• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Boo Radley said:
Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study | Reuters

The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government

Why the rich should pay more taxes

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United States spent nearly $400 billion last fiscal year to fund tax breaks and programs aimed at helping Americans build wealth, but the majority of that money went to the highest earning taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday.

Tax policies gave $400 billion to the wealthy - Sep. 22, 2010
Click to expand...

I cannot afford to buy a congressman. I can't even rent one for a single hour. Based on household income and accumulated assets, I and my wife are in the top 10% of Americans. But I still can't get any face time with a politician.
I did manage ONE response by email once, but it was probably from a staffer.
Maybe the trick is to show up with a suitcase full of money.....
 
UtahBill said:
I cannot afford to buy a congressman. I can't even rent one for a single hour. Based on household income and accumulated assets, I and my wife are in the top 10% of Americans. But I still can't get any face time with a politician.
I did manage ONE response by email once, but it was probably from a staffer.
Maybe the trick is to show up with a suitcase full of money.....
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I get the same form response everytime I email my representative. Of course, i'm complaining. ;)
 
UtahBill said:
I cannot afford to buy a congressman. I can't even rent one for a single hour. Based on household income and accumulated assets, I and my wife are in the top 10% of Americans. But I still can't get any face time with a politician.
I did manage ONE response by email once, but it was probably from a staffer.
Maybe the trick is to show up with a suitcase full of money.....
Click to expand...


Hookers are cheaper and probably more honest. You can tell when they say "oh yes baby your the best" in a monotone.
 
Boo Radley said:
Dude, only one was an opinion, the other two discuss a study. It must be nice to dismiss reality because it has a liberal bias.

:lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

the study is biased as I noted--tax breaks are not the same as handouts

try again
 
UtahBill said:
I cannot afford to buy a congressman. I can't even rent one for a single hour. Based on household income and accumulated assets, I and my wife are in the top 10% of Americans. But I still can't get any face time with a politician.
I did manage ONE response by email once, but it was probably from a staffer.
Maybe the trick is to show up with a suitcase full of money.....
Click to expand...

that's a de jure benefit the rich have???
 
winston53660 said:
Hookers are cheaper and probably more honest. You can tell when they say "oh yes baby your the best" in a monotone.
Click to expand...

Almost forgot, some politician was on a talk show, and I managed to get a call in to ask a question. I asked why we couldn't index congressional pay to minimum wage, the interviewer thought it was a good idea, but the politician didn't want to pursure the idea...so they moved on to something else...
 
UtahBill said:
Almost forgot, some politician was on a talk show, and I managed to get a call in to ask a question. I asked why we couldn't index congressional pay to minimum wage, the interviewer thought it was a good idea, but the politician didn't want to pursure the idea...so they moved on to something else...
Click to expand...
Nah, they should tie it to Congress's approval rating. If it's at 30%, they get 30% of their paycheck.

Probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but it would be kinda neat nonetheless.
 
Ivan The Terrible said:
Yes don't pretend you don't have privet meetings with congressmen.
Click to expand...

I did once-with a guy who used to be one and was running for his old seat. He wanted my advice on gun issues--I gave him a contribution since my late father was his old campaign chairman. THe guy has been an NRA A+ every year since he was a city councilman. Not like I am going to get some additional favors from him.

I am waiting for the parasite advocates to tell me what I get for paying more in taxes than they make in 5 years.
 
TurtleDude said:
I did once-with a guy who used to be one and was running for his old seat. He wanted my advice on gun issues--I gave him a contribution since my late father was his old campaign chairman. THe guy has been an NRA A+ every year since he was a city councilman. Not like I am going to get some additional favors from him.

I am waiting for the parasite advocates to tell me what I get for paying more in taxes than they make in 5 years.
Click to expand...

Wow... Something really needs to be done about the tax code.
 
Ivan The Terrible said:
Wow... Something really needs to be done about the tax code.
Click to expand...

true fairness means people pay for what they use

sort of hard to argue against that

the next would be a flat tax or a consumption tax
 
TurtleDude said:
with a flat tax the more you make the more you pay but it prevents people like you voting up my taxes without YOU suffering any more taxation
Click to expand...

Flat or consumption taxes will put a heavier burden on those eking by on SS or small pensions who pay no taxes now than those in the higher income brackets who have more than enough money to buy anything they want anytime they want it.

ricksfolly
 
pbrauer said:
How about addressing the article in the OP:
Click to expand...

Where do you get your information? This comes from BEA.gov and shows tax revenue growing after the Bush tax cuts went into full effect in July 2003. Most people show data during the recession of 2001 and the recession of 2007-2008 which skews the numbers.

