The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[Toddsterpatriot]

the empirical evidence in the US is that cutting income taxes reduces revenues.

the objective is not to raise money for liberal fools to waste but to keep money in the hands of those who earned and can invest it wisely and sustainabley to boost the economy. Yes, not all income tax cuts are supply side income tax cuts . Bush's 2003 supply side tax are, for example, the ones that worked. Cap gains works, etc.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues. That is generally true for cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains to some extent and natural resource royalties. In the US, it is not true for income taxes, except for perhaps extremely high rates. Thus, supply side dogma fails on the biggest revenue generator for the federal government.

Cutting taxes AND cutting spending generally but not always increases economic growth.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues.

It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....

 

[The Rabbi]

How many instances would you like?

Ireland's economy was a shambles from WW2 to the 1990s when they started cutting taxes. The economy bloomed when they did so.
Slovenia was another ex-commie country until they simplified the tax code and reduced regulation. They became a very fast growing country.
Ditto with Latvia.

Germany post war had relatively low taxes until the 1970s, when they went up to pay for generous social spending. After that time their economic growth slowed.
We could go on and on with example after example. If you penalize something, you get less of it. If you tax profit you get less profit. This is pretty obvious.

At least 5 or 6 instances. And numbers like GDP before and after tax cut, and some references to back it up. If you want to prove a point, do some work to back it up. Don't expect your audience to do the work. Common knowledge is meaningless and often incorrect in economics. As far as I'm concerned you've given no instances to me since I'm not familiar with the instances that you've alluded to. You can go to my site to see how it should be done if you want to. Reduce Unemployment with Little Price Increase
What made Slovenia more efficient? Tax cutting OR reduced regulation or both. Don't be sloppy. Stick to the point that you want to prove.

If you tax profit you get less profit is far from obvious and could easily be wrong as far as I'm concerned. If the taxes were used to benefit the taxpayers then the payers could come out ahead.

Would a doctoral thesis on the subject be OK with you?
**** you and the horse you rode in on.

 

[Toro]

the objective is not to raise money for liberal fools to waste but to keep money in the hands of those who earned and can invest it wisely and sustainabley to boost the economy. Yes, not all income tax cuts are supply side income tax cuts . Bush's 2003 supply side tax are, for example, the ones that worked. Cap gains works, etc.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues. That is generally true for cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains to some extent and natural resource royalties. In the US, it is not true for income taxes, except for perhaps extremely high rates. Thus, supply side dogma fails on the biggest revenue generator for the federal government.

Cutting taxes AND cutting spending generally but not always increases economic growth.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues.

It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....

The Laffer Curve is a central tenant of "supply side" economics. Supply side economics focuses on increasing supply, with the basic prescriptions being free market dogma. But "free market" is not necessarily "supply side" economics. There is nothing in traditional free market philosophy that says cutting taxes increases revenues, for instance. Using the two interchangeably isn't correct.

 

[itfitzme]

the objective is not to raise money for liberal fools to waste but to keep money in the hands of those who earned and can invest it wisely and sustainabley to boost the economy. Yes, not all income tax cuts are supply side income tax cuts . Bush's 2003 supply side tax are, for example, the ones that worked. Cap gains works, etc.

Except that they didn't do anything. He did create three years of the historically largest budget deficits in the history of the US government.

Year Deficit (millions)
2003 $377585
2004 $412727
2005 $318346

They raised GDP and brought us out of recession. Using Obamabot logic, Bush's tax cuts saved us from another Great Depression.
United States GDP Growth Rate

It's easy to just blurt out unsubstantiated bs with no evidence, then throw up a link to some data you never looked at. You can do that all day long. It doesn't mean anything.

There was a recession in March of 2001 that ended in November of 2001. The next recession was in 2007.

There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted in 2003. They were set to expire in 2010.

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

In order for the Bush Tax Cuts to be concluded as effective, given that they didn't expire until 2010, there would have to have been no recession between the time they became effective and 2010.

There was a recession in 2007.

