Tax Cuts (1 Viewer)

[easyt65]

The Unemployment rate is down to 4.7%.
The stock Market is soaring.
The U.S. economy is growing 3 times faster than the European Markets.
And it is all thanks to the Bush Tax cuts!

While the GOP is working hard to make the Tax cuts permanent, the Democratic Party, as part of its platform for the November elections, is promising to eliminate the Tax Cuts as soon as they get in.

I'm sitting and watching two reps debate on CNN. One is an economic 'expert' and the other is a DNC.

The Democrat is saying that the DNC is demanding that we 'Pay as we go'.

"There is nothing wrong with paying as you go, and the deficit is growing because of these tax cuts," the Liberal declared.

Actually, the current deficit is a result of War-Time Spending.

And actually, as the economist corrects him, the reason the deficit is not HIGHER is because of the tax cuts! The tax cuts have resulted in increased spending, more money being pumped into the economy, economic growth, stronger market, decrease in unemployment, and more Taxes due to increased spending that is being taxed!

The amount of tax revenue - the amount of taxes collected by the Federal Goverment - has increased this year over last year, which had increased over the year before, all due to lower taxes resulting in more spending and economic growth.

The Democrats understand only 1 thing - Tax the People! They see every dollar the American people put in their pockets as THEIR money! Tax Cuts are something not considered by the Dems! They have not learned yet, not from Reagan and not from Buh, that giving people more money to spend stimulates and strengthens the economy, creating MORE TAX REVENUE than the tax INCREASES they had originally proposed!
.
.
.
...So, The Unemployment rate is down to 4.7%.
The stock Market is soaring.
The U.S. economy is growing 3 times faster than the European Markets...

And the Democrats PROMISE to fix 'what ain't broke' by not only eliminating Bush's Tax cuts but to RAISE TAXES! :doh Welcome to the Democratic Party Plan for making the thriving economy better!



And I thought this guy on TV now was scary....This just reminds me of seeing Kerry on some late night talk show right after the 2004 election when he was asked his opinion on taxes. Kerry said that if it were up to him, he would eliminate all taxes - you could make and spend as much as you wanted. When you die though, he added, everything would go to the Federal Goverment! :shock:

 

[Goobieman]

While I agree with your post otherwise, I must take issue with this:

Actually, the current deficit is a result of War-Time Spending.

Since 9/11/01 we have spent ~$400B on the war.
Since 9/30/01 we have spent ~$5269 on federal entitlement/welfare programs

The war is causing the deficits?

 

[Iriemon]

The Unemployment rate is down to 4.7%.
The stock Market is soaring.
The U.S. economy is growing 3 times faster than the European Markets.
And it is all thanks to the Bush Tax cuts!

While the GOP is working hard to make the Tax cuts permanent, the Democratic Party, as part of its platform for the November elections, is promising to eliminate the Tax Cuts as soon as they get in.

I'm sitting and watching two reps debate on CNN. One is an economic 'expert' and the other is a DNC.

The Democrat is saying that the DNC is demanding that we 'Pay as we go'.

"There is nothing wrong with paying as you go, and the deficit is growing because of these tax cuts," the Liberal declared.

Actually, the current deficit is a result of War-Time Spending.

And actually, as the economist corrects him, the reason the deficit is not HIGHER is because of the tax cuts! The tax cuts have resulted in increased spending, more money being pumped into the economy, economic growth, stronger market, decrease in unemployment, and more Taxes due to increased spending that is being taxed!

The amount of tax revenue - the amount of taxes collected by the Federal Goverment - has increased this year over last year, which had increased over the year before, all due to lower taxes resulting in more spending and economic growth.

The Democrats understand only 1 thing - Tax the People! They see every dollar the American people put in their pockets as THEIR money! Tax Cuts are something not considered by the Dems! They have not learned yet, not from Reagan and not from Buh, that giving people more money to spend stimulates and strengthens the economy, creating MORE TAX REVENUE than the tax INCREASES they had originally proposed!
.
.
.
...So, The Unemployment rate is down to 4.7%.
The stock Market is soaring.
The U.S. economy is growing 3 times faster than the European Markets...

And the Democrats PROMISE to fix 'what ain't broke' by not only eliminating Bush's Tax cuts but to RAISE TAXES! :doh Welcome to the Democratic Party Plan for making the thriving economy better!

