How can any rational person oppose making the tax cuts permanent?

Question

Clearly the tax cuts did not cost revenue - revenue has been relatively constant in proportion to GDP for 40 years, and revenue is up dramatically since the 2003 tax cuts - note, in real dollars it fell after Bush Sr's tax hike...

Clearly the budget problem is a matter not of too little tax revenue but of too much spending, as spending has gone up even faster than revenue!

Clearly the benefits did not go 'only to the upper classes' - their effective tax rates are UP, while those for the lower income groups' are DOWN - and that's even assuming there is a "they," which we have repeatedly shown there isn't - we've shown time and again on these boards that high income people are low income people 25 years later.



http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t1.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_c/c1.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t3.cfm

ck Heritage provides citations - if you check those you'll find that the data is correct. They're very good about that, as are Cato.

Treasury Dept. doesn't provide graphs on many issues, just tables. A lot of Libs can't read the tables - no, I'm not kidding, a Lib a month ago posted this one table and kept making a statement that the table refuted, about inflation-adjusted revenue falling after the Bush '41 tax hike.

Steve - right, trillions of dollars in debt - - - that's what I'm saying - - both revenue AND spending have skyrocketed, and much of the spending is complete boondoggle. We don't even need to eliminate all the boondoggle - I'd like to but we don't have to, just freeze its rate of growth to CPI and the problem will solve itself in a decade!

bilez that's because Buffett's more heavily into equities including foreign equities.

Stony more than 10% of the country comprises illegal immigrants, "living below the poverty line" is a matter of INCOME and the vast majority of us start out at the bottom and end up in the top half, and in the 1970s the proportion of people living below the poverty line was double what it is today.

Frank, you're just flat out wrong, the poor do not pay a higher percentage than the rich do.

AND this isn't counting the effect of corporate taxes on investment income. Say I buy Bronco Drilling because I think forward earnings will be 10 cents more than the Street thinks they'll be. If the Street changes its mind and agrees with me, the stock goes up - but not by a multiple of the dime, rather by a multiple of 6.5 cents, because Bronco Drilling is taxed at 35% - - my gain is reduced by 35% - - but they don't count that reduction when they calculate the percentage of income that is taxed. Yet STILL every shred of evidence shows that the rich pay more - as a function of their income and in proportion to the total tax burden.

And please, enough about the sources - when I cite the Fed, the Census Bureau, the Department of Labor, the Treasury Department, directly, you Libs question the impartiality of THOSE sources.

Stony, our nation's finances are in serious trouble because of the dramatically increased levels of spending. Again, REVENUE IS UP. Way up. Up by more than was projected either with or without the tax cuts. The deficit continues to fall, so much so that the Treasury is eliminating the 3-year. If we could just hold the line on spending we could have a surplus.

Answer 1

For a liberal the tax code is not about raising revenue for the government it is about social engineering. Liberals use it to punish some for the benefit of others, to create what they see as a fair distribution of wealth, and to control behavior with things such as sin taxes. Your sources are accurate your logic impressive, and your wisdom indisputable, but none of that matters to the socialist.

Answer 2

I too favor reducing the size of the federal government, but there is a dilemma. First, the only way to make the "tax cuts permanent" is to also to reduce the size of the federal government. Otherwise firms will not actually invest, instead simply hold on to the cut to pay the bill when it comes due(see the ricardian equivalence). Okay, then if your going to make cuts in spending what do you cut? You can only touch discretionary spending which the vast majority of goes to highway projects which are planned years in advance (the "G" in the GDP formula). Another question: Why has real GDP growth slowed over the past few quarters? Could it be maybe that money was diverted to buy fed. bonds (which supports Bush's cyclical deficits) instead of going to the private capital projects? Moreover, the Fed can't even lower the fed funds rate to combat poor real GDP growth because of mounting inflationary growth. Couple that with rising input prices (the reason for that mounting inflationary growth) and your looking at a bleak future for the next year or so. You put it in simplistic absolutist terms which is not descriptive of the current situation.

