In an August 8th editorial entitled “The Truth About Taxes” the New York Times finally (if unwittingly) acknowledged Bush reforms weren’t just “tax cuts for the rich.” America’s “Journal of Record” wrote: “Letting all of the cuts expire at the end of 2012 would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Letting the tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 would save $700 billion.” In other words, 82 percent—82 percent!—of Bush tax relief goes to households earning below $250,000, benefiting the middle class, and poor families who got dropped from tax rolls altogether.
It’s a gigantic lie that Bush tax rates favor only “millionaires and billionaires” as the president regularly suggests. The Times numbers reveal that targeting only wealthy taxpayers would make scarcely a dent in overall debt—reducing it at most by 5 percent.
Those numbers(or similar numbers) have been thrown out here in various articles by numerous posters, and every time they are ignored by our resident liberals. Instead, they look at the bulk of the tax cut numbers as benefiting those who actually pay taxes, with the smaller, per individual, dollar figures and compare those.
They bring up the “wealth gap” and it’s increases since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, never mentioning that even during the rates of Carter’s presidency, that the income gap was widening. They also failed to look at the numbers of people in the lower income groups moving up in income. Of course, that would rock their redistribution boat, and they couldn’t have that.
Some have claimed that the Bush tax cuts were what drove the deficit spending in the 2000’s. However, they fail to look at facts and see that federal revenues fell after the dotcom bust and 9/11 UNTIL the Bush tax cuts were enacted. They also fail to note the fact that following the enactment of those tax cuts, that the deficits rose ONCE, in 2004, with the three years following that of dropping deficits, including only just over $100 Billion in 2007.
They have also claimed that the Bush tax cuts were, essentially, stagnant on the jobs front. Hard to believe when one considers that after those cuts were enacted, 8.3 million jobs were added prior to the economic meltdown in 2008.
The blame for the economic meltdown is also placed upon those tax cuts, even though the causes of it were in place well before those tax cuts were enacted.
One should ask; How would the economy have been without those tax cuts? How many jobs would have been created without those tax cuts? Considering that the economic meltdown of 2008 would have happened regardless of those tax cuts, how much worse shape would the country be in without those tax cuts? How many states would have been under bigger piles of debt without those tax cuts?
The numbers given above cannot be used, necessarily, in absolute terms. Meaning, one cannot relate those numbers to the decade of the 2000’s and claim that revenues would have been $380 Billion more per year without them. Particularly given that those numbers are based upon an assumption of 4% annual growth in GDP, which we haven’t seen in years, and is doubtful to be seen in the near future. It’s also unknown the economic effect on the GDP growth rate during the period those tax cuts were enacted, although common sense tells us that they had a net, positive effect.
In short, while conservatives already know those numbers, the liberal/progressives won’t recognize them, nor will they shift from their redistribution rhetoric. Cold, hard facts in a debate are useful, but only if your opponent recognizes them as facts. Most of our resident liberal/progressives don’t.
The criticism isn’t that the Bush tax rates favor only millionaires and billionaires. It’s that they favor individual millionaires to a far greater extent than other individual tax payers, and billionaires to a vastly greater extent.
Eighty-two percent of the revenue was thrown to the crowd in the form of billions of shiny new dimes, to distract them from the fact that 18 percent was being quietly distributed to a favored few in the form of Krugerrands.
@johngalt, #1:
Were no jobs being created in America prior to the coming of the Bush tax cuts?
The fact of the matter is that less than 2 percent of all tax returns reporting small business income are filed by taxpayers in the top 2 income tax brackets. The vast majority of business owners have taxable income below $250,000 per year.
Little problem with your post greg (as usual).
Recently released IRS data for 2009, shows that taxpayers earning over $200,000 paid 50 percent of the $866 billion in total income taxes paid that year, or $434 billion. Skeptics will say, “That’s because they earn the majority of the income in America. Not so. These taxpayers earned 25 percent of the $7.6 trillion in total adjusted gross income in the country that year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27530.html
You think punishing them too is a good idea? Obviously your hatred of “the rich” knows no limits.
