• 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!

GOP Leaders Don’t Expect White House Tax-Plan Details

I don't know on what you base your opinion regarding the high corporate tax rates being unimportant. The State of New York is offering tax breaks to companies to either relocate or to stay.

I have had clients relocate their businesses to alternative states to take advantage of lower taxes. Illinois is hemoraging jobs as their companies flee the punitive tax structure to gain a better deal elsewhere.

What is the world is the foundation for your illogical statement?

The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries is well documented.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood



“I don't know on what you base your opinion regarding the high corporate tax rates being unimportant.”

You misstate me. I did not say high corporate tax rates, by themselves, are “unimportant”. I said that considering other factors in what results in after-tax profits, “high” corporate tax rates are offset with the ultimate outcome being in the benefit of corps.

“The State of New York is offering tax breaks to companies to either relocate or to stay.”

So, what? Companies stay or relocate for a majority of reason beyond tax breaks. Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

“I have had clients relocate their businesses to alternative states to take advantage of lower taxes. Illinois is hemoraging jobs as their companies flee the punitive tax structure to gain a better deal elsewhere.”

No doubt. You pick out one state of 50 as though it was the mode. Wrong.

“What is the world is the foundation for your illogical statement?

The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries is well documented.”
What is also well documented is the fact that the US unemployment ratio has improved 1970 to 2013 from 57.4 to 67.4. That covers the period of time of “The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries.” Those nations, about a dozen or so, with better ratios as of 2013, have not but for one or two improved so much.
 
What are you talking about? The surpluses were going away whether Bush or Gore won the election.

This is false. In January 2001, the CBO published this projection:

391bee8c78.png


By 2002.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which was estimated at the time of enactment to reduce revenues by $1,186 billion and increase outlays by $88 billion between 2002 and 2011.​

612280dfa5.png


The economy began it's slowdown in Q3 2000 after a LONG period of growth that had been sent into overdrive by the Republican policies after they took the Congress. It went into recession within weeks of Bush taking office.

We experienced a very mild recession, which began in March of 2001, which was over in November that same year. The third shortest contraction on record. It should also be noted the previous expansion cycle was 120 months, a (then) all time high dating back to 1854.

He and the Republicans did the right thing and cut tax rates, did not promise a huge spending increase to stimulate the economy and held back on new regulations and then GOT OUT OF THE WAY.

Opinion devoid of fact and an extremely selective memory. They got of the way alright... just ask Bear Stearns how that worked out for them.

Then the Democrats took back the congress and budget and fiscal policy and made a disaster out of em.

I see. When Republicans face economic turmoil, it is ok to run deficits... it's just not acceptable for Democrats to run deficits.

In 2008 under Democrat budgets spending increased 9% and then in 2009 18%, are you saying they were more frugal?

Again, the only spending that is unnecessary is when it can somehow be attached to Democrat politicians. You are also failing to acknowledge one of the single greatest financial events in world history, a Republican administration that pushed for Democrat support for its financial bailout package, and funny enough... the overwhelming success of the program (TARP).

The United States Treasury, under the authority of George W. Bush, enacted a program where it would inject around $350 billion into the U.S. banking system. There would be an additional $350+ billion available 6 months later if needed. Stew on that for a second before you respond with another matter-of-fact statement.
 
This is false. In January 2001, the CBO published this projection:

You know how much credit I give CBO projections? Zilch. If you want to use CBO then post actual historical data not their guesses. I don't care about guesses I care about results.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which was estimated at the time of enactment to reduce revenues by $1,186 billion and increase outlays by $88 billion between 2002 and 2011.

It resulted in RECORD revenue increases 15% in 2007, the CBO was flat out wrong about the Bush43 tax rate cuts, the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and the Clinton tax rate increases.

We experienced a very mild recession, which began in March of 2001, which was over in November that same year. The third shortest contraction on record. It should also be noted the previous expansion cycle was 120 months, a (then) all time high dating back to 1854.

It was "mild" because the Republicans mostly passed good legislation to mitigate the effects and they didn't scare the markets even more with higher taxes and promises of more regulation. and remember there was the Dot.com bust which collapsed the stock market and then just as we were coming out of it 911 hit.


Opinion devoid of fact and an extremely selective memory. They got of the way alright... just ask Bear Stearns how that worked out for them.

Yes they go out of the way and didn't try to run the economy or dictate to private business or take over 1/6th of the economy. They let the markets work themselves clear and made sure they had the confidence to do so.

