Tax Revenues Mystify Democrats

[TekDragon]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...2333-4253r.htm

Federal tax receipts continue to soar, with the individual income tax now expected to rise about 15 percent this year and the corporate tax by 20 percent. A year ago, when people noticed tax receipts were going to be up by 15 percent, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tried to dismiss it as "a temporary blip." That card can't be played twice. The Bush team, on the other hand, has an odd habit of describing reductions in marginal tax rates as "tax relief." But the phrase "tax relief" surely implies taxpayers are paying less in taxes when, in fact, some are paying much more. A White House press release boasts that "since the beginning of 2003, real GDP [gross domestic product] growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, exceeding the post-World War II average of 3.4 percentage points a year." That 3.4 percent average includes recessions. But the new budget projections have economic growth over the next three years slowing to 3.2 percent. After seeing the estimated budget deficit for the current fiscal year slashed by 28 percent in just six months, how much confidence can we have in budget estimates that stretch out 10 years or more? In a paper presented at a U.S. Treasury conference in 2004, I noted "budget forecasting errors follow a cyclical pattern, becoming too optimistic near cyclical peaks and too pessimistic in the early stages of recovery, such as 1984, 1994 and 2004." In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the deficit would hit $653 billion in just six years. When we got to 1999, the actual figure was a $126 billion surplus. That wasn't because of higher tax rates in 1993. Individual tax receipts were a smaller share of GDP in 1993-95 than in 1988-90, and no higher than now.

[6SpeedTA95]

Good article.

I find it amazing that simple economics elludes and/or surprises so many. More incentive to create = an economy that moves forward = increased incomes = increased tax revenues.

[Scrum]

What does this have to do with Democrats?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What does this have to do with Democrats?

Democrats were against the tax cuts and said they would give the government less money. The opposite has happened.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Democrats were against the tax cuts and said they would give the government less money. The opposite has happened.

But all he did was copy/paste and article and add "Democrats" on the end of the title.

[TekDragon]

What frustrates me the most is that Republicans have such an amazing streak of success under their belt. Unemployment is low, post college grad employment is approaching 100%, the economy is growing at a steady 4% per year (the proverbial "sweet spot"), and now that growth is resulting in tax revunues that are reducing the deficit.

Yet because of an unbelievable increase in pork barrel spending and a refusal to slash poorly performing social programs, all of their success is ignored beside the deficit.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

But all he did was copy/paste and article and add "Democrats" on the end of the title.

Awww... here's a tissue.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

What frustrates me the most is that Republicans have such an amazing streak of success under their belt. Unemployment is low, post college grad employment is approaching 100%, the economy is growing at a steady 4% per year (the proverbial "sweet spot"), and now that growth is resulting in tax revunues that are reducing the deficit.

Yet because of an unbelievable increase in pork barrel spending and a refusal to slash poorly performing social programs, all of their success is ignored beside the deficit.

You are giving an aweful lot of credit for something that doesn't have all that much of an effect. Did tax cuts help? Sure they did. Are they the sole, or even a major reason for the robust growth of the economy? absolutely not. You are giving them credit for essentially not getting in the way.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Yet because of an unbelievable increase in pork barrel spending and a refusal to slash poorly performing social programs, all of their success is ignored beside the deficit.

Amazing that you should attack social programs, but neglect to mention a multi-hundred-billion-dollar war that was unnecessary and hasn't really done much for us, and that will continue to cost us an arm and a leg for the next decade or so.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Amazing that you should attack social programs, but neglect to mention a multi-hundred-billion-dollar war that was unnecessary and hasn't really done much for us, and that will continue to cost us an arm and a leg for the next decade or so.

It took decades for Germany or Japan to begin proving themselves as valuable allys and benificial to the world. People bitched and complained about the costs back then.

I'm glad people like you were ignored and shoved aside back then. I'm glad that, for the most part, you still are.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You are giving an aweful lot of credit for something that doesn't have all that much of an effect. Did tax cuts help? Sure they did. Are they the sole, or even a major reason for the robust growth of the economy? absolutely not. You are giving them credit for essentially not getting in the way.

When the other political party is shaping their platform around getting in the way, and hurting economic growth with taxes, then yes - I do put the "blame" on the Republicans for staying out of the way.

[Thorgrim]

The GDP is growing at a faster rate than normal this year, that usually happens after years of bad growth, and especially when nations like China and India are beating us at growth

Infact, we are 98th in growth
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ac&v=66

Your tax citation is a talking point, not an economic fact

The administration exagerated the deficet by a small amount of its total, so that the average american couldn't tell the difference (and they can't, they just say "we have a big debt" and no one is changing their mind now) and so when things went better, they could claim victory, they've been doing this over and over again.

