 |
The Public Opinion Soapbox
Welcome to the Public Opinion's community message board. You must be registered to post, and all posts are subject to moderation by our staff.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
How the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues and reduced the budget deficit
The Shrinking Deficit
We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.
There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.
Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.
The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1191...googlenews_wsj |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cookieclaygirl
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 1963
Location: shippensburg
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munchkin wrote: |
How much more do you want them to pay? |
until they're taxed off their gilded pedestal of pomposity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cookieclaygirl wrote: | | munchkin wrote: |
How much more do you want them to pay? |
until they're taxed off their gilded pedestal of pomposity. |
Now there is a real economic policy worthy of Marx
Look at the great economy we had under Pres Peanut Carter when the top rate was 90%
So you ignore the link that shows lower taxes increased the amount of money flowing into DC? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coppy
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2417
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm getting "Page Unavailable" when I click on that link munchkin...
The article is interesting and I'm not going to dispute it, but it does seem to be about a year old and fails to take into account how much money we're borrowing from other countries like China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.45chel
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2859
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cookieclaygirl wrote: | | munchkin wrote: |
How much more do you want them to pay? |
until they're taxed off their gilded pedestal of pomposity. |
 snort
_________________
I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | Wile_E wrote: |
I am not an economist, I am a simple person who would like to see my children and grandchildren (and most likely, their children) not have to be paying for the "economic stimulus" package. Not to mention that most of what the Government will give in "stipends" will ultimately end up in China, after passing through our fine American retail sector.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I won't put it in savings; maybe a gift to classical WETA https://www2.weta.org/pledge.php . At least I can listen to great music as Rome burns! |
I'm not sure why you're arguing then. we're both against it (me not sending mine back is not an argument of why it's good to do it) we both agree it will harm our economic future. so why did you ask me if i was sending mine back?
and more importantly write a letter to someone who can do something about it. I already wrote one to specter and shuster. I should have written one to casey jr also. |
Like with the Bush tax cuts - libs are still having a fit over them. Yet I am wiling to bet most of the libs whining about the tax cuts KEPT THEIR TAX CUT
It the tax cut is so bad for the economy (it actually help grow the economy and generate record revenues for the government) why didn't they send it back in?
The DNC ran web ads asking for libs to send their tax cut into them. |
don't even get me started with the, "keeping the tax cut means you can't oppose it". it's stupider than the "if you oppose invading x you don't support the troops" argument |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| and can you show me why, economically speaking lowering the marginal tax rate would increase gov't revenue? i'm not aware of any economic theory that supports that, and correlation does not equal causation, take an econ and statistics course |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymous_coward wrote: | | munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | Wile_E wrote: |
I am not an economist, I am a simple person who would like to see my children and grandchildren (and most likely, their children) not have to be paying for the "economic stimulus" package. Not to mention that most of what the Government will give in "stipends" will ultimately end up in China, after passing through our fine American retail sector.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I won't put it in savings; maybe a gift to classical WETA https://www2.weta.org/pledge.php . At least I can listen to great music as Rome burns! |
I'm not sure why you're arguing then. we're both against it (me not sending mine back is not an argument of why it's good to do it) we both agree it will harm our economic future. so why did you ask me if i was sending mine back?
and more importantly write a letter to someone who can do something about it. I already wrote one to specter and shuster. I should have written one to casey jr also. |
Like with the Bush tax cuts - libs are still having a fit over them. Yet I am wiling to bet most of the libs whining about the tax cuts KEPT THEIR TAX CUT
It the tax cut is so bad for the economy (it actually help grow the economy and generate record revenues for the government) why didn't they send it back in?
The DNC ran web ads asking for libs to send their tax cut into them. |
don't even get me started with the, "keeping the tax cut means you can't oppose it". it's stupider than the "if you oppose invading x you don't support the troops" argument |
Well, if you are so opposed to the tax cut, why would you keep it?
It is like Al Gore lecturing us on WE need to reduce our energy use, while his 3 homes conume 20 times the energy of the average America home - and all the private jet trips he takes around the world |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymous_coward wrote: | | and can you show me why, economically speaking lowering the marginal tax rate would increase gov't revenue? i'm not aware of any economic theory that supports that, and correlation does not equal causation, take an econ and statistics course |
When you tax any activity you want to encourage the activity. Higher taxes do not encourage economic activity
Higher taxes will take more money out of the private sector. Higher capital gains taxes will not encourage risk and investment. Why should anyone take a risk when more of their potential profits be taken by the government?
History proves tax cuts bring in more money to the government. It worked for JFK, Ronld Reagan, and now for Pres Bush
Do not get me wrong, tax cuts are not the only answer. Spending has to be reduced as well.