I see. When Republicans face economic turmoil, it is ok to run deficits... it's just not acceptable for Democrats to run deficits.

You don't see very good at all then. But do tell me which is better a one year peak of $400B and then falling to $161b in 3 years or taking that $161B skyrocketing it to $1,400B in just two years and keeping it over $1,000B for the next four never even coming close to that worst $400B?

Again, the only spending that is unnecessary is when it can somehow be attached to Democrat politicians. You are also failing to acknowledge one of the single greatest financial events in world history, a Republican administration that pushed for Democrat support for its financial bailout package, and funny enough... the overwhelming success of the program (TARP).

TARP didn't create the deficits of the Democrats nor add much to the debt, it was mostly paid back with interest.

And still waiting

You seem to assume higher tax rates means higher tax revenues. Bill Clinton learned that lesson that is not necessarily true and almost cost him reelection.

Tell me what rate we should set capital gains taxes if revenue is your goal.
 
You know how much credit I give CBO projections? Zilch. If you want to use CBO then post actual historical data not their guesses. I don't care about guesses I care about results.

Your statement was bogus. There was no expectation that the deficit was going to vanish, no matter the next president. It was Bush policies that pushed debt... and then you make excuses for it.

Hypocrite.

It resulted in RECORD revenue increases 15% in 2007, the CBO was flat out wrong about the Bush43 tax rate cuts, the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and the Clinton tax rate increases.

Record revenue increases 15% in 2007? Again, you are mistaken. Revenue increased less than 5% in 2007. Once again, deficits are only a problem when a Democrat is in office or controls any branch of government.

It was "mild" because the Republicans mostly passed good legislation to mitigate the effects and they didn't scare the markets even more with higher taxes and promises of more regulation. and remember there was the Dot.com bust which collapsed the stock market and then just as we were coming out of it 911 hit.

Any attempts to rationalize deficits fall on deaf ears, given the downturn between 2007 and 2009 was many multitudes worse, and the entire Republican base was hysterical over the deficits. Hypocrisy at its worst.

Yes they go out of the way and didn't try to run the economy or dictate to private business or take over 1/6th of the economy. They let the markets work themselves clear and made sure they had the confidence to do so.

By the time GWB left office, real receipts had fallen below 2001 levels, the financial system was in free fall, and markets were in destruction mode. That's not something i'd hang my hat on if i were in this discussion.

But do tell me which is better a one year peak of $400B and then falling to $161b in 3 years or taking that $161B skyrocketing it to $1,400B in just two years and keeping it over $1,000B for the next four never even coming close to that worst $400B?

You're purposefully forgetting the timelines and what occurring. Obama or his Congress didn't cause fiscal year 2008/2009 revenue to collapse, nor did he authorize the overwhelming majority of new expenditures.

TARP didn't create the deficits of the Democrats nor add much to the debt, it was mostly paid back with interest.

TARP was a $350+ billion expenditure that was funded with deficits. Sure it was paid back in the future, after the financial markets and the economy had recovered.

You seem to assume higher tax rates means higher tax revenues. Bill Clinton learned that lesson that is not necessarily true and almost cost him reelection.

Your opinion doesn't hold any weight in this discussion.

Tell me what rate we should set capital gains taxes if revenue is your goal.

Corporate tax reform is a necessary endeavor. Personally, i don't find a valid rationale in keeping corporate rate schedules on par with the industrializing tax policy of the 20th century. Corporate tax rates can be brought down to 10% as long as they are accompanied by offsets in the alternative minimum tax and long term capital gains tax rates and schedules. There isn't a valid economic rationale for a person making $500k/year to be paying a similar top marginal rate as a person making $50 million.
 
Your statement was bogus. There was no expectation that the deficit was going to vanish, no matter the next president. It was Bush policies that pushed debt... and then you make excuses for it.

The economy began it's slowdown Q3 of 2000 before Bush was even elected. The economy was in a recession with weeks of his taking office. Had it been Gore it would have been no different else explain why.

Hypocrite.

How so?

Record revenue increases 15% in 2007? Again, you are mistaken.


Sorry typo, 2005 and then 12% in 2006.

Revenues
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985


Increase
2004 5%
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/hist01z1.xls

Once again, deficits are only a problem when a Democrat is in office or controls any branch of government.

If you say so, I'd say they are problems for whoever controls the budget and fiscal policy.

