

Someone should prove differently with the facts but the facts are
after the Bush tax cuts were in affect FEDERAL REVENUE INCREASED!!!

The tables are here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200]Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

Average per year revenue increase or decrease per year 0.1% EVEN AFTER dot.com bust, recession, 9/11 attack and worst hurricane SEASONS!!!

Swing in revenue from worst loss of 8.5% to best gain 10.5% or almost 19% differential... WHY???

SO then my point is still valid! When the tax cuts went in place REVENUE increased! even more then Clinton's best year!
In fact 2007 was the best in history!!!

And this happened because the Gross Domestic Product increased!

• Year Gross domestic product
• 2000 $ 9,951
• 2001 10,286 $598 6.3% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 10,642 334 3.3%
• 2003 11,142 499 4.7% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 11,867 725 6.5%
• 2005 12,638 770 6.4%
• 2006 13,398 760 6.0%
• 2007 14,077 678 5.0%
• 2008 14,369 291 2.0%

If YOU'd like me to explain WHY this works just ask!!!

I'm sure if you are an intellectually HONEST person maybe you'll come to the same conclusion I did... YOU CAN"T TRUST THE MSM to tell the truth!

sigh, you are brainwashed go home, you and your ideas are a minority now, bye bye

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How many times have we heard.."Bush Tax cuts cost revenue..." On the contrary ... here are the facts!

Someone should prove differently with the facts but the facts are
after the Bush tax cuts were in affect FEDERAL REVENUE INCREASED!!!

That's nice.....except, you're wrong....and, very likely, easily-manipulated.​

December 06, 2007

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues​

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

December 22, 2009

The BU$HCO Hu$tle​

"The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess."

 

[lukelk]

I don't think these people use their whole brains, they are simple people. I guess that what the GOP wants.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't think these people use their whole brains, they are simple people. I guess that what the GOP wants.

It gets better......​

November 9, 2012

Welcome To The Twilight Zone:
2012; In The Teabagger Dimension​

"Partisan politics is starting to look like a cult, and after this presidential election, Republicans will need some serious deprogramming.

The overheated anti-Obama echo chamber on the far right led to a fact-free fanaticism, inspiring otherwise educated folks to ignore most polls in favor of feel-good tall tales about “Mitt-mentum” going into Election Day.

Among those caught up in the fever swamp was the architect of George W. Bush’s two White House wins, Karl Rove, seen awkwardly on air arguing with Fox News’s own pollsters about whether the election was over. The respected co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, Michael Barone, predicted a Romney landslide, as did the poet laureate of conservative columnists, George Will. And these were the adults at the conservative table.

Conspiracy entrepreneurs always peddle special knowledge, and just days before the election Dick Morris was still shilling on Fox, saying, “Romney will win this election by 5 to 10 points in the popular vote. And will carry more than 300 electoral votes.”

In the end, of course, Romney lost the popular vote.

There were plenty of poll aggregators and statisticians (most notably Nate Silver) who rightly predicted the election outcome. So how could so many supposed professionals get it so spectacularly wrong?

“We’ve seen the rise of polling firms nobody ever heard of, giving us results that nobody should believe,” says Democratic strategist and Daily Beast columnist Bob Shrum."

 

[g5000]

Come on you intellectually HONEST people... REFUTE the facts that the tax cuts INCREASED revenues! Increased GDP!

It is a Single Cause Fallacy to state the Bush tax cuts are the sole reason GDP and revenues rose.

Did you go backwards into the Clinton years and see if revenues and GDP increased during the Clinton Administration? You will find that receipts as a percentage of GDP rose during Clinton and plummeted during Bush. You will find that growth in taxable income rose after the Clinton tax increase, plummeted in the 2001 recession, then began climbing again after 2002.


Did you know in the 8 years of Clinton over 20 million jobs were created, and yet only 3 million were created in Bush's 8 years?

You will not find a perfect correlation between tax rates and all of these outcomes.

.

 

[edthecynic]

How many times have we heard.."Bush Tax cuts cost revenue..." On the contrary ... here are the facts!

Someone should prove differently with the facts but the facts are
after the Bush tax cuts were in affect FEDERAL REVENUE INCREASED!!!

The tables are here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200]Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

• 2000 was the last year before the first Bush tax cut in 2001 and revenue in 2000 was $2.31 trillion. In 2008 revenue was $2.288 trillion. So after 8 years revenue was DOWN which in the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood bizarro-world that means revenue was up as a result of Bush's tax cuts.