Another Liberal myth exposed: Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasurey

[asterism]

Now realize that the housing Boom caused Americans to pay more in taxes on their homes while the prices were inflated.

That is why tax revenue went up.

There's no federal tax on homes.

This country is doomed because these people just can not accept facts.

Thank the republican party for that

Wow!

 

[asterism]

The truth?

Every single time the conservatives get a leading role in the US government..the US economy suffers some economic disaster.

And I am not talking about moderates..like Eisenhower..I am talking batshit crazy types like Coolidge, Hoover, Reagan and George W Bush.

and Clinton.

What economic disaster happened under Clinton? The "dot com" bust was very minor and adjusted itself rather quickly. And it was a case of a new industry trying to find what works and what doesn't..so it was hardly a disaster. In fact..the US economy enjoyed a rather robust period of growth under Clinton, an upgrade in some major infrastructure, a whole host of new technology and ways to make money with it.

So anything else?

Minor? The NASDAQ was cut in half and never recovered.

 

[uscitizen]

The most persistant of myths are those who cannot be proven.
like tax cuts create jobs and revenue, God exists, etc.

 

[Dot Com]

maybe we should stop treating the cbo like an all-knowing entity.

Never said they were all-knowing. Just pointing out that Bush was handed one of the rosiest scenarios ever for a President, and look what we got.

Could you Possibly Be More Ignorant?

The Dot Com Crash - have you heard of it?

9/11 - have you heard of it?

During the first year of Bush's term, the economy was hit with a double whammy. The first began in Clinton's last year; the second was a result of Clinton's bungling of national security.

Are you speaking of 9/11?
Ashcroft "didn't want to hear of al Qaeda" in high threat summer of 2001 | Crooks and Liars

BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you met with our staff. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with the attorney general?

PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number, but I don't know the total.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?

PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.

BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That is correct.

(h/t Mike)

 

[Too Tall]

Bush came in office riding the wave aof a Clinton surplus economy and left us with a destroyed economy. Anyone that thinks the Bush Tax cuts added to the revenue is ignorant. There might have been some short term benefit from the very liitle tax cuts to the working class but the net result is 55% of the national debt is from the Bush Tax cuts. And your stats,assuming they are true, don't prove your point.

The dotcom bubble burst in March, 2000 and the NASDAQ lost half of it's value. That was what Clinton left Bush.

Recessions are defined in terms of declines in real GDP. By this definition the U.S. entered a recession in the third quarter of 2001 but statistics other than real GDP indicate that the problems for the economy developed in the summer of 2000. The current dollar and constant dollar (1996) GDP for the past sixteen quarters are shown in the table below.

The U.S. Recession of 2001-2002

 

[DontBeStupid]

According to your logic, really lack of, the Stock Market Crash of 2000 and 9/11 had no detrimental effects on anyone, much less policy makers.

I never said that. Didn't even hint to it. Why don't you want to talk about the issue?

The economy slowed in late 2000 and went negative in 2001 twice, but not consecutively, therefore, no recession. The 9/11 attacks obviously had an impact, but even you agree we were growing again in 2002.

So if the economy was growing, even slowly, why did tax receipts go down in 2002 and then go down AGAIN in 2003? You can't argue that they didn't go down, so if you think it was NOT due to Bush's actions, then what caused the decline?

During the first year of Bush's term, the economy was hit with a double whammy. The first began in Clinton's last year; the second was a result of Clinton's bungling of national security.

Factually incorrect on both counts. But regardless, that does not explain why it took 5 years for tax receipts to reach the levels they were in 2000.

You never said this, didn't even hint it, really?

DontBeStupid again....

Re-read what I wrote. Then stop. Then think about it. Then read it again. Ok? Here we go.

1) There was no recession that started in the last year of Clinton's presidency. That was what I was referring to when I said factually incorrect, because it is factually incorrect.
2) The 9/11 attacks did not happen because of bungled security by Clinton. That was what I was referring to when I said factually incorrect, because it is factually incorrect.
3) The 9/11 attacks and stock market decline had a detrimental affect on the economy and influenced policy makers. I have never said otherwise. I have never hinted at otherwise.

Ok. Now that you're confusion has been cleared up, perhaps you would like to address my question, one which I have asked multiple times now, why did tax receipts decline all three years Bush cut taxes?

 

[EriktheRed]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Moonie Times = RW crap


Got anything else?

 

[GWV5903]

I never said that. Didn't even hint to it. Why don't you want to talk about the issue?

The economy slowed in late 2000 and went negative in 2001 twice, but not consecutively, therefore, no recession. The 9/11 attacks obviously had an impact, but even you agree we were growing again in 2002.