Tax receipts

2000 3.1 trillion dollars
2007 4.2 trillion dollars

How is that a decrease?

***2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004*** ***2005*** ***2006*** ***2007*** ***2008*** ***2009***
******Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70 3,659.30 3,995.20 4,197.00 4,074.00 3,726.90
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20 2,546.80 2,807.40 2,951.20 2,780.30 2,409.30
***Personal*current*taxes 1,232.30 1,234.80 1,050.40 1,000.30 1,047.80 1,208.60 1,352.40 1,488.70 1,438.20 1,140.00
 
Conservative said:
Where do you get your information? This comes from BEA.gov and shows tax revenue growing after the Bush tax cuts went into full effect in July 2003. Most people show data during the recession of 2001 and the recession of 2007-2008 which skews the numbers.

Tax receipts

2000 3.1 trillion dollars
2007 4.2 trillion dollars

How is that a decrease?

***2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004*** ***2005*** ***2006*** ***2007*** ***2008*** ***2009***
******Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70 3,659.30 3,995.20 4,197.00 4,074.00 3,726.90
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20 2,546.80 2,807.40 2,951.20 2,780.30 2,409.30
***Personal*current*taxes 1,232.30 1,234.80 1,050.40 1,000.30 1,047.80 1,208.60 1,352.40 1,488.70 1,438.20 1,140.00
Click to expand...

As always, income is only half the issue. Outgo is the other half, and optomistic income forecasts lead to over spending. Then when income falls, we have a fertizer/ventilator problem...
 
UtahBill said:
As always, income is only half the issue. Outgo is the other half, and optomistic income forecasts lead to over spending. Then when income falls, we have a fertizer/ventilator problem...
Click to expand...

Yep, and that gives some the ammunition to blame revenue growth for the deficits which is absolute BS. Spending has always been the problem and is what causes deficits, not tax cuts. Haven't found anyone yet capable of explaining why income tax revenue grew after EVERY tax rate cut in history. I believe they know but just cannot admit it.

Reagan cut taxes 10-10-5% and income tax revenue doubled during his term. Bush cut tax rates and went up 33%. Unfortunately Congress saw the increase in revenue as a reason to increase spending and thus gain greater control over the American people. That is a disaster!
 
JakeFromWI said:
A MUST READ. Don't even read the opinions. Look at the empirical facts. Look at the numbers and tell me Pelosi did all this....

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Here's a short paragraph to give you an idea what economist/professor/pulitzer prize winner David Cay Johnston concludes of the Bush tax cuts.

"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."

Obama's fault what?
Click to expand...

What you are forgeting is the economic growth and job creation from 2003 to 2007 and are only using data from 2000-2002 while we were in a recession and after 9/11 then in 2007-2008 when we went back into recession with the help of a Democrat Congress. I posted tax revenue during the Bush years and of course you ignore GDP growth which is as follows


Reagan GHW BushClinton GW Bush
Line ***1981*** ***1988*** ***1992*** ***2000*** ***2008*** ***2009***
1 GDP 3,126.80 5,100.40 6,342.30 9,951.50 14,441.40 14,256.30


Reagan GDP Growth +2.0 trillion dollars
GHW Bush 1.2 trillion
Clinton 3.6 trillion
GW Bush 4.5 trillion

So tell me again how Bush tax cuts didn't help the economy?
 
Doubt anything is ever going to change your mind including ACTUAL facts. No one is calling for the elimination of all taxes. The govt. actually needs about 1.7 trillion to operate, not the 3.8 trillion it requires now. You and your ilk have promoted massive expansion of govt. so are to blame for what we have today. Are you ever going to actually address the facts instead of what you read in the paper or from leftwing sites?
 
TurtleDude said:
you ooze class envy
Click to expand...

A defensive ego-trip is not an argument.

TurtleDude said:
its time you start paying for what you use
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. It's time that employees were properly compensated for their time and hard work, and the American people properly compensated for the use of our national resources and infrastructure.

apdst said:
You do understand the difference between capital gains tax and income tax. Yes?
Click to expand...

In general, although I don't claim to be an expert.

apdst said:
What do you think the capital gains tax should be? 20% is plenty high enough.
Click to expand...

I don't have the background in this tax to make specific recommendations, but I will say that I have never heard a remotely convincing or even rational argument for the rate being as low as it is.
 
Troubadour said:
A defensive ego-trip is not an argument.