And I thought this guy on TV now was scary....This just reminds me of seeing Kerry on some late night talk show right after the 2004 election when he was asked his opinion on taxes. Kerry said that if it were up to him, he would eliminate all taxes - you could make and spend as much as you wanted. When you die though, he added, everything would go to the Federal Goverment! :shock:

Typical rhetoric from the pass the buck crowd that wants to borrow our country into obvlivion.

This is the "more tax revenue" that the tax cuts have given us:

Income tax revenue. CBO.gov.

2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2

You say they have increased the last couple years. Whoop-de-doo. The reason tax revenues have grown the last couple years is because they stopped cutting taxes. But the numbers are still down despite the fact that actual (not real) personal income has grown each year.

But I'm sure the conservative would say that these revenues, hundreds of billions below where they would have been, has nothing to do with the deficits. As long as he keeps more money in his pocket, screw the next generation. Blame it on the war.

And these are supposed to be the guys that stand for responsibility. What a joke.

 

[aps]

I hope the Dems take over the House and stop the taxcuts. Sorry, easy, but your cursory conclusion that the tax cuts are the reason the economy is doing well ain't going to cut it for me. Shall we talk about our deficit? It's a joke.

Goobieman, it's one thing to spend money on an unnecessary war versus on people who are in need. Do I need to remind you of the disasters our country has suffered in the last year? No wonder that number (assuming it's even valid) is so high.

The republican motto: me me me me me me

And don't tell me I have sour grapes regarding the tax cuts. They have benefitted me, but for what? So we can increase taxes later to pay for this ridiculous deficit?

 

[Iriemon]

I hope the Dems take over the House and stop the taxcuts. Sorry, easy, but your cursory conclusion that the tax cuts are the reason the economy is doing well ain't going to cut it for me. Shall we talk about our deficit? It's a joke.

Goobieman, it's one thing to spend money on an unnecessary war versus on people who are in need. Do I need to remind you of the disasters our country has suffered in the last year? No wonder that number (assuming it's even valid) is so high.

The republican motto: me me me me me me

And don't tell me I have sour grapes regarding the tax cuts. They have benefitted me, but for what? So we can increase taxes later to pay for this ridiculous deficit?

Not to mention how great it is to have to pay interest every year on the Republican debt. Interest expense is $198 Billion in just the first 6 months of FY2006, according to the treasury department.

But these guys don't care as long as they can pander to the electorate and keep more $ in their pockets. Fight wars? No problem. Just charge it. Let's call them "The credit card Republicans."

 

[Goobieman]

I hope the Dems take over the House and stop the taxcuts.

Tell me how I am going to afford the additional $3000/yr that will come out of my pocket once my taxes are raised.

Oh wait... we don't need to worry about how taxpayers will pay for tax hikes. Never mind.

Goobieman, it's one thing to spend money on an unnecessary war versus on people who are in need.

Blah blah blah.
Its impossible to argue that ~$400B in spending caused the deficits and $5269B in spending did not.

Do I need to remind you of the disasters our country has suffered in the last year? No wonder that number (assuming it's even valid) is so high.

Not a penny of that included hurricane (etc) cleanup. Its all mandatory programic spending. Its all welfare.

The republican motto: me me me me me me

The liberal motto:
We can never, ever, take too much of your money.

And don't tell me I have sour grapes regarding the tax cuts. They have benefitted me, but for what? So we can increase taxes later to pay for this ridiculous deficit?

You dont -have- to raise taxes, and you can raise taxes only so much.
You can -always- cut spending, however.

 

[Iriemon]

Tell me how I am going to afford the additional $3000/yr that will come out of my pocket once my taxes are raised.

Oh wait... we don't need to worry about how taxpayers will pay for tax hikes. Never mind.

Well, gosh Goobieman, what in the world was I thinking? Of course your personal situation outweighs consideration of everything else. When we look at it from your personal situation, it does make a lot more sense to borrow the money so you don't have to afford the additional $3000, and let some future taxpayer have to pay it. How foolish of me. My apologies for not putting things in the proper perspective.

Hey, now that I think of it, I will have to figure out how to afford a lot more than $3000 if taxes are raised. What have I been thinking? I don't like to pay taxes either!

I got a great idea! I'm going to become a conservative, and we should totally eliminate taxes, which will really make the economy grow, and just borrow it all, and I'll be a lot better off! Plus we can invade Iran and start a couple more wars, and I won't have to sacrifice or anything like that because it won't cost me a cent because we can borrow the cost of that too!