Any attempts to rationalize deficits fall on deaf ears, given the downturn between 2007 and 2009 was many multitudes worse, and the entire Republican base was hysterical over the deficits. Hypocrisy at its worst.

You are the one rationalizing ignoring the revenue drop in the 2001 recession but then acknowledge it in the 2008-2009 recession and BTW the FY2007 which was a Republican budget had a 7% revenue increase and a paltry $161B deficit.


By the time GWB left office

The Democrats had controlled the budget and fiscal policy for two years.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Dems set for fight on Bush budget - USATODAY.com

, real receipts had fallen below 2001 levels, the financial system was in free fall, and markets were in destruction mode. That's not something i'd hang my hat on if i were in this discussion.

As I said, the Democrats are horrible at the budget and fiscal policy. In those two years discussed above spending increased 9% in 2008 only that low because Bush threatened to veto any higher and then 18% in 2009 when they had him out of the way.

You're purposefully forgetting the timelines and what occurring. Obama or his Congress didn't cause fiscal year 2008/2009 revenue to collapse, nor did he authorize the overwhelming majority of new expenditures.

I'm detailing it, the Democrats, including Senator Obama, took budget and fiscal control January of 2007, the recession didn't start until 11 months later. Were they all on vacation all that time? What policies were they pushing? More taxes, more regulations, more spending. A good prescription to make an economic downturn a disaster. And President OBAMA signed the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, the budget, into law in March of 2009 cont
 
cont....

TARP was a $350+ billion expenditure that was funded with deficits. Sure it was paid back in the future, after the financial markets and the economy had recovered.

It was paid back rather quickly and then Obama tried to use the unspent authorization to lower his skyrocking deficit and count the money being paid back as revenue instead of a loan repayment. The final cost of TARP was a rounding error $50B

Do TARP Repayments Reduce The Deficit?

In light of the recent news that the total cost of the infamous Troubled Asset Relief Program will probably be less than $50 billion, a reader in Florida asks an important question: Are TARP re-payments being used for deficit reduction?

"Yes, they are going to pay down the deficit," says Mark Paustenbach, a Treasury spokesman who deals with TARP issues...........

.......Banks that received TARP money had to pay an annual dividend worth 5% of the government's investment in them to Uncle Sam. That expense is one reason firms like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were so eager to repay the TARP investment.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianw...-re-payments-reduce-the-deficit/#397352294d0d

Your opinion doesn't hold any weight in this discussion.

Well as much as yours but then try dealing with the facts upon which I base mine. You know actual data not CBO projections.

Corporate tax reform is a necessary endeavor.

OK but I was talking about capital gains tax rates.

Corporate tax rates can be brought down to 10% as long as they are accompanied by offsets in the alternative minimum tax and long term capital gains tax rates and schedules.

OK bring down the corporate tax rates but again if revenue his your goal why on earth would you raise cap gains tax rates, go back to the historical data.

There isn't a valid economic rationale for a person making $500k/year to be paying a similar top marginal rate as a person making $50 million.

What is the valid economic rationale to make the higher earners pay a higher marginal rate, we should set tax rates based on valid reasons TO do it not because you can't come up with a reason not to do it especially when it comes to the income and wealth of citizens.
 
Last edited:
So, what? Companies stay or relocate for a majority of reason beyond tax breaks. Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

Well all other things be equal, site developement assistance, infrastructure assistance, worker training assistance but one state is offering tax breaks and the other isn't which one do you think would be scoring higher in the running?
 
Well all other things be equal, site developement assistance, infrastructure assistance, worker training assistance but one state is offering tax breaks and the other isn't which one do you think would be scoring higher in the running?


I already answered your question. There is no significant data to back up what you say. You're avoiding the point. What proof can you show? If cities are dumb enough to fall for such a scam, that doesn't mean giveaways to corps works to the benefit of the given city.
 
I already answered your question. There is no significant data to back up what you say. You're avoiding the point. What proof can you show? If cities are dumb enough to fall for such a scam, that doesn't mean giveaways to corps works to the benefit of the given city.

Its your claim not mine and I didn't say anything about it asked you a reasonable question about it. If you are going to dodge it then post something to back your claim. The poster to whom you were responding posted an article supporting his claim. Ball in your court.
 
Its your claim not mine and I didn't say anything about it asked you a reasonable question about it. If you are going to dodge it then post something to back your claim. The poster to whom you were responding posted an article supporting his claim. Ball in your court.