Democrats ran in 06 (and rightly so) on the insane spending of Republicans. However, Dems are outspending the previous Republican Congress - and at the same time - they are telling us we need to hand over more of our income to finance it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | Wile_E wrote: |
I am not an economist, I am a simple person who would like to see my children and grandchildren (and most likely, their children) not have to be paying for the "economic stimulus" package. Not to mention that most of what the Government will give in "stipends" will ultimately end up in China, after passing through our fine American retail sector.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I won't put it in savings; maybe a gift to classical WETA https://www2.weta.org/pledge.php . At least I can listen to great music as Rome burns! |
I'm not sure why you're arguing then. we're both against it (me not sending mine back is not an argument of why it's good to do it) we both agree it will harm our economic future. so why did you ask me if i was sending mine back?
and more importantly write a letter to someone who can do something about it. I already wrote one to specter and shuster. I should have written one to casey jr also. |
Like with the Bush tax cuts - libs are still having a fit over them. Yet I am wiling to bet most of the libs whining about the tax cuts KEPT THEIR TAX CUT
It the tax cut is so bad for the economy (it actually help grow the economy and generate record revenues for the government) why didn't they send it back in?
The DNC ran web ads asking for libs to send their tax cut into them. |
don't even get me started with the, "keeping the tax cut means you can't oppose it". it's stupider than the "if you oppose invading x you don't support the troops" argument |
Well, if you are so opposed to the tax cut, why would you keep it?
It is like Al Gore lecturing us on WE need to reduce our energy use, while his 3 homes conume 20 times the energy of the average America home - and all the private jet trips he takes around the world |
how about this, should we send everyone in the us a check for $80 Billion dollars?
No you say?
Well if we did would you send yours back?
oh you wouldn't?
I guess that means we should go ahead and send everyone a $80 Billion check according to your logic.
Oh you say that would lead to rampant inflation because the gov't printing money doesn't create value in an economy?
Well how about we just send a $600 check, that will only cause some inflation, and still create no value in the economy. sounds like a plan to me.
as for the gore energy use, you're right, but my parents taught me when i was about 5 that two wrongs don't make a right (three lefts do though).
Last edited by anonymous_coward on Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | and can you show me why, economically speaking lowering the marginal tax rate would increase gov't revenue? i'm not aware of any economic theory that supports that, and correlation does not equal causation, take an econ and statistics course |
When you tax any activity you want to encourage the activity. Higher taxes do not encourage economic activity
Higher taxes will take more money out of the private sector. Higher capital gains taxes will not encourage risk and investment. Why should anyone take a risk when more of their potential profits be taken by the government?
History proves tax cuts bring in more money to the government. It worked for JFK, Ronld Reagan, and now for Pres Bush
Do not get me wrong, tax cuts are not the only answer. Spending has to be reduced as well.
Democrats ran in 06 (and rightly so) on the insane spending of Republicans. However, Dems are outspending the previous Republican Congress - and at the same time - they are telling us we need to hand over more of our income to finance it |
that all sounds good, but doesn't jive with really anything in macro economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymous_coward wrote: | | munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | munchkin wrote: | | anonymous_coward wrote: | | Wile_E wrote: |
I am not an economist, I am a simple person who would like to see my children and grandchildren (and most likely, their children) not have to be paying for the "economic stimulus" package. Not to mention that most of what the Government will give in "stipends" will ultimately end up in China, after passing through our fine American retail sector.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I won't put it in savings; maybe a gift to classical WETA https://www2.weta.org/pledge.php . At least I can listen to great music as Rome burns! |
I'm not sure why you're arguing then. we're both against it (me not sending mine back is not an argument of why it's good to do it) we both agree it will harm our economic future. so why did you ask me if i was sending mine back?
and more importantly write a letter to someone who can do something about it. I already wrote one to specter and shuster. I should have written one to casey jr also. |
Like with the Bush tax cuts - libs are still having a fit over them. Yet I am wiling to bet most of the libs whining about the tax cuts KEPT THEIR TAX CUT
It the tax cut is so bad for the economy (it actually help grow the economy and generate record revenues for the government) why didn't they send it back in?
The DNC ran web ads asking for libs to send their tax cut into them. |
don't even get me started with the, "keeping the tax cut means you can't oppose it". it's stupider than the "if you oppose invading x you don't support the troops" argument |
Well, if you are so opposed to the tax cut, why would you keep it?
It is like Al Gore lecturing us on WE need to reduce our energy use, while his 3 homes conume 20 times the energy of the average America home - and all the private jet trips he takes around the world |
how about this, should we send everyone in the us a check for $80 Billion dollars?
No you say?
Well if we did would you send yours back?
oh you wouldn't?
I guess that means we should go ahead and send everyone a $80 Billion check according to your logic.
Oh you say that would lead to rampant inflation because the gov't printing money doesn't create value in an economy?
Well how about we just send a $600 check, that will only cause some inflation, and still create no value in the economy. sounds like a plan to me. |
Why not make the tax cuts permanent, and pass more tax cuts on top of that?
This may come as a shock to you my friend, it is OUR money. WE earn it
It is NOT the governments money |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymous_coward
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| so you support the gov't sending everyone an $80 B check? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munchkin
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymous_coward wrote: | | so you support the gov't sending everyone an $80 B check? |
I support tax cuts. You get back part of what you pay in
Wil you now try to have a debate, or are you determined to post only liberal rants to try and derail the discussion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