Thanks for straighting me out, man.

 

[Captain America]

Too funny! I recall, several years ago, under Horn-dog Clinton, when the dems were boasting about the economy, the Republican's declaring, "The economy does not react until years after the actions were taken to boost said economy and that the credit should go to the previous republican administrations of Bush and Reagan. Y'all remember that?

Now, it's all different. It's all Bush. The guy who opens the spicket and chokes the hose. The guy who has racked up such debt our grandchildren will be paying it for it, most likely, long after we are all gone from here.

But folks do gotta admit, all things considered, things ain't so bad right now here in the good ol' USofA. I can only imagine how well things would have been had fate taken a different political course.

But keep in mind. Nobody can blame Bush for 9/11 or Katrina as much as your partisanship would like you to. That got dumped in his lap. I am sure he had better plans to pursue when he took office, (Iraqi invasion notwithstanding. I'm convinced that was going down come hell or high water, thanks to Rove, he was able to weave that agenda into 9/11 and it worked out quite nicely for him.)

That is a lot for any human being to deal with. Especially George. We should, if out of human kindness if for no other reason, give the dude some slack now and again.

 

[Iriemon]

Too funny! I recall, several years ago, under Horn-dog Clinton, when the dems were boasting about the economy, the Republican's declaring, "The economy does not react until years after the actions were taken to boost said economy and that the credit should go to the previous republican administrations of Bush and Reagan. Y'all remember that?

Now, it's all different. It's all Bush. The guy who opens the spicket and chokes the hose. The guy who has racked up such debt our grandchildren will be paying it for it, most likely, long after we are all gone from here.

But folks do gotta admit, all things considered, things ain't so bad right now here in the good ol' USofA. I can only imagine how well things would have been had fate taken a different political course.

But keep in mind. Nobody can blame Bush for 9/11 or Katrina as much as your partisanship would like you to. That got dumped in his lap. I am sure he had better plans to pursue when he took office, (Iraqi invasion notwithstanding. I'm convinced that was going down come hell or high water, thanks to Rove, he was able to weave that agenda into 9/11 and it worked out quite nicely for him.)

That is a lot for any human being to deal with. Especially George. We should, if out of human kindness if for no other reason, give the dude some slack now and again.

Bush argued the need for tax cuts in '01 to stimulate the economy. But no one is denying the economy is doing fine now. That is why we should be paying the debt down, not running it up. But with deficits in the 1/2 trillion range annually since '03, and a war to pay for they want to cut taxes more, put us more deeply in debt. The boomers are retiring and in a few years, SS will go from creating $175 billion in extra tax revenues to not having enough.
IMO is is generally immoral to pass the buck and expect the next generation to pay for our government. But running up a huge debt when the economy is strong, knowing what is coming down the road, is unconscionable.

 

[oldreliable67]

Bush specifically and the Repubs in general have been a huge disappointment in terms of fiscal leadership - or more accurately, the lack thereof. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like. But on the other side of the ledger, tax receipts continue to show that the tax cuts have actually helped increase overall government tax receipts:

The latest evidence is Treasury's monthly budget report for May that tax receipts were up by $137 billion, or 11.2%, for the first seven months of Fiscal 2006 through April. That's more than triple the inflation rate. And it comes on top of the $274 billion, or 14.6%, increase in federal revenues for all of Fiscal 2005, which ended last September 30.

Moreover, overall state revenues climbed by 8% in 2004 and nearly 9% in 2005, according to the Census Bureau, and more and more states are piling up big surpluses.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) completely missed this in their forecast. As recently as March, CBO was still advertising an expected increase in the baseline for individual income tax receipts of only $76 billion and merely $24 billion in corporate tax receipts for all of Fiscal 2006. Yet in only seven months, individual income tax revenues have already climbed by $56 billion and corporate receipts by $40 billion.

In a modest mea culpa, the CBO said,

"Various types of personal income not automatically subject to tax withholding may have increased faster than expected in 2005," explains CBO, in as much of a mea culpa as the bureaucrats allow themselves. "Sources of such income could include capital gains, noncorporate business income, interest, and dividends. In addition, growth in incomes in 2005 may have been concentrated more than expected among higher-income taxpayers, who face the highest tax rates." [emphasis added]

Source.