That alone is sufficient to prove that the Bush tax cuts did NOT save us from a recession or another Great Depression.

But why stop there when we can examine quarterly percentage change in real GDP vs the tax cuts in more detail.

I was really hoping the data would support your premise, that tax cuts relieve declines in the GDP. I thought, for sure, they would at least cause a slight uptick. They didn't.

Here is the graph of the change in real GDP along with the Bush tax cuts marked.
(Excel doesn't like to get the dates on 1/1/year very well because there are actually 365.25 average days in a year. Then it shifts back an forth on leap years. So I went for 365.5 days. That way, the date has January it it, but the day creeps forward every four years)

The mid 2001 tax cuts were signed into law by President George W. Bush on 7 June 2001. We will assume that they went into effect immediately.

The GDP was already accelerating when they went into effect. It then decelerated.

The GDP saw an acceleration from September of 2001 through March of 2002 at which point it began to decelerate. It decelerated from March of 2002 through January of 2003. It then began to accelerate.

The Bush Tax cuts of 2003, "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", were passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 28, 2003.

The GDP continued to accelerate, from the initial start in January of 2003, for three quarters, through September of 2003. The GDP began to accelerate before the Bush Tax cuts of 2003 were signed into law. They didn't cause the GDP to accelerate.

From September 2003 through December of 2008, the GDP continued to show a general rate of deceleration. It went up and down, but the trend continued downward until the recession when it tanked. The Bush tax cuts were in place at the time of the recession.

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts occurred after the GDP was already accelerating. There was a deceleration after the 2001 cuts. And the economy was already accelerating when the 2003 cuts were signed. It began to decelerate shortly after. This creates a bit of a problem. Cause comes before effect.

If you want to claim the 2001 cut were responsible for the mediocre upward trend in the two year that followed, then you have to also claim that the 2003 tax cuts killed it.

There are only two choices. They did nothing or they made things worse. You cannot conclude that they made things better.

I'm just being generous. There is no reason to conclude that they caused an increase in GDP. There is every reason conclude that the Bush tax cuts caused a secondary decline after the 2001 recession then the 2003 tax cuts nailed the coffin shut.

If you have specific details that shed more light on it, by all means present it.

But don't just post some link to data like it means something. Having data and doing nothing with it means nothing. You remind me of Ann Coulter, who has all these "references" that often proved her to be wrong. It's not high school where you "get away with" sticking a bunch of references at the end of the paper. Posting a link to data that you cannot read proves nothing.

In order for the data to mean something, you have to line up at least two different data sets.

Now, I know that the wing nuts will reject it. Let me help Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Obama, Leftist, Liberal, Pinko, Nazi, Hippie, Tree-hugger, Warmie...

The problem is that % Change in RGND and the date isn't "Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Obama, Leftist, Liberal, Pinko, Nazi, Hippie, Tree-hugger, Warmie".

It's not "Obamaton logic." It's just RGDP and dates.

If the car isn't running well, you put air in the tire and it doesn't run better, it's not the tires. If you put fuel additive in the tank and the engine stops permanently, then the fuel additive probably killed the engine. It sure didn't fix it. It is just plain old logic.

Seeing as links to unexamined data is your thing, if you are tempted to post more, here are data links;

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt/
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) : Multi-Screen Data Search : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
American FactFinder
Agricultural Efficiency 1940 to present: Quick Data « Itfitzme's Blog
National Accounts - FRED - St. Louis Fed
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
BEA : Gross Domestic Product
BEA Industry Economic Accounts
BEA : Gross-Domestic-Product-(GDP)-by-Industry Data
Current Population Survey (CPS)
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)
Industries at a Glance: Manufacturing: NAICS 31-33
Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - U.S. Census Bureau
People and Households - Data By Subject - U.S. Census Bureau
Statistical Abstracts
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression | The Economic Populist
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm"data-mce-href="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
ERS/USDA Data - International Macroeconomic Data Set
FRB: G.19 Release-- Consumer Credit -- Historical Data
FNS Program Data - SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
SNAP Annual Summary
Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 5 Year ARMs - Freddie Mac
Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage
Manufacturing Industry Trends, Manufacturing Economic Outlook - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association
United States Unemployment data
Negative Population Growth
Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
https://research.stlouisfed.org/