The poster gave a reference for one state, Illinois, (which has the highest corporate and income tax rates in the nation, or close to it) as evidence. I already pointed out that “…one state of 50…” as not being adequate evidence to support corporate tax giveaways as being done in New York.

What claim are you saying I made that requires me to “…post something to back your claim.”? I said to “Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.” No such proof has been given.

Keep your ball.
 
Revenues
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985

Increase
2004 5%
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%

I'll just comment on this because the analysis is pretty fascinating to me. Obviously those big revenue gains were on the back of a MASSIVE and obviously unsustainable WORLDWIDE debt and related housing bubble. It would be one thing to cite the numbers then continue the assessment through the collapse and post recovery to try to show that, yes, even with the inevitable correction lower rates STILL resulted in revenue gains, but you obviously cannot do that. Once the bubble burst, revenue collapsed and stayed depressed. It was only after the partial expiration of the Bush tax cuts that we saw revenues show a meaningful recovery in 2013, and inflation adjusted, that just got us back to levels of 2000. So 15 years of economic growth, and population growth, and individual income taxes didn't move, at all.

Here are individual income tax receipts, inflation adjusted, for the period 2000-2016. I got the inflation factor from WH Tables, Table 1.3 and by source Table 2.1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Year Nominal Factor Inflation adj Change % change
2000 1,004,462 0.7970 1,260,304
2001 994,339 0.8183 1,215,128 (45,175.93) -4%
2002 858,345 0.8319 1,031,789 (183,339.03) -15%
2003 793,699 0.8554 927,869 (103,919.84) -10%
2004 808,959 0.8778 921,576 (6,293.30) -1%
2005 927,222 0.9081 1,021,057 99,481.62 11%
2006 1,043,908 0.9395 1,111,131 90,074.30 9%
2007 1,163,472 0.9643 1,206,546 95,414.23 9%
2008 1,145,747 0.9980 1,148,043 (58,502.59) -5%
2009 915,308 1.0000 915,308 (232,735.09) -20%
2010 898,549 1.0157 884,660 (30,648.16) -3%
2011 1,091,473 1.0395 1,049,998 165,338.24 19%
2012 1,132,206 1.0603 1,067,817 17,818.58 2%
2013 1,316,405 1.0740 1,225,703 157,886.32 15%
2014 1,394,568 1.0906 1,278,716 53,013.32 4%
2015 1,540,802 1.0976 1,403,792 125,075.61 10%
2016 1,546,075 1.1066 1,397,140 (6,652.02) 0%
 
Last edited:
The economy began it's slowdown Q3 of 2000 before Bush was even elected.

The economy began it's slowdown in Q4 of 2007, before Obama was even elected. ;)

The economy was in a recession with weeks of his taking office.

The economy was in the midst of the deepest financial crisis since the 1930's weeks before Obama won the election.

Had it been Gore it would have been no different else explain why.

Would hundred billion plus dollar surpluses have turned into deficits? That's what you're having such difficulty explaining!


Deficits are only a problem when they can potentially be attributed to Democrats... regardless of what's going on in the world.

Sorry typo, 2005 and then 12% in 2006.

Well golly gee, and here i was thinking that Republicans typically attribute deficits to expenditures!

You are the one rationalizing ignoring the revenue drop in the 2001 recession

Not at all. I understand that the 2001 recession was among the smallest on record. It was a business cycle correction from the uber growth experienced in the late 1990's.

but then acknowledge it in the 2008-2009 recession

First and foremost, by the time the U.S. economy re-enters recession in late 2007, the United States had been accumulating deficits even during periods of substantial economic growth.

Secondly, the U.S. economy was booming on the back of an unsustainable real estate bubble. Before Obama even won the election, our financial system was in meltdown.

and BTW the FY2007 which was a Republican budget had a 7% revenue increase and a paltry $161B deficit.

Are you somehow suddenly claiming that economic downturns don't impact revenue?

The Democrats had controlled the budget and fiscal policy for two years.

And growth had been plummeting since 2007. Funny how you fail to recognize your own sentiments!

In those two years discussed above spending increased 9% in 2008 only that low because Bush threatened to veto any higher and then 18% in 2009 when they had him out of the way.

Spending increased primarily due to automatic stabilizers which kick in when the economy goes into tank mode. It wasn't called the Great Recession for nothing!

I'm detailing it, the Democrats, including Senator Obama, took budget and fiscal control January of 2007, the recession didn't start until 11 months later. Were they all on vacation all that time?

