Bush tax cuts

[hardnox604008]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/09/so-how-did-the-bush-tax-cuts-work-out-for-t...

The hard, empirical facts:

"The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.

This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals.

So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the "lamestream media," who treat these policies as worthy ideas?"

[man of steel]

---

@hardnox604008 wrote:

So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes?

---

Maybe because they are listening to the whole story about tax cuts AND spending cuts. Unlike the lie you just put out in your post

[bruce MN]

Yeah,,,no kidding...a guy would have thought that the GOP leadership would have put something in this new plan for America pledege that they unveiled the other day about some serious spending cuts.

Or is that coming later?

[bruce MN]

You remain a joke:

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

[greenhouse man]

Once again....... No tax cut has ever made revenues go down. They have always went up!!!! When will you see that spending is the answer. Your right on the Bush tax cuts. I would rather see this 9.8% unemployment like we have now than the 5.3% avg he had. But, Bush is a Rhino and Rhino's love spending money.

[dagwud]

I have a hard time putting much stock in this article as it appears the author began his research with his mind already made up and was simply able to find plenty of figures to help prove his beliefs.  I'm sure one who agreed in the Bush tax cuts could do the same and provide plenty of figures that he felt proved his beliefs.   The author likes to use figures for the year 2008 to prove his point while ignoring that we were already in the midst of one of our worst recessions in decades by 2008. That would be similar to trying to claim Obama is a failure because unemployment has been higher during his first 20 months then it was under past presidents when the facts show the economy was already tanking before he took office.

The author also fails to mention that our economy had been running at an unrealistically level before Bush came into office and that it was inevitable that we were headed for a down turn as the Dot-com bubble nearing the end of its run.  So it only makes sense that after Bush took office we would be seeing a correction in the economy and that unemployment would go up and that wages would fall.  The author also fails to mention that many believed we were headed for a bigger recession at the end of the Dot-com bubble when Bush took office.  Did the Bush tax cuts help to lessen that recession?

I have very little faith in any politician from either party when they promise that with the stroke of their presidential pen they will improve the economy, create jobs or improve our education system.  Politicians remind me of used car salesmen in that they talk a good game but quickly forget what they promised us after it never materializes.  I believe the economy is much larger and more fickled then that to be so easily sway by politicians no matter if they are calling for tax cuts or stimulus spending as a cure all.  I think time more then anything else is what turns an ailing economy around.  After a period of people hunkering down and cutting their discretionary spending the demand slowly begins to build for many items so that when people do begin to feel more confident and spend more then we will have greater demand for many new items much like farmers not buying new equipment during lean times creating higher demand for big ticket items when the farm economy begins to turn around.

To me it only makes sense that when people are allowed to keep more of their money by paying less taxes then they will have more money to spend to help boost the economy plus they will have more money to save for their retirements which are both good things for our country.  Granted paying taxes are required to run the country but the $60,000 question is how much taxes are the right amount.  Many people like to say that income taxes were even higher in the past but ignore the fact that we also pay dozens more new taxes now days that were never around before.  All these new taxes add up and take their toll as well on a family's budget.

I have little faith in either party acting fiscally responsible and have a hard time believing the Repubs new "Pledge" will result in their turning a new leaf if we only put them back in power.  Just as I do when I invest money, I look at past performance and Repubs past performance in the last decade or two does not impress many any more then the Dems. 

I still believe we need to put more emphasis on the results we get on our spending of our tax dollars.    Far to many times we see enormous waste, poor over sight and fraud.  We need to be more diligent to ensure we getting our best bang for our buck and less money being spent to simply win votes back home or to repay election campaign donors.

[bruce MN]

You say:

"To me it only makes sense that when people are allowed to keep more of their money by paying less taxes then they will have more money to spend to help boost the economy plus they will have more money to save for their retirements which are both good things for our country."

Which, of course, is exactly the administration's plan to deal with the extension of the cuts. Extend them for those under 200K and drop them for those above. Those with over 200K don't make the day to day purchases that fuel growth. We need revenue to, if nothing else, pay down the debt. And spending discipline built around competence, prioritization and efficiency (those things, BTW, being what Democrats are so exceedlingly poor at...ridiculously so.)

But this has become all and everything idealogy and nothing about policy for the standing opposition.

[bruce MN]

Did you read this from my response to the Dutch comedian?

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

Mr. Johnson is the author of "Free Lunch"..the seminal analysis of crony capitalism. Well worth the 8 or 9 bucks or so it will cost you on Ebay.

[dagwud]

I would be in favor of extending the tax cuts to all but the higher income levels.  I agree with one of the poster's comments on tax.com that income taxes were to high in the past for the top income levels and that now they are to low.  I also believe that it was those past high tax levels that lead us to the availability of so many loop holes that are now used by the wealthy to avoid paying more in taxes.  I would favor a more realistic tax level for the wealthy with less loop holes. Be interesting to know how much Warren Buffet saves on taxes by using all the options available to him through his top notch accountants?

Just as we have seen companies move out of the country to avoid taxes, higher wages and tougher regulations I think there is the same possibility with the rich.  We have already seen many folks relocate to Florida and other states with no income tax.   Ever wonder if that was a deciding factor for Lebron James signing with the Miami Heat?  I think in today's more global world we could see many of the rich decide to look for greener pastures outside our country and decide instead to simply "visit" here on a regular basis. 

I think there is some truth in Repubs claim that the rich are the ones that provide jobs but that the claim has been greatly exaggerated as Olberman has been pointing out.

[kraft-t]

Dag, I do not know anything about your business. But I will assume you are a middle class income earner. I'm reasonably sure that you pay  some income taxes along with state income taxes and fica taxes. I suggest you compile those personal numbers and reflect on them. Socail security payments and other fica taxes are a sizable factor. Some 15% of your income for that tax alone.

Then I urge you to consider uper income people and what percentage of their income is subject to fica taxes. In some cases none because of the type of income they have.

So all this squeeling and ranting about adding back the 4 to 5% in income tax is merely nonsensical. In some cases people with mmodest incomes pay a higher overall percentage than the so called rich.

I think Rush Limbaugh, Warren Buffet and Bill gates ought to pay more fica taxes than you. Unless of course you are one of those mega buck earners.