Study: Bush Tax cuts proven to be a total failure.

[Divinus Arma]

US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.

http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dy...NewsRubrique=2


Darn. And I thought tax cuts were supposed to mean a decrease in tax receipts. Oh well.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just you wait! The undercutting of the middle class and the deep-seated, but not yet visible, problems caused by throwing all this money at the rich will eventually cause the economy, which is really now just smoke and mirrors without substance, to enter a deep recession. People are deeply in debt, barely surviving in this brutal dog-eat-dog country of unrestrained capitalism, opressed by huge conglomerates which weild the real power.

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Utter, abject failure. The key thing is to note that, absent these cuts, the Government would have much more money and wouldn't be deficit spending as badly.

You mean the economy wouldn't be as robust so revenues would be lower? But I thought....

You really think that Congress would spend any such revenues just as fast or faster...but we elected them, they wouldn't just pad their own political nests.....

You're CERTAIN that government isn't the most efficient user of capital, but I hoped.....

....Oh come off it, we all know that tax cuts are stupid. Now lets stop this jabber and join in a couple of choruses of The Internationale!

[Devastatin Dave]

I blame Bush for this!!!

[yesdachi]

I heard something contrary to this a few days ago on Sean Hannity. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I’ll try and find what I heard.

[Papewaio]

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

[Divinus Arma]

Utter, abject failure. The key thing is to note that, absent these cuts, the Government would have much more money and wouldn't be deficit spending as badly.

Or they would have less money because businesses would be unable to reinvest as much of their profits into expansion and R&D, etc.

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

Pape, you are pulling a total Cavuto. Don't ask questions that you seek to assert as possible fact. If you have a theory, provide some research behind it.

An example of "pulling a Cavuto":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[rotorgun]

Why oh why, my good freind Divinus, according to author Niall Ferguson, author of War of the World, is the Bush government borrowing so heavily from the Chinese World Bank? With all these revenues coming in from the corporate world (made greatly possible by the use of oil price gouging, the exportation of US jobs to foriegn markets and, not to mention, the use of illegal immigrant labor), why do we need to borrow capital from Asia?

I guess were supposed to just bend over and keep paying our middle class taxes, while rich oil company execs retire with 400 million dollar retirment packages made possible through the reduction of personal income taxes on the wealthy.

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes. I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up.

Cordially,

[Papewaio]

Pape, you are pulling a total Cavuto. Don't ask questions that you seek to assert as possible fact. If you have a theory, provide some research behind it.

No, I'm asking a question hence the question marks.

I'm wondering if the amount of deficit money being spent by the government on outsourced contracts to companies is creating the extra tax revenue?

So how much more money has been spent in this fiscal year on government outsourcing and hence how much tax money has been created from this. It is a legitmate question of your hypothesis. Is the improved revenue actually being derived from tax cuts or is it being derived from deficit spending on outsourced contracts. Any extra tax created in the fiscal year due to extra government spending has to be used to adjust the amount of revenue to compare on a per annum basis. It will result in a clearer picture of how much tax cuts are contributing to the revenue.

If there is more government spending on outsourced contracts that in turn generate tax, after adjustments it will show that tax cuts are less effective.

If on the other hand there is less government spending on outsourced contracts that in turn generate tax, after adjustments it will show that tax cuts are even more effective.

[Divinus Arma]

Yay. Fun! Let's get to it.

Why oh why, my good freind Divinus, according to author Niall Ferguson, author of War of the World, is the Bush government borrowing so heavily from the Chinese World Bank?

The Government bonds you speak of are open to the world market. The fact that China is investing is not so much an indicator of our need for cash as it is their confidence in our currency. When a foreign investor purchases U.S. securities, they are buying the security in U.S. Dollars. They are doing this because they have confidence in the strength of the U.S. Dollar as a stable investment. The fact that China's currency is pegged to the U.S Dollar means that the Chinese investor can not possibly lose money in the deal, but they stand much to gain in later selling U.S. Dollars and buying other currencies.