@Greg:
Notice the part where I state that the dotcom bust and 9/11 affected government revenues? GDP growth rates dropped below 1%, and averaged less than 2% during the period following the dotcom bust until the Bush tax cuts. After, GDP growth rates climbed to just above 4% and averaged above 3% until the end of 2007. What do you think unemployment did during the time from the start of the dotcom bust until the Bush tax cuts? The unemployment rate grew from a point just above 4% to well over 6%, and then dropped again, following the Bush tax cuts, down to the mid-4% range, until the end of 2007, when the housing bubble burst.
Sorry, Greg, but all facts point to the Bush tax cuts being a boon to the country, and in no way negative at all.
@johngalt: I could quote from the Brookings Institute or from a number of liberal economists, but I’d like you to start by reading this commentary from a conservative economist. It’s short and simple. I’d like to subsequently bring in some additional information/points of view, but I’d like to take it in a step by step fashion.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581645/201108161821/What-Happened-To-That-Surplus-10-Years-Ago-.htm
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just a little clarification on the Bush tax cuts for you, and other liberals who read on this site.
There were two Tax relief legislative items that Bush signed into law. The first, EGTRRA of 2001, identified several areas of tax relief, including rate changes, however, nothing of substance was included immediately within the bill other than a minor change to qualified capital gains, from 10% down to 8%, the “rebates”, additional monies for the child tax credit, and the ‘married filing jointly’ standard deduction.
The second law, JGTRRA of 2003, included the bulk of the tax relief amounts, and is the legislation that actually lowered the tax rates.
It is a mistake by the author of that piece to (1) Include the tax relief proposals as part of Bush’s first budget as if both the tax relief happened then, and the budget was passed as requested, and (2) Discuss the tax relief as if all the cuts that were enacted started in 2001, which they didn’t.
On top of that, if one is to look at the government revenues, historically, the surplus amount started dropping in 2001, mainly because the government revenues had started dropping from the previous year. Given the minor amount of tax relief, in monetary terms, that the 2001 legislation contained, the bulk of those drops was due to actions and happenstance prior to ANY Bush tax cuts.
@Greg:
Of course they benefit the rich. The rich are only ones paying any taxes. What is it? The top 2% pay 50% the taxes, or somesuch?
@johngalt:
Great info John. Unfortunately folks like greg and larry will ignore it since it interferes with their fantasy and ultimately their pathological need to feel good about themselves.
What I find disturbing about them and their beliefs is the “wannabe tyrant” vibe they give off. Greg has a deep burning grudge against “the rich” and larry wants the government to be able to force people to do what people like him think is best for them. One of the joys of being a leftist is having zero self introspection.
@Hard Right: Would you care to substation your attack with facts?
I didn’t think so.
@Larry Sheldon:
You shouldn’t get your feathers all fluffed up because HR was referring to the other Larry.
@Aye: I see only one “Larry” in the thread. So it seems reasonable to observe that “and larry [sic]” is directed at me.
And since people often use the “right” label in references to me {acceptable only in the sense of “correct”) I am offended by progressives using the label for themselves.
And “and larry wants the government to be able to force people to do what people like him think is best for them.” might be actionable.
@Larry Sheldon: Go up to post #5.
Larry W. has been posting here a long time.
@Larry Sheldon:
HR was referring to Larry Wiesenthal, one of our resident lefties. I seem to recall that this confusion has arisen on your part before.
Remember, the comments that are left on this blog don’t all revolve around you.
@Nan G: Aha. I stand corrected. We need more Darryls.
My genuine apology offered.
@Aye:
If it has arisen before I redouble my apology. But the “revolve” preaching seems unnecessary–I don’t post here that often.
@Larry Sheldon:
Yes, it has arisen before.
All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions especially since there is more than one Larry here…and more than one Larry in this thread.
@Aye:
OK. Horse is only a greasy spot. At 72, by law you can not require me to remember everything.
I’m out.
@Larry Sheldon:
Just re-discovered this thread. Sorry. I should have put a W after the other Larry’s name so you wouldn’t think I meant you.
http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html
Yeah you are right, they don’t “only” effect the rich….just mostly. 23% of americans received $8 in tax cuts. Open up your eyes.
Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change
Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table T03-0123
From the “other” Larry:
The 400 richest people in America (the top 0.00013%) have as much total wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 (the bottom 50%).
Like the rising debt, this is not sustainable.
To raise as much money from the bottom 50% as would be raised by simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2%, would require taking away 1/2 the entire net worth of the bottom 50%. But the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to sunset, in their entirety, as was the deal struck in order to pass them in the first place.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA