• 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!

Trump Tax Cuts Are (Probably) About to Become a Political Disaster

Idiometer said:
Your paltry little tax cut was only included in that bill because they couldn't sell it to their constituencies without throwing crumbs to us little people. That's why the cut phases out in 2025. Only the rich, like corporate CEOs and other big corporation stakeholders got a significant cut, and theirs is permanent. Plus, it has already added $113 billion to the deficit, or 17%.

How the Trump Tax Cut Is Helping to Push the Federal Deficit to $1 Trillion - The New York Times

Trump's Additional Budget Deficit Was Largely Due To The Corporate Tax Cut

And they did not cut spending, like the Republican Party always says they're going to do, they've added to it, and Trump is demanding more for a wall that most Americans don't support, not on our dime.

The GOP/Trump tax reform bill helps corporations and the already rich. You and I? Not so much, and only long enough to dupe people into thinking that the bill was a good thing.
Click to expand...

My tax cut wasnt paltry and if you are suddenly worried about the deficits now that the biggest deficit spender in US history, Barack Obama, is out of office, you can relax. Democrats now run the House so we can expect all the fiscal belt tightening you could ever dream of.
 
JasperL said:
Of course, they also promised that in 2018 they'd address the spending cuts, but that was a lie of course. It's politically easier to borrow the tax cuts, make the donors happy, and blame Democrats for the expiring tax cuts on the middle class. And you're buying their BS.
Click to expand...
Oh, jeez, they "promised", first time any politicians EVER promised to "address spending cuts". Horrors. :eek:


JasperL said:
"The donor class comment isn't a non-sequitur...."
Click to expand...
Maybe not, there are definitely some LW money bag types donating for no other reason but ideology and TDS. In fact the LW donors dominate the top donors list.


JasperL said:
I don't know what your argument is. There was ZERO economic need for more fiscal stimulus a year ago. The tax cuts poured gasoline on a fire burning nicely at that time. What happens WHEN we have the next recession?
Click to expand...
My argument is simply that the economy as of 2016 was on it's last gasps - growth less than 1.6% and declining. Theoretical "full employment" ONLY because so many people had dropped out of the work force. The fact that the economy has boomed and is growing steadily totally disproves your "there was ZERO economic need" for action.


JasperL said:
If pointing out years of broken promises is "utter blather" then OK. Call it what you want. The GOP promised to reign in spending, and instead cut taxes and increased spending. Not a surprise to anyone paying attention, but maybe you don't care about their lies. I don't any more because their promises don't mean anything any more.
Click to expand...
This is a silly argument. It's like a big "Nuh-uh" you have to cling to to avoid admitting the tax cuts are pumping up the economy with more jobs, more business expansion, more job availability, a half-million new manufacturing jobs, that your hero said where never coming back, now contributing to the economics. And all you can cling to is campaign rhetoric.
 
apdst said:
I'm a real worker. There are millions of citizens of the republic, just like me.
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise ... just trying (vainly) to point out to you that your tax cut, my tax cut, nearly everyone's tax cuts are temporary, but for big, extremely rich corporations, and the people who run them and/or own them, the billions per year that they are now getting in reduced taxes is permanent.
 
Bullseye said:
My argument is simply that the economy as of 2016 was on it's last gasps - growth less than 1.6% and declining. Theoretical "full employment" ONLY because so many people had dropped out of the work force. The fact that the economy has boomed and is growing steadily totally disproves your "there was ZERO economic need" for action.
Click to expand...

The tax cuts passed in December 2017. This is a labor market gasping for air after years of steady growth.

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2009_2019_all_period_M01_data.gif

Unemployment rate was 4.1%. Real GDP growth in 3rd quarter 2017 was 2.8%. It was 3% in the 2nd quarter. The Dow returned about 25% in 2017.

So why are you trying to gaslight me with nonsense that anyone with google can prove is nonsense. There was no need for fiscal stimulus in 2017.

This is a silly argument. It's like a big "Nuh-uh" you have to cling to to avoid admitting the tax cuts are pumping up the economy with more jobs, more business expansion, more job availability, a half-million new manufacturing jobs, that your hero said where never coming back, now contributing to the economics. And all you can cling to is campaign rhetoric.
Click to expand...

OK, so no one cares about deficits or debt. I'll hold you to that next time the GOP starts putting out scare mongering stories about inflation is going to kill us! BUY GOLD! etc...
 
Idiometer said:
Never said otherwise ... just trying (vainly) to point out to you that your tax cut, my tax cut, nearly everyone's tax cuts are temporary, but for big, extremely rich corporations, and the people who run them and/or own them, the billions per year that they are now getting in reduced taxes is permanent.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. Business rates were made permanent, but the people who run and own them pay PERSONAL income taxes just like you and me.
 
Idiometer said:
Never said otherwise ... just trying (vainly) to point out to you that your tax cut, my tax cut, nearly everyone's tax cuts are temporary, but for big, extremely rich corporations, and the people who run them and/or own them, the billions per year that they are now getting in reduced taxes is permanent.
Click to expand...

My tax cut will last as long as I'm in my current employment status, or until the Democrats **** us over. I'm guessing my tax bill will be about 6 grand lower this year. I know that's chump change to a big-money-grip like you, but that's a big deal to me.
 
JasperL said:
The tax cuts passed in December 2017. This is a labor market gasping for air after years of steady growth.

View attachment 67250297
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
JasperL said:
Unemployment rate was 4.1%. Real GDP growth in 3rd quarter 2017 was 2.8%. It was 3% in the 2nd quarter. The Dow returned about 25% in 2017.
Click to expand...
So what? We already addressed the unemployment rate.