With all these revenues coming in from the corporate world (made greatly possible by the use of oil price gouging, the exportation of US jobs to foriegn markets and, not to mention, the use of illegal immigrant labor), why do we need to borrow capital from Asia?

Again, we are not "borrowing from asia". Asia is investing in the United States, confident in our economy. If our economy was crap and the dollar was really tanking, then the Chinese would be buying Euros, the world's second most stable free-floating currency.

EDIT: As for "oil gouging"- the price of oil and gasoline is based on the futures market. You'll notice that the price of oil from OPEC is taking a huge dive. OPEC. The very folks who want to rape the U.S. Their is no "gouging" going on. This is Democratoc political spin. I can procide further clarification if you need me to.

As for Exportation of US Jobs to foreign markets: As Pape and I discussed a few months back, the exportation of jobs has an additional benefit to the UNited States that goes unnoticed. On the U.S. current account, it shows that we have a trade deficit. This does not include U.S. companies that invest in manufacturing plants abroad (it shows foreign manufacture by a U.S. company for reimportation as a deficit, rather than a domestic product, even though all investment and profits originate and return to the U.S.- a major flaw in the system.). These plants send money overseas, and then bring the products and profits back home. The company sees a gain in profits, which can then be used to (a) reinvest internally within the firm to expand operations anywhere in the U.S. or world (b) provide dividends to shareholders- which are then spent or reinvested within the U.S., again creating wealth at home. This ties dirtectly into the importation of cheap labor, which I am totally against,

The United States needs to revitalize and expand opportunities for education. Our level of technology has made a high school education virtually wothless in the modern global marketplace. Workers MUSt create value for themselves to be employed. EMPLOYMENT IS NOT A RIGHT. The individual has the responsibility to educate himself andmett the needs of the modern marketplace. This is no different from somebody working their ass off on a farm to feed their family, it's simply a different type of work. The U.S. Education system needs to be reformed to increaser efficiency through competition. We need better public schools, and the only way to do that is through private school competition. Evidence of this has been shown in the u.S. postal system, which has improved tremendously since competition from fedex and UPS increased.

I guess were supposed to just bend over and keep paying our middle class taxes, while rich oil company execs retire with 400 million dollar retirment packages made possible through the reduction of personal income taxes on the wealthy.

Two points: (1) The rich do not stuff their money under a matress. They reinvest the money which creates jobs and powers economic growth. Furthermore, there is not a limited supply of money in the world. This is the beauty of capitalism- everyone can get richer and noone suffers from it. (2) Executives are far more skilled then somebody digging a ditch and so add greater value to the company and to the country's economy. Just like a Doctor is paid for his or her expertise, we value those that contribute to what our culture demands.

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes.

Totally agree. But did you know that the current tax regiome actually favors the poor? Four the last Seven+ years of my military career I paid ZERO in taxes, thanks both to the Bush Tax cuts and the tax code. My taxable income was never more than $25,000 a year. But yet I paid NOTHING every year. So I personally know who the tax code favors, and it is the poor thank you very much. a 10% flat tax would make the poor pay their fair share. Why should they get a break just because they are stupid or lazy?

I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up

.

I am fine with aiding the mentally and physically disabled, who have come to their situations at no fault of their own. If you chose to be a manager of McDonalds, that is your own damn fault.

[Xiahou]

Well said DA. I was going to add more, but after reading thru what you said I concluded it'd be redundant.

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

Are you suggesting that increased government spending has soley accounted for enough economic growth than when taken back in as tax revenue that the two are equal?

[yesdachi]

I heard something contrary to this a few days ago on Sean Hannity. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I’ll try and find what I heard.

Well I had to look around to find what I was looking for, and even this isnt exactly what I was looking for but it expresses the point.
I really like the bolded part.