Was the economy not slowing down? I seem to recall you making a similar argument about one of the most insignificant economic downturns in U.S. economic history.

It was paid back rather quickly and then Obama tried to use the unspent authorization to lower his skyrocking deficit and count the money being paid back as revenue instead of a loan repayment. The final cost of TARP was a rounding error $50B

You're clearly not familiar with this topic. TARP actually made taxpayers $15billion.

Well as much as yours

I haven't made opinionated statements. :lol:

You know actual data not CBO projections.

The CBO projected surpluses until the Bush administration completely altered the trajectory of long-term fiscal policy. Sorry, this is simply a matter of fact. \

K bring down the corporate tax rates but again if revenue his your goal why on earth would you raise cap gains tax rates, go back to the historical data.

You don't increase revenue and cut deficits by lowering taxes.

What is the valid economic rationale to make the higher earners pay a higher marginal rate

Your basic consumption function. Are you aware of the relationship between savings rates, income levels, and economic activity?

We should set tax rates based on valid reason

:lol:
 
I'll just comment on this because the analysis is pretty fascinating to me. Obviously those big revenue gains were on the back of a MASSIVE and obviously unsustainable WORLDWIDE debt and related housing bubble.

Obviously they were from a very strong very broad recovery with strong employment and income numbers and investors willing to take risk and expand and grow the economy. It wasn't the first time.
 
The economy began it's slowdown in Q4 of 2007, before Obama was even elected.



The economy was in the midst of the deepest financial crisis since the 1930's weeks before Obama won the election.

So what? The Democrats took control of the government and budget and fiscal policy 11 months before the recession and that included Senator Obama. Why do you keep harping on when Obama moved from the Senate to the White House as if that marked the date the Democrats took that control?

Would hundred billion plus dollar surpluses have turned into deficits? That's what you're having such difficulty explaining!

I've explained it quite clearly, why do you blame that on Bush?

Deficits are only a problem when they can potentially be attributed to Democrats... regardless of what's going on in the world.

They are a problem when they have huge increases and nothing is done to turn it around as with the Democrats 2008-2015.

Well golly gee, and here i was thinking that Republicans typically attribute deficits to expenditures!

Not at all. I understand that the 2001 recession was among the smallest on record. It was a business cycle correction from the uber growth experienced in the late 1990's.

Well golly gee what does that have to do with record revenue increases and a paltry $161B deficit. And the 2001 recession was a recession along with the huge Dot.com bust and then 911, but then when proper policies are put in place and confidence given to the markets those effect can be mitigated and the economy put back on course.

First and foremost, by the time the U.S. economy re-enters recession in late 2007, the United States had been accumulating deficits even during periods of substantial economic growth.
Yes and that deficit had fallen from a one year peak of $400B to a measly $161B in three years, then the Democrats took back control and we see what happened to deficits.

Secondly, the U.S. economy was booming on the back of an unsustainable real estate bubble. Before Obama even won the election, our financial system was in meltdown.

It was an across the board boom but then the so called-Clinton boom was a dot.com bubble, most periods of growth have bubbles and then recessions correct the bubbles. And once again there you go asserthing that EVERYTHING begins and ends when Obama moved over to the White House as if he and his fellow Democrats had not taken over two years earlier.

Are you somehow suddenly claiming that economic downturns don't impact revenue?

I've never said that but you have said they did in the 2008/2009 recession but not the 2001 recession, care to reconcile that.

Spending increased primarily due to automatic stabilizers which kick in when the economy goes into tank mode.

It increased because the Democrats wanted a HUGE spending increase and did get all they wanted in 2008 because of Bush but with him out of the way got what they wanted and spending increase 9% and then 18%. I posted their statements all tickled with themselves how they were going to increase spending and push Bush out of the way.

You're clearly not familiar with this topic. TARP actually made taxpayers $15billion.

Yes in the end I have already noted it was paid back not you, you keep claiming it caused Obama's deficits.

The CBO projected surpluses until the Bush administration completely altered the trajectory of long-term fiscal policy. Sorry, this is simply a matter of fact. \

And as usual their projection was wrong. I just post the 2nd quarter GDP number of 3% in the thread about the CBO saying we would only see between 1.5% - 1.9% and 3% was unattainable. CBO projections aren't worth the paper the are written on.

You don't increase revenue and cut deficits by lowering taxes.

Yeah you do and we did as I have shown. By lower tax RATES. Double the cap gains revenues at the 15% Bush rate that the Clinton 29% rate.