According to today's WSJ, "This revenue inflow also means that federal taxes as a share of the economy are now almost back to their post-World War II average of roughly 18%. That share will continue to increase if the economy continues to grow, as more taxpayers get wealthier and are thrown into higher tax brackets. The only reason the federal deficit continues to exist is because Congress continues to spend more than 20% of GDP."

The root problem continues to be a Congress that continues to spend and a Pres that refuses to even attempt to impose any fiscal discipline at all.

The economy has enjoyed an expansion that took off in earnest at about the time the 2003 tax cuts passed. Lower tax rates have since had precisely the result that supporters predicted, though don't look for that story on page one any time soon.

 

[Goobieman]

The root problem continues to be a Congress that continues to spend and a Pres that refuses to even attempt to impose any fiscal discipline at all.

Spending is -always- the problem, as the government -choses- to spend every dime it spends.

What certain people here fail to comprehend is that the GOP is not a conservative party, and Bush is not a conservative president. Both are moderates, with the GOP in general being to the left of Bush.

On most issues, the GOP and Bush are right were the Dems were in 1980.

 

[Iriemon]

Bush specifically and the Repubs in general have been a huge disappointment in terms of fiscal leadership - or more accurately, the lack thereof. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like. But on the other side of the ledger, tax receipts continue to show that the tax cuts have actually helped increase overall government tax receipts:

The latest evidence is Treasury's monthly budget report for May that tax receipts were up by $137 billion, or 11.2%, for the first seven months of Fiscal 2006 through April. That's more than triple the inflation rate. And it comes on top of the $274 billion, or 14.6%, increase in federal revenues for all of Fiscal 2005, which ended last September 30.

...

It is great revenues are growing. If taxes are not cut, you expect revenues to grow with a growing economy and with inflation. However, what we have to compare is not how it did compared to last year, but how they are doing relative to where they would be without the tax cuts. And personal income taxes are still below 2000, even in actual terms, much less inflation adjusted. Maybe this year they will finally get back to where they were in 2000.

But that is not good enough. Given the growth in the economy and inflation, they should be much higher. And given the wanton spending going on, they need to be raised further still.

It is interesting that the areas of tax revenues that have really grown -- SS and corporate income, are areas where the taxes were not cut at all (SS) or not a lot (corporate).

According to today's WSJ, "This revenue inflow also means that federal taxes as a share of the economy are now almost back to their post-World War II average of roughly 18%. That share will continue to increase if the economy continues to grow, as more taxpayers get wealthier and are thrown into higher tax brackets. The only reason the federal deficit continues to exist is because Congress continues to spend more than 20% of GDP."

I'm not sure how they make this statement. Spending as a % of GDP really hasn't changed a lot:

Expenditures - % of GDP - GDP [CBO.gov and BEA.gov]


1997 1,601.30 19.3% 8304.3
1998 1,652.60 18.9% 8747.0
1999 1,701.90 18.4% 9268.4
2000 1,788.80 18.2% 9817.0
2001 1,863.80 18.4% 10128.0
2002 2,011.00 19.2% 10469.6
2003 2,157.60 19.7% 10971.2
2004 2,292.20 19.5% 11734.3
2005 2,472.20 19.8% 12,487.1

It is revenues as a % of GDP that has really taken the hit:

1997 1579.3 19.02% 8304.3
1998 1721.8 19.68% 8747.0
1999 1827.5 19.72% 9268.4
2000 2025.2 20.63% 9817.0
2001 1991.2 19.66% 10128.0
2002 1853.2 17.70% 10469.6
2003 1782.3 16.25% 10971.2
2004 1880.1 16.02% 11734.3
2005 2153.9 17.25% 12,487.1

In 2005, Revenues were only 17.25% of GDP, well below the 20% level of 2000.

The root problem continues to be a Congress that continues to spend and a Pres that refuses to even attempt to impose any fiscal discipline at all.

The economy has enjoyed an expansion that took off in earnest at about the time the 2003 tax cuts passed. Lower tax rates have since had precisely the result that supporters predicted, though don't look for that story on page one any time soon.

If the argument is that the 2003 tax cuts caused the expansion (a highly dubious claim, given the historical lack of correlation between tax rates and GDP growth, which I have posted several times but will again if you want to see them); you could make the same causal claim and say the tax rate increase in '93 "caused" the economic boom of the 90s.

