Bush's Evil Tax Cuts

[StudioAlex]

Now we have overpowering confirming evidence from the Bush tax cuts of May 2003. The jewel of the Bush economic plan was the reduction in tax rates on dividends from 39.6% to 15% and on capital gains from 20% to 15%. These sharp cuts in the double tax on capital investment were intended to reverse the 2000-01 stock market crash, which had liquidated some $6 trillion in American household wealth, and to inspire a revival in business capital investment, which had also collapsed during the recession. The tax cuts were narrowly enacted despite the usual indignant primal screams from the greed and envy lobby about "tax cuts for the super rich."

Earlier this month the Congressional Budget Office released its latest report on tax revenue collections. The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer Curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value. Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of this fiscal year by $187 billion. This represents a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut. Once again, tax rate cuts have created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts.

This Laffer Curve effect has also created a revenue windfall for states and cities. As the economic expansion has plowed forward, and in some regions of the country accelerated, state tax receipts have climbed 7.5% this year already. Perhaps the most remarkable story from around the nation comes from the perpetually indebted New York City, which suddenly finds itself more than $3 billion in surplus thanks to an unexpected gush in revenues. Many of President Bush's critics foolishly predicted that states and localities would be victims of the Bush tax cut gamble.

I highly reccomend reading the whole article here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842). Also, I will be glad to lend my own humble understanding of economics to anyone who is unfamiliar with the language and/or concepts discussed.

[Jafo]

Yes, it is a simple formula, Reagan did it too. Cutting taxes creates more revenue.

Not hard to figure it out really. It all boils down to the fact that the people get a better return on their money if they are in control of it over if the Government has control over it.

If the Demorats had their way, all of that money would have instead been sunk into every social program on the planet which in turn creates no wealth, and only sucks it out of the economy.

For every dollar you give to a person, it is like planting a money tree. Give it to the Government, and it is just as good as burning it.

[Snake Eyez]

We need more tax cuts and some elimination of some social programs. At least these cuts were a good start. Now to get rid of the IRS.

[Sheeyt]

Come on guys, you know these are only tax cuts for the rich!

[StudioAlex]

We need more tax cuts and some elimination of some social programs. At least these cuts were a good start. Now to get rid of the IRS.Yeah, as Walter williams pointed when asked what he thought about Fair Tax: When the government only take 3% of your income, then who really cares how they take it.

[Snake Eyez]

I was listening to Boortz yesterday and he was commenting on how we are still paying for the Spanish American War. There was a 3% tax placed on people with phones back in the day that was used to fund the war. Here it is 2005 and the tax is still there. Back in 2000 some members tried to repeal the tax, but Clinton vetoed it. Once again there is a move to repeal the tax.

[Jafo]

Yes, once you start funding something for the Government, very rarely do they want to give that up, even if that something doesn't exist anymore.

[Snake Eyez]

Yes, once you start funding something for the Government, very rarely do they want to give that up, even if that something doesn't exist anymore.

And that is one of the fundamental problems within our system with it's blatant dishonesty.

[Annex]

I was listening to Boortz yesterday and he was commenting on how we are still paying for the Spanish American War. There was a 3% tax placed on people with phones back in the day that was used to fund the war. Here it is 2005 and the tax is still there. Back in 2000 some members tried to repeal the tax, but Clinton vetoed it. Once again there is a move to repeal the tax.

Thats funny, but not in a haha kind of way. I know in PA they are still paying a tax on liquor(cant think of the name) because of a flood that happend decades ago. This is a way for the government to "improve" the country w/o us noticing.

[Snake Eyez]

I know it may not seem like a lot of money, but these little taxes add up. I can live with decreases in social programs and a more honest government.

[Ford Mustang]

Yeah. Great to know that a ton of the money I get taken out of my paycheck goes to line the pockets and take care of the people that are supposed to be servants of me, and not the other way around. Our government has turned into a ruling aristocracy...Definitely not how it should be. Now they get the best healthcare in the world, they're overpayed (and they don't even have to show up to work), they get mandatory pay raises, full health insurance, lifetime pension, etc...all on the backs of the people that THEY are supposed to be SERVING. It's disgusting.

[SodaJones]

If rich people have more money they will hire more employees to get even more money....its simple...democrats are stupid with this...

[Darkside]

If rich people have more money they will hire more employees to get even more money....its simple...democrats are stupid with this...



or they could be selfish and keep more of it to themselves.


it's a two-way street. and no, democrats aren't being stupid with this. just ignorant.

[SodaJones]

Ya, but rich people are rich because they know what to do with their money. Rich people don't let their money sit around, they dont go out and use it on yachts...they are smart with their money, and continue to invest it whether it be on employees or on stocks...or whatever...its all beneficial to the economy, and it trickles down to everyone....

[StudioAlex]

Actually, that's what rich democrats do, because they aren't the working rich. A large majority of trust fund babies simply don't understand how the fortunes they live off were obtained. They assume all other rich people live their carefree lifestyle and thus think its justified to set higher tax rates on the people who actually earn and drive the economy forward. Notice there isn't a tax on sitting piles of wealth.

[duke]

FYI: There are no rich republicans like that.

[StudioAlex]

Of course there are republican trust fundies, but it's pretty apparent which you see more of. You know what city has the absolute highest number of trust fundies per capita? It's that conservative stronghold San Francisco.

Is it just a coincidence that the most liberal city in the states also has the most trust fund babies?

[duke]

get on MSN you closet case. I'm not going to argue this here, but I will say that my personal experience is quite different.

[duke]

and yes, i said close case because I KNOW YOU ARE GAY ROFLCOPET LOLLERSKATES!!!!!!!!!!???????????

[jHawk]

Come on guys, you know these are only tax cuts for the rich!

Yea, you know how those rich people just HATE contributing to society...

[Lax]

I won't argue with you, tax cuts can be very good.

What is a laffer curve?

[StudioAlex]

If you follow the link on the first page of the thread, you can see the diagram. It essentially demonstrates the raltionship between tax percentages and actual taxes collected. Basically, if you set taxes too high, then you won't collect as much in revenue because it slows the economy down. Let's say the government collects an average of 25% tax on a GDP of 100. Now, if we move it up to 30, GDP is going to drop to say 80. If we move it to 20%, then the GDP will move up to 115.

So we have three possibilities:

80 * .3 =24
100 *.25 =25
120 * .2 =24

So at 25%, we reap the maximum tax revenue.


Ok, technically, I don't even think we should set taxes at the point to collect maximum revenue because I believe it's better for the country to be more productive. Also, I think people should keep their money and the government should be funding less, but it's still a good place to start. It's certainly something the socialized nations of europe with their 50% taxes would do well to recognize.