The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[Widdekind]

...The term "everybody", in "from everybody's wallet", is personalizing the object "business"

Taxes "hit people in their wallets", i.e. "take their Money"; only Lethal Force is "more personal"

Describe the mechanism by which "Taxes "burden" economies, raising Prices, reducing Quantities, costing both Consumers & Producers"

"deadweight loss is the area of the triangle formed by the tax income box, the original supply curve, and the demand curve."​

What business sector ... to which business taxes are re-allocated? and how it this done? Do some agricultural businesses get an effective negative tax?

subsides ??

Taxes "make or break" marginally Profitable businesses (specifically);

Present a "for instance" of a small marginally profitable business (specifically) being "made or broken"...

you yourself said "small businesses" are "marginally profitable", so most impacted by Tax increases / decreases

 

[Widdekind]

"Government Gun" is a subjective feeling and has no place in economics.

try opposing Laws, backed by Government Force, and your "subjective feelings" will seem small, compared to "objective death & wounds"

... I have absolutely no concern for "objective death and wounds" caused by the government. The idea never crossed my mind, not like ever, until you brought them up.

"you and everybody else"

Government Force is "soft-peddled"; voters enact Laws that "shove Government Guns in others' faces", whilst denying their de facto threats of Coercive Force, against their countrymen, against whom their Laws impinge ("who, me?")

That "Government Gun" isn't a problem for me, because they don't carry that gun to make me do anything. I do whatever I want to do.

then you are "Shah, Lord of Lords, King of Kings"

prima facie, others on this forum are forced to pay (self-perceived-to-be-)exorbitant Taxes, against their own personal wills; perhaps they pay their Taxes to you

Profits derive from prior "sales"; Taxes on Profits represent "double jeopardy", re-Taxing already-(sales-)Taxed Money ("getting mugged, then re-mugged a block away"); legally, "double jeopardy" is non-valid

That makes absolutely no mathematical sense...

i make a "widget"; i sell the "widget"; i pay "sales Tax", which reduces my Profits

then i pay "business Tax", on my already-reduced Profits, i.e. "double-jeopardy"

 

[JakeStarkey]

itfitzme continues to wax these dolts.

 

[itfitzme]

I like to play with little boys pee pees

Do you always misquote others?

Advertising does not create money. Advertising does not increase money.

Advertising does not create demand.

Advertising does not increase demand in the aggregate market. Advertising shifts demand from one place to another.

Micro economics is not macro economics.

for the past century, ~2% GDP has been spent on "advertising", now amounting to ~300 billion dollars per year

Coke and Pepsi advertise to shift demand away from the other.

Visa shifts demand away from MasterCard.

McDonald's shifts demand away from Carl's Jrs.

Dyson invented a new vacuum cleaner, shifting demand away from Kirby and others.

Demand requires, at least, money and willingness to pay.

Advertising does not create money. Advertising does not increase money. Advertising does not create demand. Advertising does not increase demand in the aggregate market. Advertising shifts demand from one place to another.

Unless, in the case that a need exists, like a faster way to clean the floor, and someone invents a vacuum cleaner. Then, if consumers have money to purchase it, advertising can attach the need to the new product. It did, though, in three out of four ways, create the demand. It added one out of four things to the requirements for demand.

Advertising does not increase or create demand in any appreciable manner, not when you start identifying the real physically measurable factors.

 

[itfitzme]

...The term "everybody", in "from everybody's wallet", is personalizing the object "business"

Taxes "hit people in their wallets", i.e. "take their Money"; only Lethal Force is "more personal"s

The OP is about corporate taxes, not individual income taxes. Business tax calculations are different from individual income tax calculations. That taxes hit people in their wallets has nothing to do with the question of how corporate taxes affect aggregate GDP.

Your wasting my time with your unreadable fonts and your inability to stay focused on the context and details.

 

[itfitzme]

Since our highest in the world corporate tax rate is currently 39%, I figured even an idiot like you would realize Bush didn't cut rates.

