The Tax Cut Myth

[loosecannon]

The tax cuts are generating RECORD revenues and the deficit is SHRINKING

NO that is simply false. Record revenues always occur, almost every year. NO evidence that the tax cuts helped.

And the deficit is NOT shrinking. The Budget simply excludes supplemental spending to create a false reading.

 

[Truthmatters]

The tax cuts are generating RECORD revenues and the deficit is SHRINKING

Libs cannot accept the fact that tax cuts are bringing in more revenue

Give Proof, you have been proven wrong so many times NO ONE trusts something you say off the top of your head.

Look I gave you hard core facts from the CBO.

Now give me something with Hard core facts from a trustable entity.

Not Oliely , not the Heritage foundation or their ilk.

 

[red states rule]

Tax receipts hit 1-day record of $48.7 billion
Flush year for high income investors pushes figure from $36.4 billion in 2006.
April 25 2007: 5:33 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Tax receipts from individuals hit a record one-day high of $48.7 billion on April 24, a Treasury Department official said on Wednesday.

The previous record was $36.4 billion, set on April 25, 2006, said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a Treasury spokeswoman.

The record reflects taxes not withheld from individuals over the course of the year, but paid to the government before this year's April 17 income-tax deadline.

While some of those tax payments come from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed, much of it was owed on income from investments or profits.

"This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The one-day total is a small fraction of the estimated $2.5 trillion in overall tax receipts the government is likely to collect in fiscal 2007, Crandall said.

But strong tax revenues point to the likelihood of a shrinking budget deficit, he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/25/new...y.taxes.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007042517





The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored
Filed under: Economy, MSM Biz/Other Bias, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:02 am
….. and the best may be yet to come.
___________________________________

A huge point has been virtually if not totally ignored since the announcement on Friday that the reported federal deficit for the fiscal year that ended a week ago was $250 billion — The Bush Administration has done what it said it would do about the deficit three years ago, and has done it a full three years early, i.e., in half the time predicted.

This continues what has been a very difficult past few years for those who deride supply-side economics. If Washington, with a little help from the states, lets the supply-side engine continue to chug along for next several years, the results could be so positively stunning that it would become impossible for supply-side detractors in touch with any part of the real world to hang on to the comfort of their static-analysis fantasyland.

But first, let’s recap what has happened in the past three fiscal years:

Tax receipts have soared by over 35% (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and 11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively) from $1.78 trillion to $2.41 trillion (2004 and 2005 results can be found at Page 2 of this PDF from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]; 2006’s receipts were estimated by adding the $253 billion revenue increase reported near the end of this longer story).
Despite the costs of the Iraq War, the rest of the War on Terror, Katrina relief, and not nearly enough control over other spending, the administration has accomplished its goal of cutting the reported deficit in half by the time it leaves office a full three years early (fiscal 2009, which ends a little less than three years from now, is the last budget over which the Bush Administration will have responsibility). Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press reported on the deficit yesterday (commented on here) but “somehow” missed this little nugget of good news, even though he reported on the administration’s original fiscal 2004 promise in a “not going to happen” manner just under a year ago on October 14, 2005 (last two paragraphs at link) –

The White House has set a goal of cutting the deficit in half from the $521 billion prediction for 2004 that it issued at the beginning of that year. (the original goal was therefore set sometime before October 1, 2003, the beginning of the 2004 fiscal year — Ed.)

The administration says it is still on track to reach that $260 billion goal by the time Bush leaves office. But administration budget projections leave out the long-term costs of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and have yet to be updated with cost estimates of hurricane relief.

Even with all of those costs included, the administration has reached its goal. How ’bout that, Andrew?

Economic growth has averaged an annualized 3.89% during the past 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts were passed. This is a record that for all practical purposes matches the best seven years of the Clinton administration, but trails the best seven years of the Reagan-Bush 41 and Kennedy Johnson eras, when more aggressive tax cuts were enacted:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/08...sion-accomplished-perhaps-a-lot-more-to-come/

 

[loosecannon]

"This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.

I doubt you have an inkling how your own posted article destroyed your case.

 

[red states rule]

I doubt you have an inkling how your own posted article destroyed your case.

The top 25% of earners pay about 85% of all federal income taxes

 

[Bern80]

The tax cuts are generating RECORD revenues and the deficit is SHRINKING

Libs cannot accept the fact that tax cuts are bringing in more revenue

Isn't the point though that we don't want gov't generating record revenues? That would simply mean they're spending more money, which we don't want.