 

[itfitzme]

the objective is not to raise money for liberal fools to waste but to keep money in the hands of those who earned and can invest it wisely and sustainabley to boost the economy. Yes, not all income tax cuts are supply side income tax cuts . Bush's 2003 supply side tax are, for example, the ones that worked. Cap gains works, etc.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues. That is generally true for cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains to some extent and natural resource royalties. In the US, it is not true for income taxes, except for perhaps extremely high rates. Thus, supply side dogma fails on the biggest revenue generator for the federal government.

Cutting taxes AND cutting spending generally but not always increases economic growth.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues.

It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....

"Supply-side advocates have at times argued for lower taxes on the basis of supply-side benefits while citing the Laffer curve as a reason that such cuts would also raise revenue."

 

[IndependntLogic]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

You think that Ireland's economy is "booming"???

I mean, if it were booming in the face of the Euro-Financial crisis, that might support your position but the fact is that the standard of living in Ireland is lower than in the USA, unemployment is higher and the divide between classes even more severe.
Your theory doesn't hold water on all accounts.

 

[itfitzme]

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues. That is generally true for cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains to some extent and natural resource royalties. In the US, it is not true for income taxes, except for perhaps extremely high rates. Thus, supply side dogma fails on the biggest revenue generator for the federal government.

Cutting taxes AND cutting spending generally but not always increases economic growth.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues.

It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....

The Laffer Curve is a central tenant of "supply side" economics. Supply side economics focuses on increasing supply, with the basic prescriptions being free market dogma. But "free market" is not necessarily "supply side" economics. There is nothing in traditional free market philosophy that says cutting taxes increases revenues, for instance. Using the two interchangeably isn't correct.

It is true that supply side advocates will sight the Laffer curve to rationalize tax cutting. No real supply side economist sites the Laffer curve for anything.

The reason is that the Laffer curve does not say that cutting taxes always increases government revenue.

The Laffer curve is an oversimplified hypothesis that simply says there is a maximum point for revenue in between 0% and 100% taxes. It says nothing else. And, it is based on the assumption that as taxes approach 100% then revenue drops to zero because no one wants to work for nothing.

But then taxes and the economy isn't simple either. There are people that work for nothing for companies that generate profit and is taxed.

The Laffer curve is simply a cute exercise in over simplified economics, a starting point for further considerations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues. That is generally true for cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains to some extent and natural resource royalties. In the US, it is not true for income taxes, except for perhaps extremely high rates. Thus, supply side dogma fails on the biggest revenue generator for the federal government.

Cutting taxes AND cutting spending generally but not always increases economic growth.

Supply side economics says that cutting taxes increases revenues.

It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....

The Laffer Curve is a central tenant of "supply side" economics. Supply side economics focuses on increasing supply, with the basic prescriptions being free market dogma. But "free market" is not necessarily "supply side" economics. There is nothing in traditional free market philosophy that says cutting taxes increases revenues, for instance. Using the two interchangeably isn't correct.

Supply side economics focuses on increasing supply, with the basic prescriptions being free market dogma.

Yeah, you make life easier for suppliers, they increase supply.

That says nothing about lower rates increasing tax revenues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except that they didn't do anything. He did create three years of the historically largest budget deficits in the history of the US government.

Year Deficit (millions)
2003 $377585
2004 $412727
2005 $318346

They raised GDP and brought us out of recession. Using Obamabot logic, Bush's tax cuts saved us from another Great Depression.
United States GDP Growth Rate

It's easy to just blurt out unsubstantiated bs with no evidence, then throw up a link to some data you never looked at. You can do that all day long. It doesn't mean anything.

There was a recession in March of 2001 that ended in November of 2001. The next recession was in 2007.

There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted in 2003. They were set to expire in 2010.