So if the economy was growing, even slowly, why did tax receipts go down in 2002 and then go down AGAIN in 2003? You can't argue that they didn't go down, so if you think it was NOT due to Bush's actions, then what caused the decline?

Factually incorrect on both counts. But regardless, that does not explain why it took 5 years for tax receipts to reach the levels they were in 2000.

You never said this, didn't even hint it, really?

DontBeStupid again....

Re-read what I wrote. Then stop. Then think about it. Then read it again. Ok? Here we go.

1) There was no recession that started in the last year of Clinton's presidency. That was what I was referring to when I said factually incorrect, because it is factually incorrect.
2) The 9/11 attacks did not happen because of bungled security by Clinton. That was what I was referring to when I said factually incorrect, because it is factually incorrect.
3) The 9/11 attacks and stock market decline had a detrimental affect on the economy and influenced policy makers. I have never said otherwise. I have never hinted at otherwise.

Ok. Now that you're confusion has been cleared up, perhaps you would like to address my question, one which I have asked multiple times now, why did tax receipts decline all three years Bush cut taxes?

1. Wrong, there are numerous credible opinions to prove this point The U.S. Recession of 2001-2002 , The 2000 recession can tell us a lot about today's US economy how many more do you need before you understand your version is not supportable?
2. Wrong again, no real surprise, here you go Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize , Did Clinton miss shot at bin Laden?
3. Your statements say otherwise....

I answered your question several times, that you can't understand is not surprising....

 

[DontBeStupid]

1. Wrong, there are numerous credible opinions to prove this point

I prefer facts, thanks.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

2. Wrong again, no real surprise, here you go

/sigh You really need to work on your reading skills.

I never said Clinton did not have a chance to take out Bin Laden. Obviously he did. But to blame Clinton for the 2001 attacks because of unsuccessful missions in 1998 is just ludicrous. It assumes absolutely nothing happened in the intervening 3 years, and we all know Bush had intel that was ignored very, very close to the attack. I mean, this is like blaming Bush for the state of the economy today! Who would do that?

3. Your statements say otherwise....

Only to you, because you refuse to think about them.

I answered your question several times, that you can't understand is not surprising....

Ok then. So, you're opinion is that the dot com bubble burst and slow down in the economy coupled with the 9/11 attacks had a 3 year impact on tax receipts, such that receipts dropped three years straight, something that has never happened in modern history. Additionally, you believe that all these negative affects were focused solely on tax receipts and not the economy as a whole, as you believe that in 2002 the economy was growing again.

Oh, and you can provide zero evidence supporting this opinion.

Well, at least now I know the type of person I'm dealing with.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with trickle down economics is there are so many if's involved. The wealthy may use the money from a tax cut to invest either at home or abroad. If they invest in the US, they may investment in treasuries, which does nothing to expand the economy, or they may pay down debt which provides little economic growth, or they may just put the money in the bank waiting for a better investment climate.

But one thing is certain, cutting taxes reduces government revenue. It may be offset by economic expansion or it may not.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Yup, great pub bubble! How'd that work out?

 

[auditor0007]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

Problem was that the vast majority of all the economic growth took place due to the housing boom. And we all know what happened with that. When it went bust, guess what happened to all that extra tax revenue? It was created by a big bubble, and when it burst, so did all that extra tax revenue as well as nearly ten million jobs. So how much extra tax revenue are we collecting today? In 2010, the federal government collected about $100 billion more than in 2000. Of course, GDP was 50% greater than in 2000, but revenue was down 30% as a percentage of GDP.

 

[uscitizen]

Why did they call it the .com bubble? It was really the Y2K bubble.
all the money being spent to repair and check software for Y2K suddenly dried up when Y2K rolled around.
And the world did not end, etc.

 

[midcan5]

Some recent comment.

"The Irish case also offers little support for the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves by goosing growth. The cut in the corporate tax rate did not aid Irish companies' bottom lines so much as it attracted extraordinary amounts of foreign capital. International firms like Pfizer relocated their European headquarters to the country to take advantage of the low tax rates. All those new companies contributed to an expanded corporate tax base. (Now, Ireland, suffering from crippling debts, is scared to raise the tax rate, which might encourage the companies to leave.) ¶ In short, those who say that every tax cut pays for itself are simply wrong." Do tax cuts ever "pay for themselves"? Rarely. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine


Ten Years Of The Bush Tax Cuts | ThinkProgress
>

 

[Sallow]

Why did they call it the .com bubble? It was really the Y2K bubble.
all the money being spent to repair and check software for Y2K suddenly dried up when Y2K rolled around.
And the world did not end, etc.

It didn't "dry" up..the work got done. It mostly involved adding two characters to the year field. I worked on many projects doing just that. While it may sound simple..it wasn't. And it was a heroic effort to upgrade the software.