The root problem is that revenues are lower than expenditures. The Republicans reduced revenues but failed to reduce expenditures. They've had their chance and have totally blown it. Still are. They want to cut taxes more but I haven't read about the spending bill that cuts 1/2 trillion in spending. If after 6 years they didn't have the political guts to cut spending, it ain't going to happen. Therefore, the only realistic alternatives are 1) stand up and be responsible and pay for what our gov't spends 2) keep passing the buck and f***ing the next generation.

I have said this before -- maybe if the Govt raised taxes to the level necessary to cover spending (including paying for the wars) maybe there would be an outcry about it sufficient to motivate the govt to trim spending.

But that would take courage, wouldn't it. The last time that happened was in 93 when the Dems raised taxes. That balanced the budget, but the Republicans made them pay for that courage.

 

[Iriemon]

Spending is -always- the problem, as the government -choses- to spend every dime it spends.

What certain people here fail to comprehend is that the GOP is not a conservative party, and Bush is not a conservative president. Both are moderates, with the GOP in general being to the left of Bush.

On most issues, the GOP and Bush are right were the Dems were in 1980.

Doesn't Deficit = Revenues - spending where revenues < spending?

 

[BubbaBob]

If the argument is that the 2003 tax cuts caused the expansion (a highly dubious claim, given the historical lack of correlation between tax rates and GDP growth, which I have posted several times but will again if you want to see them); you could make the same causal claim and say the tax rate increase in '93 "caused" the economic boom of the 90s.

Nope. Since the depression EVERY time rates are cut, revenue goes up. EVERY TIME. The '93 increase in rate and revenue is an anomoly caused by the dot com hysteria, and that bubble burst. That was the only time in our history that increased rates and increased revenues happened.

The root problem is that revenues are lower than expenditures.

Well...DUH!!

but followed further, it's specifically expenditures rising, not a revenue shortfall, causing the problem.

So long as congress thinks it absolutely MUST spend every dime taken in, and then some, and as long as we have a president that never met a spending bill he didn't like, the problem will continue regardless of revenue, and that pretty well describes congress and the president, regardless of party, for quite a while.

I'm a Bush supporter socially. I'm a Bush supporter on defense. I support his tax cuts. His spending habits, along with those of congress (both sides of the aisle), however, REALLY pi$$ me off. Personally I think it's close to time for another tea party.

BubbaBob

 

[Iriemon]

Nope. Since the depression EVERY time rates are cut, revenue goes up. EVERY TIME. The '93 increase in rate and revenue is an anomoly caused by the dot com hysteria, and that bubble burst. That was the only time in our history that increased rates and increased revenues happened.

Revenues have gone up everytime taxes were cut?

Revenues in inflation adjusted 2000 dollars, from CBO.gov using inflation adjustment used by BEA.gov for GDP. The third figure is change from the preceding year.

1980 956.84 21.8
1981 1013.71 56.9
1982 984.93 -28.8
1983 921.08 -63.9
1984 985.15 64.1

2000 2025.21 157.9
2001 1944.55 -80.7
2002 1778.72 -165.8
2003 1676.61 -102.1
2004 1723.31 46.7
2005 1920.64 197.3

So much for every time. Can you show us one time revenues have gone down after taxes were increased?

The root problem is that revenues are lower than expenditures.

Well...DUH!!

but followed further, it's specifically expenditures rising, not a revenue shortfall, causing the problem.

So the problem of deficits is when revenues are less than spending; but a revenue shortfall is not a problem. Doesn't make sense to me.

We balanced the budget in 2000, despite the fact that expenditures rose every single year. How do you explain that?

So long as congress thinks it absolutely MUST spend every dime taken in, and then some, and as long as we have a president that never met a spending bill he didn't like, the problem will continue regardless of revenue, and that pretty well describes congress and the president, regardless of party, for quite a while.

Congress doesn't spend every dime taken in when you have a president that knows how to spell V-E-T-O. In 2000 Congress did not spend every dime taken in, it miraculously spent less. Which lasted until about two weeks after Bush was elected and the Republicans slashed taxes.

I'm a Bush supporter socially. I'm a Bush supporter on defense. I support his tax cuts.

That's a shocker. Do you support him borrowing 1/2 trillion a year too? Are you another charter member of the pass the buck generation?

His spending habits, along with those of congress (both sides of the aisle), however, REALLY pi$$ me off. Personally I think it's close to time for another tea party.

Gee, why do you suppose they haven't cut $500 billion a year in spending so spending would match their tax cuts?