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

In order for the Bush Tax Cuts to be concluded as effective, given that they didn't expire until 2010, there would have to have been no recession between the time they became effective and 2010.

There was a recession in 2007.

That alone is sufficient to prove that the Bush tax cuts did NOT save us from a recession or another Great Depression.

But why stop there when we can examine quarterly percentage change in real GDP vs the tax cuts in more detail.

I was really hoping the data would support your premise, that tax cuts relieve declines in the GDP. I thought, for sure, they would at least cause a slight uptick. They didn't.

Here is the graph of the change in real GDP along with the Bush tax cuts marked.
(Excel doesn't like to get the dates on 1/1/year very well because there are actually 365.25 average days in a year. Then it shifts back an forth on leap years. So I went for 365.5 days. That way, the date has January it it, but the day creeps forward every four years)

The mid 2001 tax cuts were signed into law by President George W. Bush on 7 June 2001. We will assume that they went into effect immediately.

The GDP was already accelerating when they went into effect. It then decelerated.

The GDP saw an acceleration from September of 2001 through March of 2002 at which point it began to decelerate. It decelerated from March of 2002 through January of 2003. It then began to accelerate.

The Bush Tax cuts of 2003, "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", were passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 28, 2003.

The GDP continued to accelerate, from the initial start in January of 2003, for three quarters, through September of 2003. The GDP began to accelerate before the Bush Tax cuts of 2003 were signed into law. They didn't cause the GDP to accelerate.

From September 2003 through December of 2008, the GDP continued to show a general rate of deceleration. It went up and down, but the trend continued downward until the recession when it tanked. The Bush tax cuts were in place at the time of the recession.

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts occurred after the GDP was already accelerating. There was a deceleration after the 2001 cuts. And the economy was already accelerating when the 2003 cuts were signed. It began to decelerate shortly after. This creates a bit of a problem. Cause comes before effect.

If you want to claim the 2001 cut were responsible for the mediocre upward trend in the two year that followed, then you have to also claim that the 2003 tax cuts killed it.

There are only two choices. They did nothing or they made things worse. You cannot conclude that they made things better.

I'm just being generous. There is no reason to conclude that they caused an increase in GDP. There is every reason conclude that the Bush tax cuts caused a secondary decline after the 2001 recession then the 2003 tax cuts nailed the coffin shut.

If you have specific details that shed more light on it, by all means present it.

But don't just post some link to data like it means something. Having data and doing nothing with it means nothing. You remind me of Ann Coulter, who has all these "references" that often proved her to be wrong. It's not high school where you "get away with" sticking a bunch of references at the end of the paper. Posting a link to data that you cannot read proves nothing.

In order for the data to mean something, you have to line up at least two different data sets.

Now, I know that the wing nuts will reject it. Let me help Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Obama, Leftist, Liberal, Pinko, Nazi, Hippie, Tree-hugger, Warmie...

The problem is that % Change in RGND and the date isn't "Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Obama, Leftist, Liberal, Pinko, Nazi, Hippie, Tree-hugger, Warmie".

It's not "Obamaton logic." It's just RGDP and dates.

If the car isn't running well, you put air in the tire and it doesn't run better, it's not the tires. If you put fuel additive in the tank and the engine stops permanently, then the fuel additive probably killed the engine. It sure didn't fix it. It is just plain old logic.

Seeing as links to unexamined data is your thing, if you are tempted to post more, here are data links;

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt/
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) : Multi-Screen Data Search : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
American FactFinder
Agricultural Efficiency 1940 to present: Quick Data « Itfitzme's Blog
National Accounts - FRED - St. Louis Fed
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
BEA : Gross Domestic Product
BEA Industry Economic Accounts
BEA : Gross-Domestic-Product-(GDP)-by-Industry Data
Current Population Survey (CPS)
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)
Industries at a Glance: Manufacturing: NAICS 31-33
Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - U.S. Census Bureau
People and Households - Data By Subject - U.S. Census Bureau
Statistical Abstracts
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression | The Economic Populist
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm"data-mce-href="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
ERS/USDA Data - International Macroeconomic Data Set
FRB: G.19 Release-- Consumer Credit -- Historical Data
FNS Program Data - SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
SNAP Annual Summary
Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 5 Year ARMs - Freddie Mac
Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage
Manufacturing Industry Trends, Manufacturing Economic Outlook - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association
United States Unemployment data
Negative Population Growth
Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
https://research.stlouisfed.org/

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

They probably predicted that given current levels of spending. When the Dems came in and ramped up spending that prediction went out the window.