Do you simply not recall who it was that said Bush cut tax rates?

Are you completely unable to read?

By all means, present a quote where I said Bush cut corporate tax rates.

You endlessly show yourself as so out of touch with reality that you cannot even read your computer screen in front of your face, let alone tell the difference between what is inside your head and what is outside. You really need to be on anti-psychotic meds, dude. Seriously, your not in touch with basic reality.

Yes, another idiot said it.
I showed you both that he didn't.

You can pretend you "showed" all you want, but it doesn't make it really happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really does help move a rational discussion on if one knows what they are discussing. There were two phases - 2001 and 2003 - of the Bush so-called 'tax cuts', and these seem to have been lumped together in most discussions, even in media commentary..

A brief summary of the George W. Bush tax policy that passed a Republican controlled House and Senate, but both were more modest versions of what President Bush asked for:

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
The main elements of EGTRRA were:
• phased-in reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively;
• phased-in increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
• marriage penalty relief in the form of adjustment of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax
bracket;
• phased-in reduction in estate taxes with a one-year repeal in 2010;
• eight narrow education tax breaks, including education IRAs;
• phased-in expansion of contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000; and
• substantial pension liberalization.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)
JGTRRA included the following tax cut provisions
:
• reduced the maximum dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15 percent;
• the phased-in tax rate cuts from the 2001 tax law were made effective immediately;
• increased capital expensing for business equipment from 30 percent to 50 percent; and
• increased small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/edwards-tax-notes-gop.pdf

And the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit as some would suggest. You can see that treasury revenues were declining at the end of the Clinton administration as a new cyclical recession was developing. That was hugely escalated and deepened by 9/11. But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

 

[itfitzme]

It really does help move a rational discussion on if one knows what they are discussing. There were two phases - 2001 and 2003 - of the Bush so-called 'tax cuts', and these seem to have been lumped together in most discussions, even in media commentary..

A brief summary of the George W. Bush tax policy that passed a Republican controlled House and Senate, but both were more modest versions of what President Bush asked for:

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
The main elements of EGTRRA were:
• phased-in reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively;
• phased-in increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
• marriage penalty relief in the form of adjustment of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax
bracket;
• phased-in reduction in estate taxes with a one-year repeal in 2010;
• eight narrow education tax breaks, including education IRAs;
• phased-in expansion of contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000; and
• substantial pension liberalization.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)
JGTRRA included the following tax cut provisions
:
• reduced the maximum dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15 percent;
• the phased-in tax rate cuts from the 2001 tax law were made effective immediately;
• increased capital expensing for business equipment from 30 percent to 50 percent; and
• increased small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/edwards-tax-notes-gop.pdf

And the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit as some would suggest. You can see that treasury revenues were declining at the end of the Clinton administration as a new cyclical recession was developing. That was hugely escalated and deepened by 9/11. But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

You are leaving out the outlay side. At the same time tax cuts, government spending increased.

You cannot ignore one half of the data.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really does help move a rational discussion on if one knows what they are discussing. There were two phases - 2001 and 2003 - of the Bush so-called 'tax cuts', and these seem to have been lumped together in most discussions, even in media commentary..

A brief summary of the George W. Bush tax policy that passed a Republican controlled House and Senate, but both were more modest versions of what President Bush asked for:

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
The main elements of EGTRRA were:
• phased-in reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively;
• phased-in increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
• marriage penalty relief in the form of adjustment of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax
bracket;
• phased-in reduction in estate taxes with a one-year repeal in 2010;
• eight narrow education tax breaks, including education IRAs;
• phased-in expansion of contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000; and
• substantial pension liberalization.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)
JGTRRA included the following tax cut provisions
:
• reduced the maximum dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15 percent;
• the phased-in tax rate cuts from the 2001 tax law were made effective immediately;
• increased capital expensing for business equipment from 30 percent to 50 percent; and
• increased small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/edwards-tax-notes-gop.pdf

And the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit as some would suggest. You can see that treasury revenues were declining at the end of the Clinton administration as a new cyclical recession was developing. That was hugely escalated and deepened by 9/11. But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

You are leaving out the outlay side. At the same time tax cuts, government spending increased.

