Skip to main content

I bought the idea that the Bush Tax cuts had not reduced federal revenues, but that the following years saw large increases in individual income tax revenues. That is not true.

Income Tax Revenue, BushII Admin.

Revenues were flat and did not keep pace with the population growth. Keep in mind that those numbers are income taxes only, and does not include payroll taxes. Income taxes and payroll taxes make up about 40+% each, of the fedgov revenues each year.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

As the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book "The End of Prosperity" (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush's 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush's strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans' pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

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

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

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


Guess it depends on who you listen to.
[IMG]http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Income%20Taxes&year=1995_2015&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=916.58_1007.09_1112.65_1227.30_1287.39_1459.47_1407.04_1237.37_1156.25_1247.26_1490.91_1719.36_1883.54_1812.53_1377.45_1408.72_1738.15_2016.51_2190.64_2382.59_2484.23&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g_g_g_g_g_g [/IMG]



From: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php

I would say that your source reeks of boy-bovine feces.
You have to adjust for inflation.

Then, your chart agrees with mine the figures I posted.

Other revenues from payroll taxes, corp taxes and various other revenues sources are not relevant.

I can tell you would rather see the deficit increase and push the deficit problem into the next decade. That is the sign of a true RepubTeaCon.
quote:
You have to adjust for inflation.

Then, your chart agrees with mine the figures I posted.


You can change the bar graph at the site to show the columns as 2005 dollars and you get this:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...e=US&color=c&local=s

Three years of Bushes time brought in more income than the highest of Clinton in 2005 dollars. Remember that there was a recession from the phoniness of the 90's economy in the first years of Bushes time resulting from the dot-com, Enron, Worldcom, etc. busts.
quote:
Clinton raised taxes, as we all know, and tax revenues went up every year. Doesnt that also refudiate the taxation meme that the RepubTeaCons have been, and always, push?


Remember the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, it contained "tax breaks for the wealthy" (such as capital gains tax breaks and also Estate taxes ). Now look again at the chart for Clinton's highest years.

quote:
CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES

The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.

Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible.

ESTATE TAX CHANGES

The current $600,000 estate tax exemption will increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006. The increases are as follows:

1998 $625,000
1999 $650,000
2000 $675,000
2001 $675,000
2002 $700,000
2003 $700,000
2004 $850,000
2005 $950,000
2006 $1,000,000

Family farms and small businesses may qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective in 1998.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×