 

[itfitzme]

It's easy to just blurt out unsubstantiated bs with no evidence, then throw up a link to some data you never looked at. You can do that all day long. It doesn't mean anything. ...
There was a recession in March of 2001 that ended in November of 2001. The next recession was in 2007.....There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted in 2003. They were set to expire in 2010. ...
As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong. ...In order for the Bush Tax Cuts to be concluded as effective, given that they didn't expire until 2010, there would have to have been no recession between the time they became effective and 2010. There was a recession in 2007. That alone is sufficient to prove that the Bush tax cuts did NOT save us from a recession or another Great Depression. ......Here is the graph of the change in real GDP along with the Bush tax cuts marked.

...
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts occurred after the GDP was already accelerating. There was a deceleration after the 2001 cuts. And the economy was already accelerating when the 2003 cuts were signed. It began to decelerate shortly after. This creates a bit of a problem. Cause comes before effect. .....If you want to claim the 2001 cut were responsible for the mediocre upward trend in the two year that followed, then you have to also claim that the 2003 tax cuts killed it. ...There are only two choices. They did nothing or they made things worse. There is every reason conclude that the Bush tax cuts caused a secondary decline after the 2001 recession then the 2003 tax cuts nailed the coffin shut. ... If you have specific details that shed more light on it, by all means present it..... Posting a link to data that you cannot read proves nothing.

Seeing as links to unexamined data is your thing, if you are tempted to post more, here are data links;

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

Link?

Is that just an autonomic response?
I already provided it. Did you bother to look?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's easy to just blurt out unsubstantiated bs with no evidence, then throw up a link to some data you never looked at. You can do that all day long. It doesn't mean anything. ...
There was a recession in March of 2001 that ended in November of 2001. The next recession was in 2007.....There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted in 2003. They were set to expire in 2010. ...
As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong. ...In order for the Bush Tax Cuts to be concluded as effective, given that they didn't expire until 2010, there would have to have been no recession between the time they became effective and 2010. There was a recession in 2007. That alone is sufficient to prove that the Bush tax cuts did NOT save us from a recession or another Great Depression. ......Here is the graph of the change in real GDP along with the Bush tax cuts marked.

...
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts occurred after the GDP was already accelerating. There was a deceleration after the 2001 cuts. And the economy was already accelerating when the 2003 cuts were signed. It began to decelerate shortly after. This creates a bit of a problem. Cause comes before effect. .....If you want to claim the 2001 cut were responsible for the mediocre upward trend in the two year that followed, then you have to also claim that the 2003 tax cuts killed it. ...There are only two choices. They did nothing or they made things worse. There is every reason conclude that the Bush tax cuts caused a secondary decline after the 2001 recession then the 2003 tax cuts nailed the coffin shut. ... If you have specific details that shed more light on it, by all means present it..... Posting a link to data that you cannot read proves nothing.

Seeing as links to unexamined data is your thing, if you are tempted to post more, here are data links;

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

Link?

Is that just an autonomic response?
I already provided it. Did you bother to look?

You provided a link to the Heritage Foundation claiming the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010?
I must have missed it.
Could you provide the link again?

 

[itfitzme]

As a side note, The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. The US debt was not eliminated. The Heritage Foundation was wrong.

Link?

Is that just an autonomic response?
I already provided it. Did you bother to look?

You provided a link to the Heritage Foundation claiming the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010?
I must have missed it.
Could you provide the link again?