Your article uses inflation and natural rate of US economic growth to show a rise in tax collection, and then complains victory because of an unrelated factor

As shown in the Reagan years
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government

It takes about 5-6 years after a tax cut before the tax system recovers from the enormous hit it takes, but make no mistake, there is no mystical power, if you have higher tax rates during a recovery (see 1950s, 1970s) you will recieve more tax money than if you cut taxes

To other people, you're support of trickle down economics deserve two reponses, first, supply side economics was a joke and an extreme minority view in the 1970s after we had mastered Keynes economics and prevented any further depressions, its only politics that has given it new life.

The "tricklle down" is very inefficient, because along every step of the way, you are giving people money who are more likely to save than to spend, the surest way to slow economic growth is to have a country that saves money in a bank instead of spending or investing it.

You give a rich man $100, he will save a healthy chunk of it, that healthy chunk did NOTHING for the economy, and say he spends the rest of it towards his butlers pay, his butler, being of a middle class, will save some of that as well...and by the time the whole process is over, very little can actually be entered into the main economic forum

However, you give every lower class person in america a $100 bill, they are much more likely to spend it on a business that will spur economic activity, infact, if you gave them all a $100 rebate at walmart, that would be many many many times more efficient than a $100 tax cut for the wealthy.

Thank you for your time and God Bless America

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

What frustrates me the most is that Republicans have such an amazing streak of success under their belt. Unemployment is low, post college grad employment is approaching 100%, the economy is growing at a steady 4% per year (the proverbial "sweet spot"), and now that growth is resulting in tax revunues that are reducing the deficit.

Yet because of an unbelievable increase in pork barrel spending and a refusal to slash poorly performing social programs, all of their success is ignored beside the deficit.

You know, I know a lot of college graduates who are working in call centers. Some with masters degrees... and they aren't even management. I wouldn't really count that as a success

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

When the other political party is shaping their platform around getting in the way, and hurting economic growth with taxes, then yes - I do put the "blame" on the Republicans for staying out of the way.

It's fine to give them credit for staying out of the way, but you went much further then that. You credit them with the entire economic recovery and the GDP growth and decrease in unemployment. All of which our government had very little to do with.

[6SpeedTA95]

So wait, when the deficit is high the world is coming to an end and the bush admin is spending us into the stone age. However, now that its under control, they purposefully overstated the deficit to make them look like economic geniuses? is this for real?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You know, I know a lot of college graduates who are working in call centers. Some with masters degrees... and they aren't even management. I wouldn't really count that as a success

so what you can find examples of that all over the place...you can also point to the fact that college grads have the best job market this year since 1999 and that was the best job market of all time for college grads. You can also point to the fact htat college grads make significantly more than non college grads. There's always exceptions, but you can't point to an exception and act like its the norm.

edit: one more thing, I work at a quote "call center" as a technical analyst providing high level customer and internal support for our products. I'm also "not even a manager" yet my income alone is 15% higher than the median HOUSEHOLD income in the country. Just because someone is in a "call center" doesn't mean they're not makin good money or have a good career or that college wasn't worth it.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So wait, when the deficit is high the world is coming to an end and the bush admin is spending us into the stone age. However, now that its under control, they purposefully overstated the deficit to make them look like economic geniuses? is this for real?

This is pretty common knowledge, I even heard it on Fox News when I was eating

Plenty of Washington budget-watchers suspect that the administration tweaked its February forecast to make the revenue estimate as low as possible so there would be improvement to trumpet in July. "Given the way they've spun the result," said Richard Kogan, a senior budget analyst with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "you have to suspect they knew that their February revenue estimate was probably too low, since history and outside analysts said as much."

http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avan...,6352746.story

It's not laughable...at all

Also, the deficit is not under control by any means...I don't know where you are getting that from...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

so what you can find examples of that all over the place...you can also point to the fact that college grads have the best job market this year since 1999 and that was the best job market of all time for college grads. You can also point to the fact htat college grads make significantly more than non college grads. There's always exceptions, but you can't point to an exception and act like its the norm.

edit: one more thing, I work at a quote "call center" as a technical analyst providing high level customer and internal support for our products. I'm also "not even a manager" yet my income alone is 15% higher than the median HOUSEHOLD income in the country. Just because someone is in a "call center" doesn't mean they're not makin good money or have a good career or that college wasn't worth it.

The only relevant part of that paragraph was about job markets

and I am skeptical that someone graduating this year had a better job market than someone graduating in 1999

In 99, anyone who knew Windows 98 could get a "high-tech" job with a degree in sociology

link please

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The only relevant part of that paragraph was about job markets

and I am skeptical that someone graduating this year had a better job market than someone graduating in 1999

In 99, anyone who knew Windows 98 could get a "high-tech" job with a degree in sociology

link please

Best job market SINCE 1999

Source both money magazine and kiplingers magazine, check their websites.

[motivez]

Seems like there's a laughable double standard when it comes to whether or not we are going to credit a political party or President with how the economy has done, is doing, or will do.

For example,

Clinton: no credit for tech boom or anything else that was positive

However!

Bush: no responsibility for bad years
Bush: responsible for good years

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either the President's economic policies help and have a drastic impact on how the economy is doing, or they have little overall impact and what was going to happen was going to happen