Now try again

What is the valid economic rationale to make the higher earners pay a higher marginal rate
 
Obviously they were from a very strong very broad recovery with strong employment and income numbers and investors willing to take risk and expand and grow the economy. It wasn't the first time.

Well, cherry picking just a few years out of the past 15, then claiming there was no recession, is a great way to torpedo your credibility on the issue. If that's your goal, mission accomplished.
 
Well, cherry picking just a few years out of the past 15, then claiming there was no recession, is a great way to torpedo your credibility on the issue. If that's your goal, mission accomplished.

Oh stop with the bogus cherry picking and fallacious claims if you can't refute the facts so be it. The claim was the Bush43 tax rate cuts caused the deficits to increase and blew the surpluses. They did not and it has nothing to do with 1948.
 
Oh stop with the bogus cherry picking and fallacious claims if you can't refute the facts so be it. The claim was the Bush43 tax rate cuts caused the deficits to increase and blew the surpluses. They did not and it has nothing to do with 1948.

I cited the complete record from 2000-2016. There isn't any question the two rounds of Bush tax cuts reduced revenues. Look at the numbers. It took 15 years to get back to 2000 revenue levels, and that includes the bubble years, and it wasn't until part of the Bush tax cuts expired for the 2013 year that we managed that.

And you're denying what we saw worldwide was a debt and related housing bubble. That's delusional thinking that flies in the face of any data you'd like to cite. Just households (i.e. excluding businesses) more than doubled their total debt from around $5 Trillion in 2000 to more than $12 trillion in 2008 before the bubble burst. So in total households borrowed just under $1 TRILLION per year, and used that money to buy stuff, lots of stuff. Sustainable? No! What happens when borrowing stops? Households pay back debt, reducing consumption!

Here's a graph of Home Equity Withdrawals (HEW) - borrowing against your home. As you can see, at the top of the bubble this was running at roughly $750 billion per YEAR. That's a pretty big stimulus! It's also unsustainable, as we now know, because in the post crash era, HEW went NEGATIVE as people paid back those home equity loans, causing a drain on consumption.

MEWQ42008.jpg

MEWQ42013.jpg
 
Oh stop with the bogus cherry picking and fallacious claims if you can't refute the facts so be it. The claim was the Bush43 tax rate cuts caused the deficits to increase and blew the surpluses. They did not and it has nothing to do with 1948.

I posted the record for individual tax revenue from 2000 - 2016. That's not cherry picking. And the numbers speak for themselves. The two rounds of Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. It took nearly 15 years to return to pre-tax cut levels, and that includes the years when we had the biggest debt and related housing bubble since the Great Depression.

Household debt increased from around $5 Trillion to over $12 Trillion - more than doubling in just 8 years.

6a00d83452403c69e201543791c5a2970c-800wi


Just Home Equity Withdrawals - borrowing against rising home values - was running at over $200 Billion per QUARTER at the peak, over $700B per year. That's a lot of stimulus and obviously unsustainable, as we saw.

MEWQ42008.jpg

MEWQ42013.jpg

Those are the pictures of a bubble and the aftermath. And it was worldwide. Blaming it on Democrats who didn't win Congress until 2007 is so baseless and contradicted by the data that I cannot believe you believe it, but I've seen stranger things on here... We could have cloned Ronald Reagan 535 times, elected him to every seat in Congress, and the bubble would have STILL burst and caused a great recession because trends that are unsustainable stop, and therefore bubbles burst because MATH. If we'd avoided the crash for two more years and elected McCain, that would have just caused a bigger bubble and bigger crash for McCain and Palin :)shock:) to deal with, FSM help us.....
 
I posted the record for individual tax revenue from 2000 - 2016. That's not cherry picking. And the numbers speak for themselves. The two rounds of Bush tax cuts reduced revenue.

2001 -2%
2002 -7%
2003 -4%
2004 5%
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%

2008 -2%
2009 -17%
2010 3%
2011 7%

Really? The tax rate cuts were to phase in through 2006 but were not having a quick enough effect so were fully implemented in 2003. What drop in revenues? Capital gains tax revenue alone went from $47B to $137B double what they produce at the Clinton 29% rate.

It was an across the board expansion, housing only makes up 3-5% of GDP.