Well, okay, it is referenced on

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.[2]"

[2] ^ Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". The Heritage Foundation. The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan. Retrieved 2011-04-05. "Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."

This links to:

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

The full report appears to be http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2001/pdf/cda01-01.pdf

The web page reads "Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010." 4

4 Both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget estimate that, regardless of the size of the surpluses over the next 10 years, some debt will remain outstanding and incur interest costs. In fiscal year 2011, the CBO estimates, $818 billion in publicly held federal debt cannot be paid because it consists of long-term bonds and savings bonds that will not be available for redemption.

This qualifies the word "effectively". And that is fine. The debt was about $5.808 trillion, so paying off all but $818 billion would be pretty good.

The reference to the CBO does not include the source document or a link to the source document. It does not say that they estimate the "debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010". It only says that they say that "$818 billion in publicly held federal debt cannot be paid". It also does not quote the CBO, it paraphrases them. So, the reference qualifies the word "effectively" in paraphrasing an un-cited CBO statement.

Whatever the CBO says would have to be ferreted out by reading all the CBO reports on CBO Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act of 2001. It would take a bit of research to find any CBO analysis that might be the statement that is paraphrased.

----------------------
99:1 odds that the CBO reports on the Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act of 2001 invalidates what the the Heritage Foundation report claims.

I do not believe un-cited references. They are intentionally not cited. It is not accidental. It is learned. They are not stupid. It is done to avoid calling attention to other statements that negate the claim. If the cited reference supported their claims, then they would quote it and cite it. They are well aware that it takes considerable research to read every possible source of the un-cited reference. They depend on the reader not researching it. I have always given people the benefit of the doubt. I have learned better. There is as much to be understood from what is missing as there is from what is included. At this point, I could have predicted that the link chains would stop at the Heritage Foundation. Notice that they did do a link in " 9. The White House, "The President's Agenda for Tax Relief," at Briefing Room | The White House (February 9, 2001). "

Reading the Heritage Foundation page, I see that they have all sorts of hypothesis set forth as economic law. For example,

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

This is nice because peer reviewed published scientific papers that disprove or fail to prove something don't get published. Given the amount of reading, it's not fruitful to read "I proved this doesn't have an effect." Now, we have this nice "proof" of a failed hypothesis, that "A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more." In fact, there is as much reason to conclude that a business owner that knows he will have more money to take home may work less.

And, they might have meant "something else". Or it might be "more complicated than that". Or, they did say "may". All that is beside the point. They made this "dynamic" analysis based on their axioms or postulates. Their analysis proved incorrect. This negates all of it. It is incumbent on them to be right or re-publish and prove exactly how they were wrong.

Einstein, in his 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", now known as the Theory of Special Relativity, made extra ordinary and outlandish claims that an object moving at near light speed is shorter than at rest. He made the outlandish claim that a clock moving at near light speed, or even a clock affected by a different gravitational pull, will run slower. He made the extra ordinary claim that gravity warps the fabric of space-time and that time and distance itself literally changes. It is the most counter-intuitive thought in the history of scientific thought. With a single experiment, his entire Law of Space-Time could be proven wrong. And yet, it has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, over and over and over again. It will never be proven wrong.

As counter-intuitive as it is, it is absolutely correct. If you are speeding your stretch limo, at near light speed, into your garage which is too short to fit it, it will fit completely in the garage. The back end will pass the door before the front ever touches the back. And, assuming you have really good brakes, as you stop it dead nuts in the garage, it will literally grow in length.

On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation presents some things not so seemingly outlandish. They makes some sort of "intuitive" sense. And they are demonstratively wrong. A monkey would do better. A monkey would get it right half the time. I can go down that Heritage Foundation paper and would do better stating the opposite of every postulate.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more" "Lower taxes, and he doesn't have to work as hard." "Lower taxes and he makes more profit. " I can go on and on and on. They are better hypothesis.

I don't use em, because I have higher standards of proof then the Heritage Foundation. I don't generally consider "taking the opposite of the Heritage Foundation" as "proof".

But as Albert Einstein Is His Name, it sure does work.

