Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich - report by the NON-PARTISAN CBO

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The President controls your state legislature, eh? Dear Lord!

Cause and effect.

Quote

Increases in spending drive the debt up. Tax cuts do not.

Deficit spending drives the debt up. That means spending more than you're earning. If you reduce your earnings by X dollars, and don't reduce spending by the same amount, then the debt increases by X dollars.

If you cut your work week in half but kept spending the same way, are you telling me you wouldn't increase your debt?

[kallend 2,174]

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is fiscally irresponsible. Government revenues have not increased (as was promised) as a result of the cuts.

The RECORD deficit created by this administration will haunt us for decades.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Kevin

Because they pay so much more in taxes, if everyone's taxes went down 10% of what they paid, you would claim the tax cut benefited the rich.

If everyone's taxes were reduced by an equal precent, more than one third would go to the richest people.

If, on the other hand, you want everyone's taxes cut by the same dollar value, well, you and me will end up paying nothing while the government is paid for by rich people. Remember, if everyone's taxes went down by what you paid last year, that wouldn't be any kind of fair tax break for the rich.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kaerock 1]

I'm not an economist, but in conjunction with your point, simplistically put:
If the tax break is given to the top %1, that means the other 99% would have to pay more to make up for the break the top 1% got just to maintain our current level of increasing deficit, correct?

-R

Quote

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is fiscally irresponsible. Government revenues have not increased (as was promised) as a result of the cuts.

The RECORD deficit created by this administration will haunt us for decades.

You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

[billvon 3,131]

>YOU got a tax cut. Why do you CARE what somebody else's tax cut was?

Cause I think people care about things like the US deficit and the economy, and taxes affect those things.

>The tax cut was not designed to benefit the rich - it was designed to
> stimulate the economy. By letting those who pay the most taxes keep
> more of the money they earned, the economy was stimulated.

Nonsense! If Warren Buffet gets a $3 million tax break, how many more boxes of Cheerios is he going to buy? That money will sit in a brokerage account with his other millions. Now, give a guy who makes $25K a year a $200 tax break, and that $200 WILL go back into the economy - he can now afford new brakes for his van, new shoes for the kids etc. In terms of stimulating the economy, lower-income tax breaks do FAR more to boost the basics of the economy (i.e. selling stuff to people) than higher-income tax breaks.

>If you're jealous of their success, seek to emulate it.

Which success? Do you mean the success of getting a good tax break? If so, their vote is their best weapon.

[Kennedy 0]

(A) The deficit is NEVER static. Hell, we don't ever really know how much it is.

(B) The tax break we are talking about was applied to all tax payers. The "problem" is that some people belive it was applied unfairly to the advantage of the highest tax payers (read: the richest people).

Don't think that you are making up for a rich person's tax cuts. You're not. The tax cut was fair. However, the timing compared to government spending was not a good idea.

(I wish they would cut spending AND taxes, but hey, if wishes were fishes we'd never go hungry)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TheAnvil 0]

Spending causes deficits, not tax cuts. GWB has betrayed fiscal conservatism which is why a lot of us conservative types are not giving him high marks, but will vote for him anyway because sKerry is...well...scary.

WRT Mr. Buffett, you know better. The average US$200K + person isn't Mr. Buffett. They're a small business person, an entrepeneur, Junior VP - that sort of person. They hire people. They invest. They buy goods. Cheerios, perhaps not. Boats, filet mignon, fois gras, automobiles, vacations, disneyworld passes, etc - absolutely. And how do you think firms generate capital to expand/pay employees/do R&D/etc? One way is - they issue stock, which investors, such as Mr. Buffett, subsequently BUY with the money they don't send to the imperial federal government.

The jealousy to which I referred is the exact jealousy that the DNC hopes to feed with their incessant class warfare rhetoric. Jealousy of the more successful - the rich. Most millionaires don't inherit their wealth - they build it themselves through hard work. The 'tax cuts for the rich' - who pay most of the taxes - mantra does nothing but feed on this jealousy. I personally find it disgusting.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[wmw999 2,600]

If you cut income and don't cut spending, you end up with a deficit. So while technically there can be no deficit without spending (which I assume is the premise for your implication that the tax cut has nothing to do with the deficit), it's a very incomplete picture.

There also can't be breathing without air, and telling people that the decrease in oxygen has nothing to do with suffocating is a little specious.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,131]

> Spending causes deficits, not tax cuts.

If you take in (i.e. tax less) than you spend you have a deficit. Tax cuts without spending cuts cause deficits. And if you implement a tax cut AND dramatically increase spending - you will create record deficits.

>WRT Mr. Buffett, you know better. The average US$200K + person isn't
>Mr. Buffett. They're a small business person, an entrepeneur, Junior VP -
>that sort of person. They hire people. They invest. They buy goods.

Exactly. They invest in their 401K, which takes money out of circulation - and removes any gains from taxable income. That action DECREASES the future money taken in via income tax. And buying stock in a company that makes Cheerios has far less of an impact on the economy overall than buying Cheerios does. They also buy goods - but that $25K a year guy is going to take that entire $200 and buy cheerios and brake pads, not more shares of Microsoft via a 401k mutual fund.

>Most millionaires don't inherit their wealth - they build it themselves
> through hard work.

Agreed.

>The 'tax cuts for the rich' - who pay most of the taxes - mantra does
>nothing but feed on this jealousy. I personally find it disgusting.