 

[easyt65]

Typical rhetoric from the pass the buck crowd that wants to borrow our country into obvlivion.

This is the "more tax revenue" that the tax cuts have given us:

Income tax revenue. CBO.gov.

2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2

You say they have increased the last couple years. Whoop-de-doo. The reason tax revenues have grown the last couple years is because they stopped cutting taxes. But the numbers are still down despite the fact that actual (not real) personal income has grown each year.

But I'm sure the conservative would say that these revenues, hundreds of billions below where they would have been, has nothing to do with the deficits. As long as he keeps more money in his pocket, screw the next generation. Blame it on the war.

And these are supposed to be the guys that stand for responsibility. What a joke.

Show me the link where you got your numbers or you're just pulling them out your rear! Sorry to call you out, but you NEVER - not as long as we have debated - have ever backed up anything you have said!


As far as everyone else who likes the idea of the Goverment taking back more of the money out of their pockets - you guys are idiots! Between the war and katrina, there is the bulk of your deficit. Throw in the program, that I agree is stupid, great intention but rushed to market wuithout perfecting 1st - program of drugs paid for by the govt - and we have a deficit problem.

We also have a better economy, better growth than Clinton had, at least in his final 4 years! The economy was declining in his last term. Every economic expert will tell you that Reagan had it right, that giving people more money to spend stimulates the economy! Where are all the Democrats who said these tax cuts were for the rich and would do nothing? The fact is they have all retreated backin the shadows and refuse to come out and admit they were WRONG! Unemployment is way down, the stock market is way up, small business growth is way up.

Unlike those who criticized the Bush cuts yet now hunch in a corner and refuse to admit they were wrong, i will go out and predict that if the Democrats come in and cut the bush tax cuts, the economy will start going down within 2-3 years - the unemployment rate will start rising, the market will start declining (people will have less money to spend to invest in the market). If I am wrong, I will gladly come back and admit it!

Youwant to make the economy even stronger? Along with the Bush tax cuts:

1. Get rid of the 'Death Tax'!
2. Begin enforcing the immigration laws! Fine the cr@p out of every company hiring illegals. Maybe, Like the drug laws, start seizing property for it. Padlock the doors! Stop the flow of money paid to illegals flowing back to Mexico and the $30-40 Million a year drain on the economy by illegals!
3. As soon as the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own feet, withdraw troops!
4. Appoint a Federal Over-seer in New Orleans to oversee the reconstruction of N.O. and to control the purse strings of the $1 BILLION Federal dollars promised to them. N.O. has already begun the fleecing of America - a company offered N.O. several million to come in and remove all the cars damaged by sea water/the flood. The Mayor refused and gave the contract to a local 'buddy' down there at a COST to the City of several million! :doh

But mark my words, the Dems come in and get rid of the Bush tax cuts, and the economy is gonna tank - recession! Market will decline, unemployment up.....

Iguess you guys agree that your money is really the goverment's money and that instead of making them find ways to save money we should just give them MORE of our money! :roll:

 

[Stinger]

Typical rhetoric from the pass the buck crowd that wants to borrow our country into obvlivion.

This is the "more tax revenue" that the tax cuts have given us:

Income tax revenue. CBO.gov.

2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2

And when did the tax cuts actually take effect? Bush took office in 2000, the tax cuts went into effect in 2001, full effects by 2002, recession bottoms out (along with 911 and the war of terrorism) 2003. Revenues are now soaring.

And I note you misleadingly only include income taxes here are total tax revenues

2000 1004.5 2025
2001 994.3 1991
2002 858.3 1853
2003 793.7 1782
2004 809.0 1880
2005 927.2 2153



Federal Tax Receipts Up for December

by Curtis S. Dubay

The Treasury Department released its Monthly Treasury Statement for December 2005 today, and the numbers show a growing economy that is spinning off record tax revenue for the federal government.

Total receipts for December 2005 alone were $26 billion larger than December 2004, which equaled a 12 percent increase.

Currently, total receipts for the 2006 fiscal year are $43 billion larger than they were for the same period last year. This is an 8.8 percent increase in revenue.

Driving this impressive increase is a large increase in corporate tax revenues. In December 2004 corporate revenue was $51.9 billion. In December 2005 corporate revenues equaled $71.2 billion; an increase of $19.3 billion, or a 37 percent increase.

These growing tax revenues are helping to lower the budget deficit. In fact, for the month of December, federal receipts were actually larger than outlays. The results was a nearly $11 billion surplus for the month. See more here.