But it makes as much intuitive sense to say that, "given lower taxes, the company president will take the extra profits and pay for a membership at the country club while you work."

Duh!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

You think that Ireland's economy is "booming"???

I mean, if it were booming in the face of the Euro-Financial crisis, that might support your position but the fact is that the standard of living in Ireland is lower than in the USA, unemployment is higher and the divide between classes even more severe.
Your theory doesn't hold water on all accounts.

wiki:

Celtic Tiger

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You think that Ireland's economy is "booming"???

WIKI:Over the past decade, Ireland’s corporate taxation system has been a source of controversy with some of Ireland’s fellow-member states in the European Union. The French government has over the past decade, most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin, consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting international investment. However, despite the French critique of the Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers, with many ‘emerging’ and Eastern European economies following the Irish example.


This and common sense vindicate Republican supply-side economics

 

[IndependntLogic]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

You think that Ireland's economy is "booming"???

I mean, if it were booming in the face of the Euro-Financial crisis, that might support your position but the fact is that the standard of living in Ireland is lower than in the USA, unemployment is higher and the divide between classes even more severe.
Your theory doesn't hold water on all accounts.

wiki:

Celtic Tiger

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

Until 2007 eh? You mean like say, ALL of Europe, for example? And since then? Oops. Have you ever been to Ireland? Do you know what their unemployment level is now??? Last I heard it was over 13%. That's about 40% higher than our percentage.
So those low tax corporate rates? ZERO effect.

 

[stans]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

During 2001 and 2003 taxes were lowered in the US. In 2008 the US almost had a financial collapse with one of major investment banks (IB) going bankrupt, one being bought for a song by another IB, while the rest of the major IB's were rescued by the government. This and common sense proves that lowering taxes will cause a financial collapse to ensue. Ignore 9-11 and two wars that the US initiated, massive fraud in the housing market, a change of leadership in the house of representatives, and any other laws that might have an economic effect on the US. Lowering taxes is what caused it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that just an autonomic response?
I already provided it. Did you bother to look?

You provided a link to the Heritage Foundation claiming the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010?
I must have missed it.
Could you provide the link again?

Well, okay, it is referenced on

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.[2]"

[2] ^ Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". The Heritage Foundation. The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan. Retrieved 2011-04-05. "Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."

This links to:

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

The full report appears to be http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2001/pdf/cda01-01.pdf

The web page reads "Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010." 4

4 Both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget estimate that, regardless of the size of the surpluses over the next 10 years, some debt will remain outstanding and incur interest costs. In fiscal year 2011, the CBO estimates, $818 billion in publicly held federal debt cannot be paid because it consists of long-term bonds and savings bonds that will not be available for redemption.

This qualifies the word "effectively". And that is fine. The debt was about $5.808 trillion, so paying off all but $818 billion would be pretty good.

The reference to the CBO does not include the source document or a link to the source document. It does not say that they estimate the "debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010". It only says that they say that "$818 billion in publicly held federal debt cannot be paid". It also does not quote the CBO, it paraphrases them. So, the reference qualifies the word "effectively" in paraphrasing an un-cited CBO statement.

Whatever the CBO says would have to be ferreted out by reading all the CBO reports on CBO Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act of 2001. It would take a bit of research to find any CBO analysis that might be the statement that is paraphrased.

----------------------
99:1 odds that the CBO reports on the Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act of 2001 invalidates what the the Heritage Foundation report claims.

I do not believe un-cited references. They are intentionally not cited. It is not accidental. It is learned. They are not stupid. It is done to avoid calling attention to other statements that negate the claim. If the cited reference supported their claims, then they would quote it and cite it. They are well aware that it takes considerable research to read every possible source of the un-cited reference. They depend on the reader not researching it. I have always given people the benefit of the doubt. I have learned better. There is as much to be understood from what is missing as there is from what is included. At this point, I could have predicted that the link chains would stop at the Heritage Foundation. Notice that they did do a link in " 9. The White House, "The President's Agenda for Tax Relief," at Briefing Room | The White House (February 9, 2001). "

Reading the Heritage Foundation page, I see that they have all sorts of hypothesis set forth as economic law. For example,

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

This is nice because peer reviewed published scientific papers that disprove or fail to prove something don't get published. Given the amount of reading, it's not fruitful to read "I proved this doesn't have an effect." Now, we have this nice "proof" of a failed hypothesis, that "A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more." In fact, there is as much reason to conclude that a business owner that knows he will have more money to take home may work less.