Our problem is not making sure teh gov't has enough to spend. We are already give them way more than enough and they will always find something to spend it on.

A headline that would really catch my eye would be one saying gov't revenues at records lows. Then we'd be getting somewhere.

 

[red states rule]

Isn't the point though that we don't want gov't generating record revenues? That would simply mean they're spending more money, which we don't want.

Our problem is not making sure teh gov't has enough to spend. We are already give them way more than enough and they will always find something to spend it on.

A headline that would really catch my eye would be one saying gov't revenues at records lows. Then we'd be getting somewhere.

I agree, spending is insane

That is one reason the Republicans lost in Nov

Now, dems want to screw everything up by raising taxes by over $400 billion

Revenues are at record levels and the annual deficit is shrinking

Now is the time for more tax cuts

 

[JeffWartman]

I agree, spending is insane

That is one reason the Republicans lost in Nov

Now, dems want to screw everything up by raising taxes by over $400 billion

Revenues are at record levels and the annual deficit is shrinking

Now is the time for more tax cuts

You fail to see the logical fallacy in your argument...if you really want to cut spending, why do you care that revenues are up?

 

[red states rule]

You fail to see the logical fallacy in your argument...if you really want to cut spending, why do you care that revenues are up?

Because libs said the tax cuts would destroy the economy and take vital funding from needed government programs

They were wrong as usual

 

[JeffWartman]

Because libs said the tax cuts would destroy the economy and take vital funding from needed government programs

They were wrong as usual

You aren't really a Conservative, and neither are the Republicans.

You want to speak what we could spend the extra revenues on. If you really were Conservative, you'd return any extra revenues to the people instead of expanding Government at the rate that Bush has. When are you going to understand that Bush is big Government?

 

[red states rule]

You aren't really a Conservative, and neither are the Republicans.

You want to speak what we could spend the extra revenues on. If you really were Conservative, you'd return any extra revenues to the people instead of expanding Government at the rate that Bush has. When are you going to understand that Bush is big Government?

I posted how now is the time for more tax cuts

Get the money out of DC

 

[JeffWartman]

I posted how now is the time for more tax cuts

Get the money out of DC

Yet Bush has increased spending at an alarming rate. The only way to get the money out of DC is to get rid of the Republicans AND the Democrats (which our country is too cowardly to do)

 

[red states rule]

Yet Bush has increased spending at an alarming rate. The only way to get the money out of DC is to get rid of the Republicans AND the Democrats (which our country is too cowardly to do)

I also have said spending is insane

Damn it is hard as hell to agree with you on some points

 

[JeffWartman]

I also have said spending is insane

Damn it is hard as hell to agree with you on some points

And it's insane because we elect BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans like GEORGE W. BUSH!

How hard is it for you to understand that Bush is big government?

 

[JeffWartman]

Damn it is hard as hell to agree with you on some points

It is hard because I'm a free thinker and I do not blindly accept Republican or Democratic Party talking points.

 

[red states rule]

It is hard because I'm a free thinker and I do not blindly accept Republican or Democratic Party talking points.

It is hard because you can't seem to make up your mind on what you want

 

[JeffWartman]

It is hard because you can't seem to make up your mind on what you want

I have never "changed" by opinion at the drop of a hat, it's just that you can process the fact that someone can be not a Republican and not a Democrat.

I have always described myself this way: I am not a Republican, but I am really really really not a Democrat. Now, please, back to the topic. I notice you ignored my last point:

Please respond:

And it's insane because we elect BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans like GEORGE W. BUSH!

How hard is it for you to understand that Bush is big government?

 

[red states rule]

I have never "changed" by opinion at the drop of a hat, it's just that you can process the fact that someone can be not a Republican and not a Democrat.

I have always described myself this way: I am not a Republican, but I am really really really not a Democrat. Now, please, back to the topic. I notice you ignored my last point:

Please respond:

Then what are you?

a "moderate" or "middle of the roader"

I said spending needs to be cut - we do have a war going on as well - it costs money

 

[JeffWartman]

Then what are you?

a "moderate" or "middle of the roader"

No.

I said spending needs to be cut - we do have a war going on as well - it costs money

Yet you support a big government politician.

 

[red states rule]

No.



Yet you support a big government politician.

I support more tax cuts and reduced spending.

Witht he new Judhes on the SC it would be a perfect time for Pres Bush to bring back the line item veto

It would box the Dems into a corner where they would have to pass it