You cannot ignore one half of the data.

We weren't discussing defiits or I would have included the spending side. I just wanted to clear up exactly what was in the tax reforms because so many of the folks posting were totally misrepresenting what that was all about. Also to dispel the oft repeated notion that it was the tax reform that wiped out the Clinton surplus and created huge deficits. I intended to show that not to be the case.

What created the huge deficits was that Congress and the President were spending so much more than even the greatly increased revenues could cover. It was indefensible, cost the GOP their majorities in both the House and Senate in 2006, and triggered the first stirrings of the Tea Party movement. But the Democrats did no better, and in fact did worse with the deficit spending in 2007 and 2008.

But wouldn't we love to have those deficits now instead of what we have had since 2008 and are still facing as far as the eye can see?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you simply not recall who it was that said Bush cut tax rates?

Are you completely unable to read?

By all means, present a quote where I said Bush cut corporate tax rates.

You endlessly show yourself as so out of touch with reality that you cannot even read your computer screen in front of your face, let alone tell the difference between what is inside your head and what is outside. You really need to be on anti-psychotic meds, dude. Seriously, your not in touch with basic reality.

Yes, another idiot said it.
I showed you both that he didn't.

You can pretend you "showed" all you want, but it doesn't make it really happen.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.

 

[Widdekind]

Advertising does not create demand. Advertising does not increase demand... Advertising shifts demand from one place to another.

Unless...

Advertisers spend nearly $300B / yr. on advertising; ipso facto, that advertising generates >$300B / yr. of additional revenues, not realizable, without that advertising; ipso facto, advertising increases demand, by >$300B / yr.

you talk; they spend; i "follow the money"

The OP is about corporate taxes, not individual income taxes.

according to Wikipedia, "supply-side" economics apologizes, for reduced taxes, for both "wealthy" individuals (potential private investors), and for businesses

 

[itfitzme]

But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

You are leaving out the outlay side. At the same time tax cuts, government spending increased.

You cannot ignore one half of the data.

We weren't discussing defiits or I would have included the spending side. ....

I am well aware of what you said. What you said was "But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop."

I apologize, I should have quoted only the single statement so you knew what you said.

What I said was that you can't ignore the outlays.

Nor can it be looked at in terms of nominal dollars. And it must be taken in terms of per capita.

I get what you're saying. You're saying that you know it is tax cuts that increase GDP and you know it is not government spending. So you know you don't need to look at spending. Then you go looking at receipts to prove what you already have decided and ignore the spending. It's called confirmation bias.

When you don't look at both sides, you miss the bigger picture.

Here is an alternate hypothesis. The increase in outlays stimulated GDP and resulted in higher tax receipts. That is the flip side of it. On one side, they reduce taxes, giving the economy a temporary bump. On the other side, they increase spending, given the economy an even bigger boost. Then tax receipts go up. And it's really great when they spend more then they take in. It creates an even bigger boost.

The treasury revenues soared at the same time that the outlays increased.

Here is both sides of the government budget, not just the one that we like.

It is in real dollars per capita, which is the only rational way to look at it. We cannot compare two different time periods without it. Population grows. The CPI grows.

And, just describing it, the two curves that look most the same are the receipts and the deficit. The deficit seems to be a function of receipts and taxes.

Obviously though, Surplus = (- deficit) = receipts - outlays. So it is a function of both. Why does it look more like the receipts than the outlays? Because the receipts have a high frequency component that stands out against the low frequency of the outlays.

Curiously, at the same time that the tax cuts were implemented, the outlays per capita began to go up.