I couldn't agree more. It's time that employees were properly compensated for their time and hard work, and the American people properly compensated for the use of our national resources and infrastructure.



In general, although I don't claim to be an expert.



I don't have the background in this tax to make specific recommendations, but I will say that I have never heard a remotely convincing or even rational argument for the rate being as low as it is.
Click to expand...

So tell me who sets the price for fair compensation?
 
Conservative said:
So tell me who sets the price for fair compensation?
Click to expand...

A valued employee can do that, by quitting a job when he or she is not being fairly paid. I was the only tech in a group in Idaho that could, or would, do certain things, but I was also paid less than senior techs who had been there longer. I told the boss it wasn't fair, and he made promises he never intended to keep, so after a year of BS from him, I transferred out.
But that was me....your average employee isn't interested in keeping his skills up to snuff, or tackling the more difficult work.
With a recession on, it isn't as easy as before, but it is still doable.
 
UtahBill said:
A valued employee can do that, by quitting a job when he or she is not being fairly paid. I was the only tech in a group in Idaho that could, or would, do certain things, but I was also paid less than senior techs who had been there longer. I told the boss it wasn't fair, and he made promises he never intended to keep, so after a year of BS from him, I transferred out.
But that was me....your average employee isn't interested in keeping his skills up to snuff, or tackling the more difficult work.
With a recession on, it isn't as easy as before, but it is still doable.
Click to expand...

No question about it, no one holds a gun to the head of any employee to keep a job that they feel undervalues their worth. In the end however it is the market that will set the price. All those crying for the Govt. to set the minimum wage ignores that minimum wage then becomes the maximum wage and employer has to pay to get an employee. I employed thousands and never once paid minimum wage as the market I was in wouldn't allow me to pay minimum wage. Too many ignore that reality.
 
Conservative said:
No question about it, no one holds a gun to the head of any employee to keep a job that they feel undervalues their worth. In the end however it is the market that will set the price. All those crying for the Govt. to set the minimum wage ignores that minimum wage then becomes the maximum wage and employer has to pay to get an employee. I employed thousands and never once paid minimum wage as the market I was in wouldn't allow me to pay minimum wage. Too many ignore that reality.
Click to expand...

That may be true for unskilled labor, but for technical jobs that require some expertise, not so true. My supervisor was responsible for seeing that the job gets done, but by losing me, he had no way of getting some of those things done. I wasn't the only one who left, we had a former Air Force tech and a former Navy nuke who left that group. The supervisor had to answer to his bosses about losing so many of his top techs....
In a later job, in AZ, we had 2 "revolts" of new hires threatening to quit when they found out that they were getting substantially less pay than lower skilled jobs, lesser able people, etc. Idiot bosses hired ENGINEERS at less than a union meter reader....
After big pay raises, the revolution was over, but one engineer quit anyway, and now makes a LOT more than those who stayed.
You gotta take risks to get rewards....
 
UtahBill said:
That may be true for unskilled labor, but for technical jobs that require some expertise, not so true. My supervisor was responsible for seeing that the job gets done, but by losing me, he had no way of getting some of those things done. I wasn't the only one who left, we had a former Air Force tech and a former Navy nuke who left that group. The supervisor had to answer to his bosses about losing so many of his top techs....
In a later job, in AZ, we had 2 "revolts" of new hires threatening to quit when they found out that they were getting substantially less pay than lower skilled jobs, lesser able people, etc. Idiot bosses hired ENGINEERS at less than a union meter reader....
After big pay raises, the revolution was over, but one engineer quit anyway, and now makes a LOT more than those who stayed.
You gotta take risks to get rewards....
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like once again the market set the price. It is a tug between what the employer wants to pay and what the employee wants to get. The market will determine that price not the govt. setting an artificial price. There are indeed idiot bosses just like there are idiot employees who have an entitlement mentality. Neither are good for the business. Who do you think pays for those wages? Price yourself out of the market and you won't have to worry about what pay rate you get, it will be zero.
 
Conservative said:
Sounds to me like once again the market set the price. It is a tug between what the employer wants to pay and what the employee wants to get. The market will determine that price not the govt. setting an artificial price. There are indeed idiot bosses just like there are idiot employees who have an entitlement mentality. Neither are good for the business. Who do you think pays for those wages? Price yourself out of the market and you won't have to worry about what pay rate you get, it will be zero.
Click to expand...
Not sure of your background, but in the technical fields, and I suspect many fields, there are a lot of people who faked it to get in, then try to coast afterwards. Lax supervision allows them to stay longer than probation periods. Apparently it is hard to fire people in some areas...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom