Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

[ProudAmerican]

LMFAO! Oh yeah, if a Dem inherited a govt with a $236 billion surplus (using the Republican's funny accounting) and was bragging about how much of an improvement it was that the deficit was going to only be $300 billion 6 years later, I'm sure you'd be right there singing the praise! Ha ha ha

we wont have to worry about that. there will NEVER be a dem to defend this nation properly. they will cut defense to balance the budget.

and I challenge you to find one post where I have EVER criticized Bill Clinton on his work with the deficit. (except the fact that rather than cut spending, he raised taxes to do it)

im no where near the partisan hack you are.....I can assure you.

I see the good in anyone, no matter the party.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

and let us not forget Clinton's peace dividend that he inherited from Reagan and Bush following the collapse of the ussr.

 

[Goobieman]

I believe the strawman part comes in where any normal person realizes cutting the to 1% isnt exactly the same thing that the current administration did.

That's exactly right.
Straw, man.

 

[Iriemon]

I believe the strawman part comes in where any normal person realizes cutting the to 1% isnt exactly the same thing that the current administration did.

By giving corporations and the "rich" more of their.....yes, THEIR.....money, they have in turn invested more.

Im not an economist....but I am a thinker.

If you are a thinker, then what you realize is that cutting taxes does not necessarily result in increased tax revenues. You will realize that for that to happen, the marginal extra economic growth produced by the tax cuts must exceed the marginal decrease in tax revenues caused by the decrease in the tax rate.

And if you agree with that, then you realize the question is open as to whether cutting rates from 39% to 33% would increase tax revenues.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Mybe you can explain to us why the Govt is borrowing more money this year than last if the deficits are getting better.

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
06/30/2005 $7,836,495,788,085.86
Increase: $457 billion

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
06/30/2006 $8,420,041,947,892.19
Increase: $487

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

Well according to the article if the tax revenue continues to increase we'll actually be able to start paying down the debt this year all without the government stealing half of my pay check while simultaneously sending us into another recession and perpetuating the cycle.

 

[Iriemon]

we wont have to worry about that. there will NEVER be a dem to defend this nation properly. they will cut defense to balance the budget.

and I challenge you to find one post where I have EVER criticized Bill Clinton on his work with the deficit. (except the fact that rather than cut spending, he raised taxes to do it)

im no where near the partisan hack you are.....I can assure you.

I see the good in anyone, no matter the party.

I agree I doubt I could find a post criticizing Clinton on the deficit. What is there to criticize? The dude came in facing a $290 billion deficit and turned it into a $236 billion surplus (using Republic funny accounting). What is there to criticize about that? That is not a basis for criticism, but a basis for praise and is almost a miraculous achievement.

But I have have noticed your objective and moderate tone on analyzing Clinton's performance in other areas, so you may have a point.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I doubt I could find a post criticizing Clinton on the deficit? What is there to criticize? The dude came in facing a $290 billion deficit and turned it into a $236 billion surplus (using Republic funny accounting). What is there to criticize about that?

That was an annual surplus not a cumulative one we were still 6-trillion in debt at the end of the Clinton administration.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
2. If you will note from the article on this subject, the bulk of the increase is in corporate tax revenues and individual income revenues at the top. The economy has grown at a decent clip for several years now, yet median income has declined every year Bush has been in office and the poverty rate has increased every year that Bush has been in office. Do you guys not get it? You are getting screwed here. The GDP has grown, yet if you are in the Middle Class, you are statistically worse off today than you were the day Bush took office. Why is this rising tide not lifting all boats? Why is it that virtually all real income growth has been at the top? The fact that the top is now paying a slightly higher percentage of federal income taxes is not indicative of a fairer tax code, its indicative of a shift in wealth an income from the middle to the top.

Not true!