There is no way to separate the effect of the outlays from the tax cuts when they both happen simultaneously. To say that it is only the tax cuts also requires proving that it was not the spending.

The US government is the largest business in the US economy.

According to Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2000 - Charts Tables History, federal government total spending was 18% of the GDP. And in 2001 it started to increase. (32.6% total federal, state, etc.)

That aside, more interestingly is the trend in the outlays since 2001.

Outlays, in real dollars per capita, has increased at a near linear rate since 2001.

We cannot claim it was the tax cuts while ignoring the spending.

Here is a thought, it is supply AND demand, tax cuts AND spending.

 

[Widdekind]

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)...

• phased-in reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively;
• phased-in increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
• marriage penalty relief in the form of adjustment of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax
bracket;
• phased-in reduction in estate taxes with a one-year repeal in 2010;
• eight narrow education tax breaks, including education IRAs;
• phased-in expansion of contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000; and
• substantial pension liberalization.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)...

• reduced the maximum dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15 percent;
• the phased-in tax rate cuts from the 2001 tax law were made effective immediately;
• increased capital expensing for business equipment from 30 percent to 50 percent; and
• increased small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000

...treasury revenues were declining at the end of the Clinton administration, as a new cyclical recession was developing. That was hugely escalated and deepened by 9/11. But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

naively, 2001 AD "tax cuts" focused on wealthy individuals; 2003 AD "tax cuts" focused on businesses; the latter led to immediate economic expansion

• increasing total Government "revenue" (above)
• increasing per-capita Government "revenue" (below)

until election-year 2008 AD ("partisan politics will be Justified in The End" ?)

you can't ignore the outlays. Nor can it be looked at in terms of nominal dollars. And it must be taken... in real dollars per capita... Population grows. The CPI grows...

The increase in outlays stimulated GDP, and resulted in higher tax receipts... they reduce taxes, giving the economy a temporary bump. On the other side, they increase spending, given the economy an even bigger boost. Then tax receipts go up. And it's really great when they spend more then they take in. It creates an even bigger boost.

The treasury revenues soared at the same time that the outlays increased... the receipts have a high frequency component that stands out against the low frequency of the outlays... at the same time that the tax cuts were implemented, the outlays per capita began to go up.

increases in Government "expenditures" increased from 2001 AD; increases in Government "revenues" (total & per-capita) increased only from 2003 AD; if "increased outlays stimulated GDP", then GDP would have been stimulated from 2001 AD ("at the same time", as you said), not +2 years later (as the numbers say).

naively, business-focused "tax cuts" loosed immediate economic boom

 

[Foxfyre]

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)...

• phased-in reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively;
• phased-in increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
• marriage penalty relief in the form of adjustment of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax
bracket;
• phased-in reduction in estate taxes with a one-year repeal in 2010;
• eight narrow education tax breaks, including education IRAs;
• phased-in expansion of contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000; and
• substantial pension liberalization.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)...

• reduced the maximum dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15 percent;
• the phased-in tax rate cuts from the 2001 tax law were made effective immediately;
• increased capital expensing for business equipment from 30 percent to 50 percent; and
• increased small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000

...treasury revenues were declining at the end of the Clinton administration, as a new cyclical recession was developing. That was hugely escalated and deepened by 9/11. But after the tax policy took off in 2003, treasury revenues soared until the housing bubble crisis began to develop.

naively, 2001 AD "tax cuts" focused on wealthy individuals; 2003 AD "tax cuts" focused on businesses; the latter led to immediate economic expansion

• increasing total Government "revenue" (above)
• increasing per-capita Government "revenue" (below)

until election-year 2008 AD ("partisan politics will be Justified in The End" ?)

you can't ignore the outlays. Nor can it be looked at in terms of nominal dollars. And it must be taken... in real dollars per capita... Population grows. The CPI grows...

The increase in outlays stimulated GDP, and resulted in higher tax receipts... they reduce taxes, giving the economy a temporary bump. On the other side, they increase spending, given the economy an even bigger boost. Then tax receipts go up. And it's really great when they spend more then they take in. It creates an even bigger boost.