When the economy grows, businesses grow, people earn more money, profits are higher, and they pay additional taxes on the new income. In 2005, tax revenues grew by $274 billion, or 14.5 percent; it's the largest increase in 24 years. Based on tax collections to date, the Treasury projects that tax revenues for this year will grow by $246 billion, or an 11 percent increase. The increase in tax revenues is much better than we had projected, and it's helping us cut the budget deficit.

One of the most important measures of our success in cutting the deficit is the size of the deficit in relation to the size of our economy. Think of it like a mortgage. When you take out a home loan, the most important measure is not how much you borrow, it is how much you borrow compared to how much you earn. If your income goes up, your mortgage takes up less of your family's budget. Same is true of our national economy. When the economy expands, our nation's income goes up and the burden of the deficit shrinks.

Here are some hard numbers: Our regional projection for this year's budget deficit was $423 billion. That was a projection. That's what we thought was going to happen. That's what we sent up to the Congress, here's what we think. Today's report from OMB tells us that this year's deficit will actually come in at about $296 billion.

That's what happens when you implement pro-growth economic policies. We faced difficult economic times. We cut the taxes on the American people because we strongly believe that the American people should lead us out of recession. Our small businesses flourished, people invested, tax revenue is up, and we're way ahead of cutting the deficit -- federal deficit in half by 2009.

Thats W talking and like him or not the pro-growth economic policy seems to be working. Although I dont think all is as bright and happy a picture as he paints I still like it better than baying more taxes.

[Lemur]

I'm glad revenues are up. I hope it's for real, and not an accounting trick (you see more of those from the gov't in election years). Lower taxes + upswing in economy + higher tax revenue = good thing.

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

[Ironside]

Well said DA. I was going to add more, but after reading thru what you said I concluded it'd be redundant.

Are you suggesting that increased government spending has soley accounted for enough economic growth than when taken back in as tax revenue that the two are equal?

Well, an extra 2,8 trillion dollars has to go somewere...

Give me some quality papers saying otherwise (I'm content with papers saying were all that money went) and I've to admit that Bush has been successful on one thing atleast.


Oh, and to only pay off the increased interest, you'll need about 127 billions in increased tax revenue

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm glad revenues are up. I hope it's for real, and not an accounting trick (you see more of those from the gov't in election years). Lower taxes + upswing in economy + higher tax revenue = good thing.

Why'd you have to bring that up???!!! Here I was, having a good conservative economic moment, and you remind me that both parties have regularly "fudged" this stuff on several occasions in the past.

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

...AMen, I say to you, Amen!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Or they would have less money because businesses would be unable to reinvest as much of their profits into expansion and R&D, etc.

Absolutely. Do remember that my comment was tongue in cheek. I'm with you whole-heartedly in this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes. I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up.

Good perspective. I prefer the "Fair" Tax plan -- national sales tax with reimbursement to all on a head count basis (spend more, pay more) -- but the flat tax approach is solid and would be a heck of a lot better than the convoluted mess we have now. The zero loophole idea is spot on.

[yesdachi]

Is there a real reason that a flat tax wouldn’t work? It seems like everyone likes the idea and yet it doesn’t exist. Course it would probably but half the tax guys out of business, they thrive on the complexity of the tax laws.

[BDC]

Is there a real reason that a flat tax wouldn’t work? It seems like everyone likes the idea and yet it doesn’t exist. Course it would probably but half the tax guys out of business, they thrive on the complexity of the tax laws.

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

[Xiahou]

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

And that's the problem. Our archaic tax system has become a tool for income redistribution and political patronage instead of just something that everyone has to pay. They might be able to work it if the first $20k weren't subject to any tax and then apply a flat tax on all income afterwards. Personally, I'd be happy with even just a few clear tiers and eliminating most deductions.

[Divinus Arma]

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

I disagree that it "screws over" anyone except tax jockeys. Why should the poor get a break? They are poor for a reason. Granted, there are certain exceptions. But generally the poor are that way because they decided "college wasn't really for them" or they decided to screw and spit more babies out. Either way, it's there fault.