Tax receipts will continue to grow if the economy continues its robust growth. It might be that the best way to ensure increasing tax revenues is for Congress to make permanent the recent tax cuts, possibly ensuring that strong economic growth continues.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1296.html

And April was the second largers revenue month in history.

You say they have increased the last couple years. Whoop-de-doo. The reason tax revenues have grown the last couple years is because they stopped cutting taxes. But the numbers are still down despite the fact that actual (not real) personal income has grown each year.

Or because the business slowdown Bush inherited ended and thanks to the tax cuts wasn't too bad nor too long.

And these are supposed to be the guys that stand for responsibility. What a joke.

As opposed to Demcrats who would have increased taxes during a recession, THAT would have been a joke.

 

[Iriemon]

Show me the link where you got your numbers or you're just pulling them out your rear! Sorry to call you out, but you NEVER - not as long as we have debated - have ever backed up anything you have said!

LOL - I've never backed anything up! LOL! You have gall, I'll give you that.

I cited it in the very same post. CBO.gov. Go to historical budget data, table 3.

As far as everyone else who likes the idea of the Goverment taking back more of the money out of their pockets - you guys are idiots!

No me. But everyone who like the idea of the Government taking money out of future taxpayer's pockets are irresponsible. And idiots.

Between the war and katrina, there is the bulk of your deficit.

Really? How much has the Govt spent on the war and Katrina? Show me the a link to back that up or you're just pulling them out your rear!

Throw in the program, that I agree is stupid, great intention but rushed to market wuithout perfecting 1st - program of drugs paid for by the govt - and we have a deficit problem.

A ridiculously set up program, I agree. But how much has the Govt spent on that?

We also have a better economy, better growth than Clinton had, at least in his final 4 years! The economy was declining in his last term.

Really? Show me the data that proves that or you're just pulling them out your rear!

Every economic expert will tell you that Reagan had it right, that giving people more money to spend stimulates the economy!

Show me the link that says that or you're just pulling them out your rear!

Where are all the Democrats who said these tax cuts were for the rich and would do nothing? The fact is they have all retreated backin the shadows and refuse to come out and admit they were WRONG! Unemployment is way down, the stock market is way up, small business growth is way up.

And the debt is WAY up.

Unlike those who criticized the Bush cuts yet now hunch in a corner and refuse to admit they were wrong, i will go out and predict that if the Democrats come in and cut the bush tax cuts, the economy will start going down within 2-3 years - the unemployment rate will start rising, the market will start declining (people will have less money to spend to invest in the market). If I am wrong, I will gladly come back and admit it!

Ha that would be the day.

Youwant to make the economy even stronger? Along with the Bush tax cuts:

Borrow more money?

1. Get rid of the 'Death Tax'!

Cuz why should Paris Hilton pay taxes.

3. As soon as the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own feet, withdraw troops!

That should be in 20-30 years.

4. Appoint a Federal Over-seer in New Orleans to oversee the reconstruction of N.O. and to control the purse strings of the $1 BILLION Federal dollars promised to them. N.O. has already begun the fleecing of America - a company offered N.O. several million to come in and remove all the cars damaged by sea water/the flood. The Mayor refused and gave the contract to a local 'buddy' down there at a COST to the City of several million! :doh

How much federal money has been spent in N.O?

But shoot, we've spent $225 billion in Iraq, you have a point, it doesn't make sense to spend more that 0.5% on one of our own cities.

But mark my words, the Dems come in and get rid of the Bush tax cuts, and the economy is gonna tank - recession! Market will decline, unemployment up.....

Just like happened in '93, right?

guess you guys agree that your money is really the goverment's money and that instead of making them find ways to save money we should just give them MORE of our money! :roll:

Shoot, let's just get rid of taxes and borrow the money. Who needs taxes anyway when we can stick to the next generation. That's the good old, pass the buck American way! Right? It's OUR money -- and THEIR debt.

 

[BubbaBob]

Shoot, let's just get rid of taxes and borrow the money. Who needs taxes anyway when we can stick to the next generation. That's the good old, pass the buck American way! Right? It's OUR money -- and THEIR debt.

Getting rid of federal taxes collected through the IRS is a GREAT idea...it's called the Fair Tax.

