Deficit spending & Taxes.

[ntsammy5]

Reductions in tax rates always lead to increases in tax revenue.

So does that mean if we reduce the rates to 0% we'll have infinite revenue?

 

[corndog]

So does that mean if we reduce the rates to 0% we'll have infinite revenue?

I don't know. Let's try it and find out.

 

[AndyLL]

You have 0 credibility. Please read the thread before commenting.

That's what I expected.

You just opening your mouth and letting the conservative talking points fall out does not make what you say 'facts'.

At least post a biased link next time.

Let's review your comments on the thread and count how many 'facts' there are:

Reductions in tax rates always lead to increases in tax revenue.

More money in the free market results in more activity and production, and more creation of wealth, which both result in more jobs and more taxable income.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

Actually, it did work. It just hasn't been reported.

Even taking into account recent job losses, there have been about 6.5 million new jobs since the tax cut package was signed into law in May 2003. Additionally, each year since there have been double digit percentage increases in treasury revenues received. I understand that you might find this surprising, but it is the reality.

But, even though we've had these huge upticks in treasury receipts, they have not kept pace with with spending.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

The numbers prove otherwise.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

This is also not true. Real dollar wage growth (which means it does account for inflation) for nonsupervisory workers since the tax cut plan was enacted has outpaced even the average wage growth during the Clinton administration. You'll never hear that on the 6 o-clock news, either, but the data is readily available.

Job and wage date is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and treasury revenue from the income tax is availabe from the IRS.

And, I'll throw in that "the rich" are currently paying a higher burden of income taxes than at any time in history, even higher than under Bill Clinton.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

OK, let's talk about this. It seems to me that people are saying that 2000 was the Holy Grail of the economy. Let's compare 2000 to the most recent year for which data is available - 2005, which is well after the Bush tax cuts were in full effect.

In 2000, the top 1% earned 20.81% of all the income and paid 37.42% of all the income taxes.
In 2005, the top 1% earned 21.20% of all the income and paid 39.38% of all the income taxes.

In 2000, the top 10% earned 46.01% of all the income and paid 67.33% of all the income taxes.
In 2005, the top 10% earned 46.44% of all the income and paid 70.30% of all the income taxes.

Again, the facts do not comport with your claims. Yes, there were small upticks in total earnings, but "the rich's" share of taxes paid increased by 4-6x as much as their share of total earnings increased.

I understand your disbelief, as the facts are never reported. But the numbers are what they are, and are not open to debate.
__________________
​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

Well, if A - B = C, where A is tax revenue, B is spending and C is the deficit or surplus, and C continues to get more negative despite increases in A, what must B be doing?​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

You can think that all you want, but it's demonstrably false.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

I'm sorry, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. The numbers are what they are, and are incontrovertible. What you claim has never happened in our history. Period.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

Again, you can believe that all you want, but it remains demonstrably false.

I'm not saying there is not debt. Obviously there is. The debt is because increases in spending outpaced the increases in revenue. Tax cuts did not result in lower revenue and the data is available to prove it.​

Facts - 0 Total Facts - 0

And the final total is:

0 Facts

 

[corndog]

That's what I expected.

You just opening your mouth and letting the conservative talking points fall out does not make what you say 'facts'.

At least post a biased link next time.

You're the one that posted the link to the Democratic Senate staff website, and copied and pasted their talking points without any analysis or independent thought.

I have no talking points. All of my data (facts!) come directly from raw data sources--no filters, and certainly no talking points. I actually know how to do the research. I don't need to be spoon fed.

 

[ntsammy5]

This is a serious question - since this is not a really active thread I'll ask it here.

Lot's of people keep pointing out that Democrats are tax and spend and will increase the deficit by huge amounts and the Republicans just the opposite.

How can you reconcile that with the fact that under Clinton we had budget surpluses and under Bush record deficits and HUGE debt issues - seems the facts don't match the rhetoric.

If I'm mistaken in some way, please let me know.

 

[bsnyder]

This is a serious question - since this is not a really active thread I'll ask it here.

Lot's of people keep pointing out that Democrats are tax and spend and will increase the deficit by huge amounts and the Republicans just the opposite.

How can you reconcile that with the fact that under Clinton we had budget surpluses and under Bush record deficits and HUGE debt issues - seems the facts don't match the rhetoric.

If I'm mistaken in some way, please let me know.

Well, this is just my personal opinon, but I think it's because we had a combination of a centrist Democrat and a fiscally conservative Congress, for most of the Clinton years. I think the same dynamic led to the passage of welfare reform, which I don't think would have happened with a Repubican president and GOP-controlled Congress, and I can pretty much guarantee would never have happened with a Democratic President and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

[corndog]

This is a serious question - since this is not a really active thread I'll ask it here.

Lot's of people keep pointing out that Democrats are tax and spend and will increase the deficit by huge amounts and the Republicans just the opposite.

How can you reconcile that with the fact that under Clinton we had budget surpluses and under Bush record deficits and HUGE debt issues - seems the facts don't match the rhetoric.

If I'm mistaken in some way, please let me know.

There was almost a surplus in one of the Clinton years. Spending increases were not at the pace they are now.

Also, though, the Clinton administration reduced the public debt while increasing "intergovernmental obligations" by a like amount. Not to get to technical, but the result was they were able to show a few surplus years, even though the national debt increased every year of his administration. Could the national debt increase every year if there really budget surpluses? Obviously the answer is no.

Please do not take my word for it though. I'm sure this post, as so many with facts, will lead to attacks and dismissals out of hand. But if you really are interested, google "intergovernmental obligations" related to the Clinton budgets.