I find it funny that America is considered to be a land of opportunity and that those who succeed best are those who LEGALLY imigrate to the United States. We have a zillion success stories of indians, chinese, japanese, vietnamese being successful by opening up small businesses and taking charge of their lives through hard work and determination. Too many citizens and illegal immigrants & their children think that success should come to them automatically. These people blame everyone but themselves for their problems.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A flat tax works well in Estonia.

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

That reminds me of a quote by the late Pope John Paul II, who, speaking about the political situation in Poland, said "‘There are only two solutions to the Polish crisis, the realistic solution and the miraculous solution. The realistic solution is: if the Lady of Czestochowa should suddenly appear, with Jesus and all the saints, and solve the Polish crisis. The miraculous solution is: if the Poles learn to cooperate."

We need a way of punishing high spending and encouraging low spending. I think you've already seen the suggestion for a military base closure style law regarding review of earmarks.

Crazed Rabbit

[Spetulhu]

I disagree that it "screws over" anyone except tax jockeys.

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

[Divinus Arma]

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

I didn't say it would hurt the rich.


I said it would hurt the tax jockeys. And by that, I mean the H&R Block and TurboTax industry: The zillions of tax attorneys, businesses, and software that is all a product of the public trying in vain to navigate this piece of crap income tax code we have.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

Depends on the system you enact.

Rotorgun specificied a flat tax WITHOUT LOOPHOLES.

While this may be politically impossible, the absence of loopholes would address your concerns:

So, no special category for capital gains taxes, no REITs creating an artificial "loss," no exemptions for interest on the mortgage of the primary home, no child esemptions. List gains (income etc.) subtract documented losses (paid out not "paper"), subtract standard personal exemption per adult (set at a level to prevent the truly poor from paying taxes, say 12k or so) = taxable income. Multiply taxable income by tax rate. Submit balance to IRS.

Yes, this means that a two-wage family making a taxable income of 120k per annum would be paying a higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than would a two-wage family making a taxable income of 120M per annum. But the amount of tax paid by the higher income family would still be vastly more.

You could argue that even this is unfair, as the family making 120k ATI is probably receiving the same level of government service as the family making and ATI of 120M -- so who's getting ripped off?

[Divinus Arma]

(set at a level to prevent the truly poor from paying taxes, say 12k or so)

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

[yesdachi]

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

To be fair not all of the people that make low wages are ingrates, they could just be college kids, retired, have a sugar daddy, or any other of a dozen reasons. None of the reasons should make them exempt thou.

[Divinus Arma]

college kids,

Whom are working towards a better life for themselves. Good for them.

retired

Who should have planned better. Like my Grandmother, who is totally dependant on SSI and family support. My grandfather died 40 years ago. She was young enough to do real work. But did she? Ever? No. Because she was lazy. Her choice.

have a sugar daddy

Which makes them wealthy, actually. Since Sugar daddy pays the bills. Again. A choice.

or any other of a dozen reasons

.

All of which are a personal choice. UNless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

None of the reasons should make them exempt thou.

:cheers:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

I shan't rise (or lower, depending on one's point of view) to your bait, except to note an old saying.

We can't all be first violiners in the orchestra - some of us gotta push wind through the trombone.

[Divinus Arma]

I shan't rise (or lower, depending on one's point of view) to your bait, except to note an old saying.

We can't all be first violiners in the orchestra - some of us gotta push wind through the trombone.

I'm not baiting. I honestly feel this way. Your analogy is pretty narrow. Nobody said you had to be a musician either. Please, attack me perspective. Why should I care about people who have placed themselves in their own position of poverty? Why should I feel sorry for somebody who chose to have multiple babies at a young age (or even one- no offence to our youngest Orgah father-to-be). Don't want kids? Then don't screw. Pretty easy. Wack it off. Use a condom. Pull out. Whatever. You have a choice. Why should I feel bad for fools who drop out of school? Because it's "not for them"? That mentality is a product of a weak and permissive society. I bet they wouldn't feel like working in a factory or slaving away on a family farm, huh? "not for them".