And here is the complete chart

MW-FJ600_debt_b_20170403134101_NS.jpg


We are set to surpass the 2008 peak as the economy continues to grow and expand again. You call it a bubble I call it economic expansion. And expansion hit to point where readjustments, slowdowns and recessions occur. In 2000 it was a Dot.com bubble. Back in Reagan's days it was another real estate bubble. The question is how does the government deal with it. History shows the Republicans take proper actions more than Democrats.

And the fact remains when the Democrats took the congress in 2007 the deficit for that year was a paltry $161B, just two years later they hit $1,400B all the while bragging about their spending increases and kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 years. They also passed a $800B stimulus which went no where and failed to pass budgets to get spending under control. The Republicans took the correct actions, with their mistakes in implimenting them soon enough helping to mitigate the effects of the 2001 recession and getting us back into a growth period and fiscal sanity.
 
Last edited:
2001 -2%
2002 -7%
2003 -4%
2004 5%
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%

2008 -2%
2009 -17%
2010 3%
2011 7%

Really? The tax rate cuts were to phase in through 2006 but were not having a quick enough effect so were fully implemented in 2003. What drop in revenues? Capital gains tax revenue alone went from $47B to $137B double what they produce at the Clinton 29% rate.

OK, so the tax cuts were on the individual side, so to show the change resulting from a cut in individual tax rates, you lump in payroll taxes that saw the FICA cap rise by 33% from about 75k to 100k, and corporate income taxes, which weren't cut. That's hackery. I showed what happened to individual tax receipts.

It was an across the board expansion, housing only makes up 3-5% of GDP.

But people were borrowing $200 billion per QUARTER and spending it in the broader economy based on bubble housing prices. And we don't have to guess it was a bubble bursting - we saw what happened, threatened our entire financial system.

And here is the complete chart

We are set to surpass the 2008 peak as the economy continues to grow and expand again. You call it a bubble I call it economic expansion. And expansion hit to point where readjustments, slowdowns and recessions occur. In 2000 it was a Dot.com bubble. Back in Reagan's days it was another real estate bubble. The question is how does the government deal with it. History shows the Republicans take proper actions more than Democrats.

I notice you don't produce a chart, and you don't because if you do, you'll see the Reagan "housing bubble" doesn't even register compared to the actual bubble we just went through.

And the fact remains when the Democrats took the congress in 2007 the deficit for that year was a paltry $161B, just two years later they hit $1,400B all the while bragging about their spending increases and kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 years. They also passed a $800B stimulus which went no where and failed to pass budgets to get spending under control. The Republicans took the correct actions, with their mistakes in implimenting them soon enough helping to mitigate the effects of the 2001 recession and getting us back into a growth period and fiscal sanity.

OK, I've had enough. You're just spewing right wing drivel in which Republicans = GOOD, and Democrats = BAD! backed by nothing. It's tiring. If you can't recognize we went through a bubble, and that the bubble's crash is what caused almost all those big deficits, then there is really no hope of an informed conversation because you're ignoring the evidence, history, the factual record, the conclusion of economists left and right, everyone who is informed by the evidence.
 
OK, so the tax cuts were on the individual side, so to show the change resulting from a cut in individual tax rates, you lump in payroll taxes that saw the FICA cap rise by 33% from about 75k to 100k, and corporate income taxes, which weren't cut. That's hackery. I showed what happened to individual tax receipts.

I showed what happened to gross tax receipts to the government and in particular capital gains tax receipts. And I'm not going to play wak-a-mole with as you now jump to FICA contributions.

But people were borrowing $200 billion per QUARTER and spending it in the broader economy based on bubble housing prices. And we don't have to guess it was a bubble bursting - we saw what happened, threatened our entire financial system.

A slowdown and recession which began what little recovery we had in 2003 and has regained and back on the track and the amount of debt held has now surpassed.

I notice you don't produce a chart, and you don't because if you do, you'll see the Reagan "housing bubble" doesn't even register compared to the actual bubble we just went through.

It was a real estate bubble and then the dot.com bubble in the 1990's. The "bubbles" are nothing new, it's how they are dealt with.


OK, I've had enough. You're just spewing right wing drivel in which Republicans = GOOD, and Democrats = BAD! backed by nothing. It's tiring. If you can't recognize we went through a bubble, and that the bubble's crash is what caused almost all those big deficits, then there is really no hope of an informed conversation because you're ignoring the evidence, history, the factual record, the conclusion of economists left and right, everyone who is informed by the evidence.