1995 - $34,076
1996 - $35,492
1997 - $37,005
1998 - $38,885
1999 - $40,696
2000 - $41,990
2001 - $42,228
2002 - $42,409
2003 - $43,318

Median household income per the Census Bureau

SD, I'm sure, was referring to real (inflation adjusted) median income, not actual. Actual increases are meaningless in actual wealth or purchasing power if they do not keep up with inflation.

Which has been the case in the past 5 years. Actual median incomes have gone up, but inflation adjusted income is actually down:

Year: Actual median income - 2004$ median income

2004 44,389 44,389
2003 43,318 44,482
2002 42,409 44,546
2001 42,228 45,062
2000 41,990 46,058
1999 40,696 46,129
1998 38,885 45,003
1997 37,005 43,430
1996 35,492 42,544
1995 34,076 41,943

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

2005 inflation adjusted median income is actuall about 4% worse than it was than in 2000, despite the economic growth and soaring corporate profits. Which is why lots of folks think the economy is stinky.

 

[Iriemon]

That was an annual surplus not a cumulative one we were still 6-trillion in debt at the end of the Clinton administration.

Sure. Still, an amazing achievement considering the huge deficits he started with.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure. Still, an amazing achievement considering the huge deficits he started with.

How does the annual deficit of 92 have any impact what so ever on the annual deficit of 2000?

 

[Iriemon]

Twice now, we have witnessed aggressive pro-growth administrations drastically cut taxes for the small businesses who create most of the jobs. Both times, Democrats portrayed them as, "tax cuts for the rich," told us they wouldn't get us out of recessions, and that our budget couldn't handle any tax cuts. Twice now, Democrats have been proved wrong. Revenues are way higher than projected and we are a full year ahead of schedule in reducing the deficit by half. Now if Congress will pass a line item veto and commit to fixing the broken Social Security system like Bush wants, this exciting economic news will be sustainable.

Twice now, Republican "supply-siders" have promised us that they could cut taxes and that it would cause revenues to grow and there wouldn't be any deficits. Twice now these tax cuts have failed to create any extra growth, and caused revenues to fall billions of dollars resulting in deficits in the hundreds of billions. Twice now, Republicans have been proved wrong.

Revenues are way lower than projected and our deficit picture annual is $500 billion worse than it was.

Now, if the Republicans could *ever* show a modicum of fiscal responsibility, there might some day be exciting news about the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Twice now, we have witnessed aggressive pro-growth administrations drastically cut taxes for the small businesses who create most of the jobs. Both times, Democrats portrayed them as, "tax cuts for the rich," told us they wouldn't get us out of recessions, and that our budget couldn't handle any tax cuts. Twice now, Democrats have been proved wrong. Revenues are way higher than projected and we are a full year ahead of schedule in reducing the deficit by half. Now if Congress will pass a line item veto and commit to fixing the broken Social Security system like Bush wants, this exciting economic news will be sustainable.

Twice now, Republican "supply-siders" have promised us that they could cut taxes and that it would cause revenues to grow and there wouldn't be any deficits. Twice now these tax cuts have failed to create any extra growth, and caused revenues to fall billions of dollars resulting in deficits in the hundreds of billions. Twice now, Republicans have been proved wrong.

Revenues are way lower than projected and our deficit picture annual is $500 billion worse than it was.

Now, if the Republicans could *ever* show a modicum of fiscal responsibility, there might some day be exciting news about the economy.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If you are a thinker, then what you realize is that cutting taxes does not necessarily result in increased tax revenues.

a thinker would also conclude that since 2003, that does necessarily seem to be the case.

But I have have noticed your objective and moderate tone on analyzing Clinton's performance in other areas, so you may have a point.

thank you.

 

[Iriemon]

...Revenues are way higher than projected ...

I guess that depends upon what projections you are talking about:

CBO projections for revenues as of the date indicted versus actual revenues.