The treasury revenues soared at the same time that the outlays increased... the receipts have a high frequency component that stands out against the low frequency of the outlays... at the same time that the tax cuts were implemented, the outlays per capita began to go up.

increases in Government "expenditures" increased from 2001 AD; increases in Government "revenues" (total & per-capita) increased only from 2003 AD; if "increased outlays stimulated GDP", then GDP would have been stimulated from 2001 AD ("at the same time", as you said), not +2 years later (as the numbers say).

naively, business-focused "tax cuts" loosed immediate economic boom

Naively, your opinion that the 2001 tax policy focused on breaks for the rich is simply not true, but your opinion does illustrate your bias and left leaning ideology. The 2001 tax policy was infinitely more valuable to the less-than-rich on everything from the Roth IRA's, which the ultra rich don't have much need for, to child tax credits--significant for the less-than-rich and a drop in the bucket for the ultra rich. That policy allowed many less-than-rich people to keep the family farm which they otherwise might not have been able to do. And they resulted in the ultra-rich paying far more in additional taxes than those taxes paid by the less-than-rich, many of whom were dropped off the federal income tax rolls altogether.

It is true that the expensing and capital gains changes did facilitate a huge economic boom which was especially advantageous to the less-than-rich who was better equipped to take advantage of it mostly because of those 2001 reforms. I know because Mr. Foxfyre and I were some of the lucky less-than-rich who were able to prosper and set ourselves up to prepare for retirment far better than we otherwise would have been able to do so.

 

[Widdekind]

It is true that the expensing and capital gains changes did facilitate a huge economic boom

yes, prima facie, business-focused "tax cuts" yielded immediate economic expansion

 

[itfitzme]

Advertising does not create demand. Advertising does not increase demand... Advertising shifts demand from one place to another.

Unless...

Misquoting me by stripping out the remainder of the text doesn't prove anything.

Advertisers spend nearly $300B / yr. on advertising; ipso facto, that advertising generates >$300B / yr. of additional revenues, not realizable, without that advertising; ipso facto, advertising increases demand, by >$300B / yr.

you talk; they spend; i "follow the money"

$300 B/year isn't an increase. It is a static amount. For it to be an increase, it has to uh.....oh what......I know, INCREASE.

The fact that the industry spent $300 B doesn't prove that advertising increased demand. It simply indicates that without the advertising, people would buy the other guys product instead of theirs or save the money.

Advertisers, like Coke and Pepsi, must spend enormous amounts of money because if they didn't, they would lose market share to a competitor. It doesn't create demand, a point I already make, it keeps the customers they have and hopefully shifts demand from their competitor. And you would get this if you would spend more time understanding the ideas instead of coming up with some meaningless point that you think is proof of something. If you put as much time into actually learning the fundamentals or actually thinking about the details of how money physically moves, necessary for demand, as you do making fonts, you might just get it in a few months.

In order for there to be an increase in demand there has to be an increase in what? Oh yeah, means and willingness. Means equals money. So there has to be an increase in money on the demand side. No money, no demand.

And if you are saying that the spending of $300 B/year is creating demand due to Say's law is equally wrong because 1) it isn't an increase, it is a static amount and 2) Say's law doesn't function in the short run.

-

Skipping around, from one market to another, from macro to micro, from one disconnected point to another disconnected point doesn't prove anything. You simply confuse yourself because you are suffering from a manic illness or attention deficit disorder.

The OP is about corporate taxes, not individual income taxes.

according to Wikipedia, "supply-side" economics apologizes, for reduced taxes, for both "wealthy" individuals (potential private investors), and for businesses

The OP is about corporate taxes, followed by an example of exactly what he meant, Ireland corporate tax rates.

Then there was a whole part of the thread, that followed, that discussed demand in terms of increasing corporate profit by decreasing taxes and increasing supply, basically Say's law.