And, they might have meant "something else". Or it might be "more complicated than that". Or, they did say "may". All that is beside the point. They made this "dynamic" analysis based on their axioms or postulates. Their analysis proved incorrect. This negates all of it. It is incumbent on them to be right or re-publish and prove exactly how they were wrong.

Einstein, in his 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", now known as the Theory of Special Relativity, made extra ordinary and outlandish claims that an object moving at near light speed is shorter than at rest. He made the outlandish claim that a clock moving at near light speed, or even a clock affected by a different gravitational pull, will run slower. He made the extra ordinary claim that gravity warps the fabric of space-time and that time and distance itself literally changes. It is the most counter-intuitive thought in the history of scientific thought. With a single experiment, his entire Law of Space-Time could be proven wrong. And yet, it has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, over and over and over again. It will never be proven wrong.

As counter-intuitive as it is, it is absolutely correct. If you are speeding your stretch limo, at near light speed, into your garage which is too short to fit it, it will fit completely in the garage. The back end will pass the door before the front ever touches the back. And, assuming you have really good brakes, as you stop it dead nuts in the garage, it will literally grow in length.

On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation presents some things not so seemingly outlandish. They makes some sort of "intuitive" sense. And they are demonstratively wrong. A monkey would do better. A monkey would get it right half the time. I can go down that Heritage Foundation paper and would do better stating the opposite of every postulate.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more" "Lower taxes, and he doesn't have to work as hard." "Lower taxes and he makes more profit. " I can go on and on and on. They are better hypothesis.

I don't use em, because I have higher standards of proof then the Heritage Foundation. I don't generally consider "taking the opposite of the Heritage Foundation" as "proof".

But as Albert Einstein Is His Name, it sure does work.

But it makes as much intuitive sense to say that, "given lower taxes, the company president will take the extra profits and pay for a membership at the country club while you work."

Duh!!!

Thanks for the link.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more"

You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?

 

[The Rabbi]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

During 2001 and 2003 taxes were lowered in the US. In 2008 the US almost had a financial collapse with one of major investment banks (IB) going bankrupt, one being bought for a song by another IB, while the rest of the major IB's were rescued by the government. This and common sense proves that lowering taxes will cause a financial collapse to ensue. Ignore 9-11 and two wars that the US initiated, massive fraud in the housing market, a change of leadership in the house of representatives, and any other laws that might have an economic effect on the US. Lowering taxes is what caused it.

Can you explain how lowering taxes caused a financial collapse 6 years later. Be very specific here. And keep in mind that we lowered taxes only on income only at certain levels. Also that some of the tax cuts, like the tax on investment income, produced more revenue for the government, not less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

You think that Ireland's economy is "booming"???

I mean, if it were booming in the face of the Euro-Financial crisis, that might support your position but the fact is that the standard of living in Ireland is lower than in the USA, unemployment is higher and the divide between classes even more severe.
Your theory doesn't hold water on all accounts.

wiki:

Celtic Tiger

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

Until 2007 eh? You mean like say, ALL of Europe, for example? And since then? Oops. Have you ever been to Ireland? Do you know what their unemployment level is now??? Last I heard it was over 13%. That's about 40% higher than our percentage.
So those low tax corporate rates? ZERO effect.

Until 2007 eh? You mean like say, ALL of Europe, for example? And since then? Oops. Have you ever been to Ireland? Do you know what their unemployment level is now??? Last I heard it was over 13%.

What was their unemployment and growth rate before they lowered their taxes?
GDP per capita before they lowered taxes? GDP per capita now?