Year Jan01 Jan02 Aug02 Actual
2001 2,135 1,991 1,991 1991.2
2002 2,236 1,983 1,860 1853.2
2003 2,343 2,070 1,962 1782.3
2004 2,453 2,206 2,083 1880.1
2005 2,570 2,342 2,244 2153.9

Revenues certainly aren't "way higher" than these projections.

Source:
Jan 01: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2727&sequence=1
Jan 02: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3277&sequence=0
Aug 02: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3735&sequence=2&from=0

 

[faithful_servant]

Thats good news, maybe he'll curb his spending too...

When did we start referring to Congress as a male??

 

[hipsterdufus]

I use to watch NPR but can't anymore its full of left wing personalities likt Bill Moyers..........

WOW - how uninformed can you get. Listen carefully; NPR is on the radio. Unless you're staring at your radio, you're not watching NPR. :roll:

BTW- NP PBS has a great new special I think you would actually like. Bill Moyers - Faith and Reason.

 

[Iriemon]

If it's true that increasing taxes increases revenue why not raise taxes to 99% the same logic (or lack therof) applies.

I have never claimed that raising taxes to some level couldn't have the effect of making revenuess decline at some point.

The claim I am refuting is that lowering taxes necessarily increases revenues. I think we all now agree on that point.

 

[Iriemon]

and a 6-trillion dollar debt.

$5.7 trillion more accurately. But you are right, it was already pretty huge and needed to be paid down, which was why we needed those surpluses.

But it is now $8.4 trillion. Almost a 50% increase.

 

[Iriemon]

Well according to the article if the tax revenue continues to increase we'll actually be able to start paying down the debt this year all without the government stealing half of my pay check while simultaneously sending us into another recession and perpetuating the cycle.

I don't think the article is claiming that the Govt will be starting to pay down the debt this year. It is already up almost $500 billion in 9 months.

 

[Iriemon]

How does the annual deficit of 92 have any impact what so ever on the annual deficit of 2000?

It shows that Clinton took a Govt that was spending $290 billion (using funny accounting) more than it took in every year and gave Bush a Govt that was taking in $236 billion more than it spent. A dramatic and unparalled improvement.

 

[faithful_servant]

All of those events could have been avoided too if Bush had made different decisions. It's hardly a valid excuse.

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!! The mantra of the pathetic minority of the left that thinks that President Bush is tha cause of all evil. He's the reason their cat boxes are over-flowing, he's the reason that it didn't snow on Christmas Eve, he's the reason that "My Fair Brady" is a TV show.

 

[faithful_servant]

can I see a show of hands of Democrats that want a tax increase that have voluntarily given to the government during tax time and ear marked their gift as "payment to help the ridiculous debt George Bush has created"

HEAR HEAR!!!! I'm waiting for Soros to donate 10 or 20 billion to the gov't.

 

[Iriemon]

a thinker would also conclude that since 2003, that does necessarily seem to be the case.

No, a thinker would not conclude that. A thinker would conclude that since the tax cuts were passed in '01-03, and you are comparing how revenues have done with the tax cuts to how they did without, the only valid comparison is to compare the revenue performance with what it was doing and expected to do before the tax cuts, which was 2000.

Revenues fell by hundreds of billions of dollars in '01-03 the years the tax cuts took effect. A thinker would not say that because they improved in 2004-06, when there were no further tax cuts, that proves that revenues are doing better because of the tax cuts.

 

[Blitz]

This is what happens when you higher an idiot to do a presidential job. Charm doesn't get the job done, Intellect does.:boom

 

[Iriemon]

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!! The mantra of the pathetic minority of the left that thinks that President Bush is tha cause of all evil. He's the reason their cat boxes are over-flowing, he's the reason that it didn't snow on Christmas Eve, he's the reason that "My Fair Brady" is a TV show.

I don't think he's the cause of all evil. His administration is the cause of the $2.7 trillion extra debt incurred, and the out of control deficits, and the Iraq war, and the Prescription Drug Company Enhancement Act of 2001, among other things; but not all evil.