Answer 3

Wow. I don't often say this, because I think reasoned and rational discourse is more persuasive than this sort of thing. But you, sir, are an absolute idiot!

First, if you want to analyze the impact of Bush's tax shenanigans, you have to go back to the 2001 tax cuts, you can't start at 2003.

The summary of Federal Receipt and Outlay linked below shows that, in terms of real dollars, after five years, federal receipts are FINALLY back to where they were in 2000. They are no where NEAR where they would have been had there been no tax cuts.

The second link shows that the debt as a percent of GDP has grown from 58% in 2000 to 64.7% in 2006.

And that's before we look at the effect of DOUBLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Now, your source, being the Heritage Foundation, has an obvious slant. What's my source, you might ask? The White House Office of Management and Budget. That's right, by source is THE WHITE HOUSE. And even THEIR numbers show that you, sir, are certainly an idiot.

Answer 4

asserting the tax cuts have greater suitable gross sales relies upon on a pretend assumption: that each and every little bit of financial restoration has come from the tax cuts. If that assumption isn't genuine (and it isn't any longer), then your argument falls aside. right that's why it isn't any longer genuine. a million. the main important component of the restoration replaced into spurred via the Federal Reserve dropping fees of pastime. This fueled a develop of abode loans, which created a booming commerce in shape. 2. The restoration replaced into additionally fueled via the main important ever federal spending develop (specific-Bush and a Republican congress are to blame for increasing federal spending greater suitable than has ever got here approximately in the previous). 3. The economic device is innately cyclical. bypass seem at a graph of the U.S. economic device over the final hundred years, and you will locate it is quite a sine wave. The frequency and amplitude of the cycles varies slightly, yet in basic terms slightly. subsequently, i do no longer fairly credit Clinton with the develop of the ninety's, nor do I fault Bush for the recession on the commencing up of his term. whether, I do credit Clinton with taking benefit of this and balancing the funds, and that i fault Bush for in no way as quickly as submitting a balanced funds. subsequently, because of the fact the tax cuts are in basic terms one small component of the financial restoration that led the greater suitable sales, we ought to constantly do away with them, and use the gross sales to pay our bill finally.

Answer 5

Here is the mission statement of the Heritage Foundation whose website you are using to support your argument:

Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Ever hear of a book called "How to Lie with Statistics?"
A conservative think-tank isn't going to provide statistics that don't fully support their philosophy.

We still have 10% of our people living below the poverty line. It's not like 90% are doing great and then we have a dramatic drop-off in which 10% are inexplicably struggling to feed themselves. No10% are below the poverty line and another 20-30% are working 1.5 - 2 jobs and are one step away from falling below the poverty line themselves.

Add to that, US Comptroller and fiscally conservative Republican David Walker's repeated pronouncements that our nation's finances are in SERIOUS trouble and the truth becomes that we are NOT healthy economically and to suggest otherwise is nothing more than ignorant folly.

Answer 6

When you consider that the government is borrowing the money to provide the tax cuts, I think pretty much any rational person opposes making them permanent.

Now if you want to mention some tax cuts being balanced by some spending cuts, I'm all on board.

Answer 7

The poor pay a higher tax rate than the rich do. Rich get more money back in taxes than everyone in the bottom income brackets make in a year. Is that fair? Fair taxation, not cut spending. Only spending I would agree to be cutting is the bloated military budget.

Answer 8

You shot yourself in the foot with your link no thinking person is going to take ANYTHING coming out of the heritage foundation seriously, it's nothing more than a propaganda arm for the far right and you know it

Answer 9

no matter how you twist statistics, Warren Buffet pays less percentage of his income in taxes than the higher percentage of income his secretary pays. he's wealthy she's paycheck to paycheck. and he's the person who pointed out this unfairness in the tax cuts. if this example doesn't answer your question nothing will.

Answer 10

Any rational person would not oppose it but the democrats probably will just because it was Bush's idea. They hate the man so much they won't even sanction the good things he's done.