The Dot com "bubble" really wasn't a bubble at all. What really happened was a new platform for doing business was created with the advent of the internet. People were trying to figure out the best way to utilize it. Some things worked and some didn't. But it wasn't the disaster the Conservatives like to make it out to be. In fact..it was basically in line with the whole "Free Market" idea. If your idea was ok, you survive..if not..you fail.

No bail outs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me know if you require proof.

If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.

You didn't ask, so you probably know that the facts puncture any claim you have of living in a reality based world...but just in case anyone thinks you have a jot of fact on your side....

here it is. Read it and weep.

The actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4+ trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

 

[Truthmatters]

How much under bush?

 

[PoliticalChic]

During the first year of Bush's term, the economy was hit with a double whammy. The first began in Clinton's last year; the second was a result of Clinton's bungling of national security.

Factually incorrect on both counts. But regardless, that does not explain why it took 5 years for tax receipts to reach the levels they were in 2000.

"NEW YORK (CNNfn) - U.S. stocks plummeted Friday, capping off five days of stunning losses that handed the Nasdaq composite index its worst weekly performance of all time and the Dow Jones industrial average its steepest one-session point loss in history.
The Dow tumbled more than 600 points, trouncing the previous record and triggering circuit breakers at the New York Stock Exchange. The sell-off gave the Nasdaq its biggest point loss of all time, topping the last No. 1 plunge set just five days ago.
But the statistical standout could be this: the Nasdaq fell more than 25 percent this week, trouncing the 19 percent fall that began Oct. 21, 1987, Black Monday."
Nasdaq, Dow take nosedive - Apr. 14, 2000

Mach and April of 2000....Who was President?

Knucklehead.

 

[Robert]

This country is doomed because these people just can not accept facts.

Thank the republican party for that

No this Nation is doomed because of hyper partisan politic's coming from people who think they know more then they really do

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with trickle down economics is there are so many if's involved. The wealthy may use the money from a tax cut to invest either at home or abroad. If they invest in the US, they may investment in treasuries, which does nothing to expand the economy, or they may pay down debt which provides little economic growth, or they may just put the money in the bank waiting for a better investment climate.

But one thing is certain, cutting taxes reduces government revenue. It may be offset by economic expansion or it may not.

1. As President Warren Harding's secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh multimillionaire, molded the relationship between government and business during the 1920s, a relationship that influenced politics throughout the decade. Committed to retrenchment and economy in government, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon reduced federal spending vigorously. He consistently opposed the veterans' bonus bill and the McNary-Haugen farm bills. But even more central to Mellon's financial vision than spending reduction was tax reduction, especially for the rich. Mellon rejected the progressive philosophy of taxation that insisted those Americans most able to pay should pay more taxes. Instead the he articulated a philosophy later known as "trickle-down economics." Taxing the rich, Mellon argued, inhibited their investment ability, thus impeding job growth and the entire economy. Without a heavy tax burden, the wealthy would invest, create jobs, and ultimately all participants in the economy would become beneficiaries of investors' tax-free profits as prosperity filtered down to workers and farmers, Mellon argued. Republicans eagerly returned America to a peacetime budget, dramatically reducing government spending that had grown substantially during World War I. Congress did, however, approve substantial tax cuts in 1921. This was the first of many tax reductions enacted during the decade at Mellon's instigation, as he was reappointed secretary of the treasury during both Coolidge's and Hoover's administrations. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468300843.html

a. Oprah only lives in her Ca. mansion for the requisite number of days so that she doesn’t have to pay Ca. resident taxes.

b. U2 moved their company hq to Netherlands when Ireland raised income tax

c. Michael Moore got a tax credit from Michigan for filming in that state. Michael Moore, Michigan Film Incentive [Mackinac Center]

2. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows.

A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

3. The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

4. One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21% Hsing, Y. (1996), "Estimating the Laffer curve and policy implications", Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (3): 395–401, doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90013-X, ScienceDirect - Journal of Socio-Economics : Estimating the laffer curve and policy implications*1

5. . A headline in this morning’s Baltimore Sun — “Maryland lost nearly 30% of millionaires last year” — is sure to revive a debate over the higher tax rates that Free State legislators imposed on millionaires in 2008. At least eight other states this year followed Maryland’s lead and raised income taxes on the wealthy.

As The Sun reports, the Maryland state comptroller found that the number of state residents with net taxable income of $1 million or more declined from 7,067 in 2007 to 4,910 last year — the lowest number in four years. Maryland Republicans who opposed hiking taxes on millionaires in 2008 predicted that the higher rates would drive the wealthy to move to other states with lower income taxes. Democrats refuted that notion.Md. 'millionaire's tax' debate is back