I can't help it that Republican policies work better than Democrat and produce low deficits and even surpluses. The facts remains the Bush43, the Gingrich/Kaisch tax rate reductions did NOT cause deficits they produced surpluses at their best and rapidly falling deficits to a measly $161B deficits at their worst. I have heard and read all attempts to excuse that away long before you posted them. To cast all that to the housing market is folly. There was a broad economic expansion, full employment with rising incomes and that produced record revenue and revenue increases. All that was shut down when the Democrats took control in 2007, their efforts and lack thereof to mitigate the "bubble" and the effects of the recession are quite clear. Threatening higher taxes, more regulation, higher employment cost, higher investment cost and then going on their HUGE spending spree was NOT the way to get us into a full recovery. If you believe so then explain why.
 
Last edited:
“I don't know on what you base your opinion regarding the high corporate tax rates being unimportant.”

You misstate me. I did not say high corporate tax rates, by themselves, are “unimportant”. I said that considering other factors in what results in after-tax profits, “high” corporate tax rates are offset with the ultimate outcome being in the benefit of corps.

“The State of New York is offering tax breaks to companies to either relocate or to stay.”

So, what? Companies stay or relocate for a majority of reason beyond tax breaks. Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

“I have had clients relocate their businesses to alternative states to take advantage of lower taxes. Illinois is hemoraging jobs as their companies flee the punitive tax structure to gain a better deal elsewhere.”

No doubt. You pick out one state of 50 as though it was the mode. Wrong.

“What is the world is the foundation for your illogical statement?

The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries is well documented.”
What is also well documented is the fact that the US unemployment ratio has improved 1970 to 2013 from 57.4 to 67.4. That covers the period of time of “The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries.” Those nations, about a dozen or so, with better ratios as of 2013, have not but for one or two improved so much.

Okay. The decisions of business managers has nothing to do with the amount of earned profits they get to keep. Got it!

This is great information.

I'm pretty sure that Paul Krugman supports this line of thinking.
 
Okay. The decisions of business managers has nothing to do with the amount of earned profits they get to keep. Got it!

This is great information.

I'm pretty sure that Paul Krugman supports this line of thinking.



“Okay. The decisions of business managers has nothing to do with the amount of earned profits they get to keep. Got it!’
The decisions of business managers have everything to do with profits. For the company and, thereby, the shareholders. That’s what depresses employee compensation.

Still, you can’t refute what I posted, can you? You can only give your opinion without supporting fact.
 
“Okay. The decisions of business managers has nothing to do with the amount of earned profits they get to keep. Got it!’
The decisions of business managers have everything to do with profits. For the company and, thereby, the shareholders. That’s what depresses employee compensation.

Still, you can’t refute what I posted, can you? You can only give your opinion without supporting fact.

Your final thought was this:

"What is also well documented is the fact that the US unemployment ratio has improved 1970 to 2013 from 57.4 to 67.4.

That covers the period of time of “The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries.”

Those nations, about a dozen or so, with better ratios as of 2013, have not but for one or two improved so much."

First, your statement is wildly inaccurate. The participation rate in 2013 was not at the level you have conjured. You overstated the number from December, 2013 by about 5 points. This was down by about 1 point from January same year. Your 1957 number seems to be about right. However, in the intervening years, the US participation rate was at the 67.+ area in the late 90's. Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that the widespread rise of the two income household started in the later 60's early 70's. That changed everything in regard to the participation rate.

Also, the world was changing around us as we changed with it. After most countries were bombed into rubble during WW2, we were left pretty much untouched. The US profitability was pretty much the result of being the only game on the planet. That changed during the Eisenhower Administration's years as we started to see cars with foreign nameplates and many other foreign originated products sold in our cities.

Your agenda driven selective omission of fact seems intended more to deceive than to inform. Your thoughts on this?

Now, are you seriously asserting that lowering the taxes on US companies will not provide incentives for them to remain in the US or to expand in the US?

Your new assertion is that greater profits and higher stock prices depresses employee compensation. Interesting. Conversely, then, it would follow that lower profits or perhaps no profits and going out of business would increase employee compensation. Not likely.

Employee compensation, like everything else for sale, is a market driven commodity. If there is more labor available than needed, the value goes down. If there is less labor than needed, the value goes up. This is not rocket science.

A humming economy that is using all of the qualified workers already will need to increase compensation to attract workers.

THAT is what Trump is trying to produce.

Why are you campaigning to keep wages low?

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01102014.pdf

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
 
Back
Top Bottom