 

[manning]

Somewhere along the line there may be a tax hike. Under McCain it would be for reducing deficit or paying for something that was committed to.

What bothers me, Obama's plan, is to raise taxes to promote socialism/welfare. The so called "spread the wealth".

40% of the people now don't pay taxes and would get a check from the government. And if it is based on head count baby production is going up.

Why we want to destroy the will of people to be productive is beyond me.

 

[AndyLL]

There was almost a surplus in one of the Clinton years. Spending increases were not at the pace they are now.

Also, though, the Clinton administration reduced the public debt while increasing "intergovernmental obligations" by a like amount. Not to get to technical, but the result was they were able to show a few surplus years, even though the national debt increased every year of his administration. Could the national debt increase every year if there really budget surpluses? Obviously the answer is no.

Please do not take my word for it though. I'm sure this post, as so many with facts, will lead to attacks and dismissals out of hand. But if you really are interested, google "intergovernmental obligations" related to the Clinton budgets.

As usual you quote 'facts' to back up your talking points and as usual you never give a link to back them up.

I think you meant "intergovernmental holdings" and not obligations... obligations does not bring up anything useful.

Here is a chart showing intergovernmental holdings by year... guess which 2 years it actually went down?

http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/the-growing-national-debt-intragovernmental-holdings-1968-2007/

Yes even though Clinton had 2 years of surpluses the national debt went up. The right wing uses that to claim that there was no real surpluses. Of course the thought of interest paid on the debt and inflation being the reason for that wouldn't cross the mind of a right winger.

Luckily the government actually keeps track of revenues vs expenditures:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf (page 22)

Guess which years the Receipts were greater then outlays?

Of course the great talking point wingers like to use during the Bush II run up of the national debt is saying that it wasn't too bad as a percentage to the GNP. Bad comparision. Since the Repubs have tried to convice the gullible public that supply side economics actually works guess which administrations debt to GNP % has gone up and which ~8 years it has gone down?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In just about every measure of figuring the deficits by administration and the total national debt Clinton come out ahead.

You might try posting some 'links' to support some of your 'facts' next time.

 

[bsnyder]

As usual you quote 'facts' to back up your talking points and as usual you never give a link to back them up.

I think you meant "intergovernmental holdings" and not obligations... obligations does not bring up anything useful.

Here is a chart showing intergovernmental holdings by year... guess which 2 years it actually went down?

http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/the-growing-national-debt-intragovernmental-holdings-1968-2007/

Yes even though Clinton had 2 years of surpluses the national debt went up. The right wing uses that to claim that there was no real surpluses. Of course the thought of interest paid on the debt and inflation being the reason for that wouldn't cross the mind of a right winger.

Luckily the government actually keeps track of revenues vs expenditures:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf (page 22)

Guess which years the Receipts were greater then outlays?

Of course the great talking point wingers like to use during the Bush II run up of the national debt is saying that it wasn't too bad as a percentage to the GNP. Bad comparision. Since the Repubs have tried to convice the gullible public that supply side economics actually works guess which administrations debt to GNP % has gone up and which ~8 years it has gone down?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In just about every measure of figuring the deficits by administration and the total national debt Clinton come out ahead.

You might try posting some 'links' to support some of your 'facts' next time.

Andy - your party has done a 180 on deficits - get with the program!

 

[AndyLL]

Andy - your party has done a 180 on deficits - get with the program!

Huh? My party? I used to be Republican. Until Bush II I never voted for a democrate for president. ( I did vote for RP ) I don't now consider myself a democrat and have been fairly critical of the current Congress.

Even during most of the 1st term of Bush II I considered myself a 'fiscal conservative' and sounded a lot like you and Corndog when arguing with the local tree huggers.

A funny thing happened during Bush's terms.

• The government really tried to get all their data online... making it easy to research the raw facts.
  
• After 15 years of working for a financial company... filled with CPAs, CPFs and Finance guys it was impossible not to pick up a good understanding of how the financial world worked. The smart ones were always complaining that the Fed was artificially propping up the market to hide the state of the economy. (they were right)
  
• I realized that although my taxes were lower under Bush I was not better off. Made me realize other factors go into how my personal financial situation. ( and by implication others )
  
• Bush made me realize his priority was more to invade Iraq then winning the war on terror.
  
• I am not an executive but I am required to attend many executive level meetings for a division of a F500 company. I very much now understand how and why many decisions are made at large companies and what their priorities are.
  
• I would guess I might know more from an executive level about large companies outsourcing of jobs to other countries then anyone else here at the Dis
  
• I now know a lot about how the money details work on very large company mergers and acquisitions.

It really wasn't too hard to realize that supply side economics didn't work. Regan's Budget Director (Stockman) admitting that it was a sham used as an excuse to lower the high upper tax rates was an eye opener which is one of the 1st things that made me really go research it.

So you see it's not hard for me to find the numbers to point out the fallacy of supply side economics... I already found them in the past to prove it to myself.

In any case as you can see by my ticker I'm about out of here.

 

[ntsammy5]

Very good post - I've worked in M&A, am now involved in moving several jobs to Hyderabad, deal with current Strategic Planning for one of the world's top 10 banks (who doesn't WANT any government money). My observations are pretty much the same. Oh and I was a G2 for part of Iraqi Freedom (NG ID) before I retired and saw a lot of intel during the initial phase of the conflict.

I especially agree with the supply side part - Laffer curve is definitely a laugher!