It makes perfect sense that those with the most money should pay the most taxes. They can afford to. When you add in that tax policy should stimulate the economy, a tax scheme that provides the greatest relief to the lower-income people (i.e. a progressive tax) is a good way to go.

Keep in mind that the purpose of taxes is not to create some sort of equal-income utopia. It is to support the government. If you want tax cuts, cut spending - THEN cut taxes. Until then, the best you can do is choose a tax scheme that people can more easily afford and that doesn't harm the economy. And in general, higher income people can afford to pay more. Is that a "rich" penalty? I suppose you could see it that way. But if you want to reduce that penalty, cut spending.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Spending causes deficits, not tax cuts.

????

Same spending level with lower taxes gives you a deficit. Eith keep the taxes where they are or keep that wallet in the pocket! What really gets me is how much spending is needless waste.

And why are taxes getting cut when the deficit and debt are growing???

I wish my credit card company would let me do things like that. Spend like crazy and not have to worry about making more money to pay the bill.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I wish my credit card company would let me do things like that. Spend like crazy and not have to worry about making more money to pay the bill.

Problem is, we do have to worry about it, and just like a credit card, do have to eventually pay it off, with interest.

[wmw999 2,600]

Only those of us with children really have to worry, because it's more their problem than ours.
Of course, my child is as old as some of the posters here, so maybe I'm just speaking for myself now

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Wendy - You don't look like you are old enough to have a kid old enough to jump.

Perhaps we should call in all our loans. France would be happy to pay, wouldn't they?

I think Germany owes us a bit too. Russia I am sure has some debt accrued to us.

Why not Collect?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,600]

Thank you turtle -- you say the nicest things sometimes
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

Don't you remember how the healing process started after WWII?

Every single nation got together on one point of agreement and then told us so.

" WE AREN'T PAYING!!"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Spending causes deficits, not tax cuts. GWB has betrayed fiscal conservatism which is why a lot of us conservative types are not giving him high marks, but will vote for him anyway because sKerry is...well...scary.

You might take a look at the revenue column from these CBO data.

Year   Revenues      Expenditures    On-budget surplus 

2000  2,025.2        1,788.8             86.6   

2001 1,991.2         1,863.8            -33.3    

2002 1,853.2         2,011.0            -317.5  

2003 1,782.3         2,157.6            -536.1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

[Time; Revenues; Expenditures; Surplus]. Dear Lord you've condensed the economy into a four element state vector. When do you accept your Nobel?

Y'all are giving me a chuckle this evening. Lord knows I need one right now, I'm ticked the hell off for a myriad of reasons. Revenues being a single-variable function of tax rate. LOL. Holy shyte. Now that's funny. Tax rate does have a large effect on it, though, so at least it's on the right track. I'd actually like to read a book on mathematical modelling of the economy. It would be pretty interesting stuff, truth be told. My buddy did some post MBA work at U-Chicago in statistical modelling and what he talked about was fascinating. They even did some Ricatti equations and optimization work. Really cool shyte. Need to snag a book rec. from him.

Anyhoo, I digress. I need some tequila. Revenues have gone down. When the economy is in recession and you increase spending, expect your surplus to increase even if you maintain your tax rates at a constant level. With a tax decrease in there, expect the aforementioned delta to increase until the recession turns well around. Other factors play in, but those are very germane.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Dear Lord you've condensed the economy into a four element state vector. When do you accept your Nobel?

This coming from the guy who says with a straight face that tax cuts have nothing to do with a deficit.

Quote

When the economy is in recession and you increase spending, expect your surplus to increase even if you maintain your tax rates at a constant level.

Huh? If you increase spending and leave tax rates the same during a recession your surplus increases? That's a brand new twist on voodoo economics. I'm talking real live witch doctors.

Quote

With a tax decrease in there, expect the aforementioned delta to increase until the recession turns well around. Other factors play in, but those are very germane.

No, the other factors are not germane. In fact one very important one is constantly being overlooked. That is that without interest rate DECREASES this type of economic stimulus CANNOT work. Best if you would read one of those books you talk about.

[TheAnvil 0]

Wellwell. You caught me in a tired moment. Salud. Not that I'm not tired now. I was referring to the magnitude of the 'surplus' value in Kallend's inane state vector. In the case you point out it would obviously be a negative value, with an increased magnitude.

And I assure you I've read far more books than you on economics, politics, foreign policy, spacecraft control, optimization, the search for Atlantis, moon rocks, and mating habits of the Brazilian horny-toad.

You point out a factor not in Kallend's state vector that also plays a role: interest rates. One of many other factors that do play into the health of the economy.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Wellwell. You caught me in a tired moment. Salud. Not that I'm not tired now. I was referring to the magnitude of the 'surplus' value in Kallend's inane state vector. In the case you point out it would obviously be a negative value, with an increased magnitude.

And I assure you I've read far more books than you on economics, politics, foreign policy, spacecraft control, optimization, the search for Atlantis, moon rocks, and mating habits of the Brazilian horny-toad.

You point out a factor not in Kallend's state vector that also plays a role: interest rates. One of many other factors that do play into the health of the economy.

"Kallend's state vector" is from the CBO. It tells what actually happened, not what Voodoo Economics (an accurate description of Bush43's policies by Bush41) predicted would happen.

This administration has decreased revenues, increased spending, and created record deficits that will exist for the forseeable future (according to the President's own OMB).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.