Creating a straw man argument, by changing the topic from the OP and from my following the OP doesn't prove anything.

And frankly, between your being all over the place, and your excessive use of fonts, it is as hard for me to follow your incoherent ideas as it is for you to follow them yourself. I for one, am not going to go back through all the thread trying to figure out what you think your talking about. If you have a coherent thought that actually connects two things, try putting it in one comment. If you notice, you will find that others manage to actually write an intelligent paragraph where you seem to be able to come up with no more than a tweet.

You have yourself completely confused. You are not able to distinguish between micro and macro economics. You are not able to distinguish between direct and indirect effects. You are clueless as to what "ceteris paribus" is. And you don't seem to understand what "increase" means.

Your whole thought process and argument is dependent upon changing from micro to macro, from corporate to individual, from the original OP to whatever will get you some myopic non-sequiter point.

All you've done is to kluge together a whole bunch of disconnected effects. Then created an illusion for your self by adding all sorts of useless fonts, like somehow fonts make it more real.

The reason that you have a whole bunch of disconnected effects that you think prove something is because you are not actually following the money. Your simply grabbing some static amount, skipping over the entire path, then cramming it into some indirect and marginally connected place.

At this point, though, your not generating any new ideas for me.

When you're ready to try sticking to a concept instead of demonstrating that you need to be on a mood stabilizer or Ritlin, let us know.

In the mean time, I suggest you study the text that I have linked below.

Then draw a flow diagram and actually follow the money. You need to look at it at the level of the exchange, actual economic agents before you will be able to work with it at a macro economic level.

 

[itfitzme]

It is true that the expensing and capital gains changes did facilitate a huge economic boom

yes, prima facie, business-focused "tax cuts" yielded immediate economic expansion

Bullshit. Prove it.

 

[itfitzme]

if "increased outlays stimulated GDP", then GDP would have been stimulated from 2001 AD ("at the same time", as you said), not +2 years later (as the numbers say).

naively, business-focused "tax cuts" loosed immediate economic boom

So I checked, and it did.

Real GDP (CPI adjusted) per capita increased at exactly the same time as real outlays per capita.

 

[itfitzme]

if "increased outlays stimulated GDP", then GDP would have been stimulated from 2001 AD ("at the same time", as you said), not +2 years later

Based on what?

(as the numbers say).

What numbers?

 

[itfitzme]

...if "increased outlays stimulated GDP", then GDP would have been stimulated from 2001 AD ("at the same time", as you said), not +2 years later (as the numbers say).

naively, business-focused "tax cuts" loosed immediate economic boom

Naively, your opinion that the 2001 tax policy focused on breaks for the rich is simply not true, but your opinion does illustrate your bias and left leaning ideology. The 2001 tax policy was infinitely more valuable to the less-than-rich on everything from the Roth IRA's, which the ultra rich don't have much need for, to child tax credits--significant for the less-than-rich and a drop in the bucket for the ultra rich. That policy allowed many less-than-rich people to keep the family farm which they otherwise might not have been able to do. And they resulted in the ultra-rich paying far more in additional taxes than those taxes paid by the less-than-rich, many of whom were dropped off the federal income tax rolls altogether.

It is true that the expensing and capital gains changes did facilitate a huge economic boom which was especially advantageous to the less-than-rich who was better equipped to take advantage of it mostly because of those 2001 reforms. I know because Mr. Foxfyre and I were some of the lucky less-than-rich who were able to prosper and set ourselves up to prepare for retirment far better than we otherwise would have been able to do so.

So, here is the GDP in real dollars per capita compared to the budget receipts and outlays per capita, beginning in 2000 and ending in 2006.

Which two curves are most alike?

I didn't expect that. All I do is try to demonstrate someone's claim.

But, it doesn't take any fancy statistical analysis to see that. Kind of hard to ignore the spending side. Especially when the percentage of the GDP was 18% in 2000 and increasing right along with GDP.