And no...it's not THEIR debt. For the most part, the deficit and debt can be directly traced back to the 1960's...Johnson's Great Society...that plan to buy the poor vote by keeping the poor on the democratic party's plantation...the plantation workers (poor) job? Keep democrats in office as much as possible. The democratic party's job? Pay the poor with other's money...feed, house, and clothe them with ill-gotten money...just like the plantation owners did during slavery.

Gotta give you bedwetters credit...it worked for a long time. I guess I'd be bitter too having to watch it all go away...

BubbaBob

 

[Captain America]

I guess I'd be bitter too having to watch it all go away...

I guess you would be too.
We shall soon see, won't we?:rofl

 

[Goobieman]

And no...it's not THEIR debt. For the most part, the deficit and debt can be directly traced back to the 1960's...Johnson's Great Society...

Let's give FDR credit, too.
Most federal spending goes to entitlement/welfare programs.

The only real way to address deficits and debt is to cut spending where we spend the most.

What's the? Defense spendng?
Lets do what liberals love to suggest and slash it.
FY2004, the deficit was $568.0B
FY2004 total derense spending was $454.1B
You could completely cut all defense spending and you'd still run a $114.7B deficit!

But liberals will never, ever consider cutting spending on entitlements.
And as such, liberals are dooming us to deficits.

 

[easyt65]

Where do I start with Iriemon's latest tirade? i'll just pick one to avoid the LONG response:

The comment about the 'Death Tax' is moronic. so, to go after the 1% in this country like Paris hilton, you are going to force a middle class person who receives their mother's home after she dies to have to turn around and have to sell their ancesteral home just so they can pay the taxes on it, taxes that equate to double-dipping considering all the taxes already paid on it?!

And don't give me that 'strawman' BS because it happened to my cousin. His mother, last of his parents die, he inherits the house, and thanks to the 'death' tax, he had to sell the home to raise the money to pay the taxes.

You want to target the rich, then come up with a bill to do that, but the onlypeople you are screwing with the death tax is the ones who can't afford it, not the Paris hiltons of the world who, to them, it equals chump change!

And the rest of your arguments/comments have just as many holes.....

 

[easyt65]

Let's give FDR credit, too.
Most federal spending goes to entitlement/welfare programs.

And if the politicians who are selling this country out to the 12+ Million illegals who represent to them nothing but future votes have their way, these 12+ Million will soon become instant citzens eligible for every social program this country offers...and with their refusal to close the borders, even helping the Mexican Govt. attempt to aid the illegals coming it there will be even MORE - all that means that the money being drained from this economy will at least freakin' double....with the middle calss tax payers taking it up the rear with taxes so the politicians can get more votes. Yeah, the politicians are buying votes but with taxes collected by the middle class...and there are 12_ MILLION Illegals just chomping at the bit to become eligible for all those social programs we offer!

 

[Captain America]

Where do I start with Iriemon's latest tirade? i'll just pick one to avoid the LONG response:

The comment about the 'Death Tax' is moronic. so, to go after the 1% in this country like Paris hilton, you are going to force a middle class person who receives their mother's home after she dies to have to turn around and have to sell their ancesteral home just so they can pay the taxes on it, taxes that equate to double-dipping considering all the taxes already paid on it?!

And don't give me that 'strawman' BS because it happened to my cousin. His mother, last of his parents die, he inherits the house, and thanks to the 'death' tax, he had to sell the home to raise the money to pay the taxes.

You want to target the rich, then come up with a bill to do that, but the onlypeople you are screwing with the death tax is the ones who can't afford it, not the Paris hiltons of the world who, to them, it equals chump change!

And the rest of your arguments/comments have just as many holes.....

Right on EZ.

That's twice today we have been on the same page. I'd better check my meds.:mrgreen:

 

[Goobieman]

And if the politicians who are selling this country out to the 12+ Million illegals who represent to them nothing but future votes have their way, these 12+ Million will soon become instant citzens eligible for every social program this country offers...and with their refusal to close the borders, even helping the Mexican Govt. attempt to aid the illegals coming it there will be even MORE - all that means that the money being drained from this economy will at least freakin' double....with the middle calss tax payers taking it up the rear with taxes so the politicians can get more votes. Yeah, the politicians are buying votes but with taxes collected by the middle class...and there are 12_ MILLION Illegals just chomping at the bit to become eligible for all those social programs we offer!

Like you said:
Entitlements are a means by which to inccrease the Dem/liberal voter base.
It's no wonder they refuse to cut spending on them.