JasperL said:
So why are you trying to gaslight me with nonsense that anyone with google can prove is nonsense. There was no need for fiscal stimulus in 2017.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You're going to claim a year's results is enough to say "well, that's it"? Tax cuts were not done as a "fiscal stimulus" they were done to ensure continuing economic progress and prosperity.


JasperL said:
OK, so no one cares about deficits or debt.
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything about not caring about deficits or debts? One of the goals of the tax bill was increased revenues. But enlighten us - exactly where would you like to see deficit changing spending cuts?
JasperL said:
I'll hold you to that next time the GOP starts putting out scare mongering stories about inflation is going to kill us! BUY GOLD! etc...
Click to expand...
]Now you're trotting out mindless strawmen?
 
Fletch said:
My tax cut wasnt paltry and if you are suddenly worried about the deficits now that the biggest deficit spender in US history, Barack Obama, is out of office, you can relax. Democrats now run the House so we can expect all the fiscal belt tightening you could ever dream of.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

US Deficit by President: What Budgets Hide

Scroll down, if you don't like to read, and find the "List of Presidents' Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year" topic. Read those lists. Yes, Obama was foced by inherited circumstances to increase the deficit in order to stave off total economic collapse, you'll see that by 2015, the defict was down from the $1.547 trillion to $438 billion. Now, thanks to Trump and the GOP, it's back up to $984 billion.

Your tax cut was most definitely paltry compare to the cuts that Corporate America received, and their cut doesn't phase out in 2025.

Look at that list again ... other than Eisenhower, how many Republican presidents left office with even one year of budget surplus under their belts? Now, tell me again who the big spenders really are. (And yes, I know that the party majority in congress makes a difference as to what economic policies are enacted, but that just makes it a miracle that Obama managed to reduce the deficit as much as he did in spite of congressional Republicans.)
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense.
So what? We already addressed the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

You misstated GDP growth, used 2016 instead of 2017, and didn't mention the stock market, which boomed in the year prior to the tax cut.

Seriously? You're going to claim a year's results is enough to say "well, that's it"? Tax cuts were not done as a "fiscal stimulus" they were done to ensure continuing economic progress and prosperity.
Click to expand...

Well, then we can never raise taxes or cut spending, because there will never be even a day when the economy isn't in recession or potentially in recession at some point in the future. Terrific. Pres. AOC has a license to borrow at will!

Where did I say anything about not caring about deficits or debts? One of the goals of the tax bill was increased revenues. But enlighten us - exactly where would you like to see deficit changing spending cuts?
Click to expand...

If you can't raise taxes or cut spending when the economy is booming, and we need to add to the deficit to make sure the economy stays booming, then there is just never a good time for fiscal restraint, because that will lower economic growth in the short term. That's how fiscal policy works.

And I don't know where to cut spending - ask the GOP. They've been promising you these spending cuts for years and years. Frankly I'd start addressing the deficits with higher taxes. That's ultimately how you get the public behind spending cuts - make them pay for spending with taxes. Seems obvious to me. If not, why would the public ever go along with spending cuts if Congress is confronted with deficits for as far as the eye can see and makes the deficits WORSE by handing out candy to the donor class? The average American wants candy too!

And, no, one if the goals was absolutely NOT to raise revenue, unless it was opposite day and tax rate CUTS were intended to increase tax collections. Was it opposite day on the day of the vote? I don't recall that....

Now you're trotting out mindless strawmen?
Click to expand...

No, you've made your priorities clear. We must never threaten economic growth by raising taxes or cutting spending. In fact in a boom period we should cut taxes and throw $100s of billions in borrowed money into the economy to make sure the boom continues. Deficits don't make your list.
 
JasperL said:
You misstated GDP growth, used 2016 instead of 2017, and didn't mention the stock market, which boomed in the year prior to the tax cut.



Well, then we can never raise taxes or cut spending, because there will never be even a day when the economy isn't in recession or potentially in recession at some point in the future. Terrific. Pres. AOC has a license to borrow at will!



If you can't raise taxes or cut spending when the economy is booming, and we need to add to the deficit to make sure the economy stays booming, then there is just never a good time for fiscal restraint, because that will lower economic growth in the short term. That's how fiscal policy works.

And I don't know where to cut spending - ask the GOP. They've been promising you these spending cuts for years and years. Frankly I'd start addressing the deficits with higher taxes. That's ultimately how you get the public behind spending cuts - make them pay for spending with taxes. Seems obvious to me. If not, why would the public ever go along with spending cuts if Congress is confronted with deficits for as far as the eye can see and makes the deficits WORSE by handing out candy to the donor class? The average American wants candy too!

And, no, one if the goals was absolutely NOT to raise revenue, unless it was opposite day and tax rate CUTS were intended to increase tax collections. Was it opposite day on the day of the vote? I don't recall that....



No, you've made your priorities clear. We must never threaten economic growth by raising taxes or cutting spending. In fact in a boom period we should cut taxes and throw $100s of billions in borrowed money into the economy to make sure the boom continues. Deficits don't make your list.
Click to expand...
Now you just flat lying. I have NEVER said that spending should not be cut. Anyway, you're getting more and ridiculous with each post and I have better things to do than try and improve your economic knowledge, so I'm done with this conversation.
 
Fletch said:
Thats not how our justice system works. You dont pick a guy and investigate his entire life to see if he has done anything wrong. Somehow I doubt you would want that done to you. But because you hate Trump, you are fine with employing fascist tactics
Click to expand...

LOL. Somewhere Hillary is LHMFAO at the newfound concern on the right wing for boundless, endless investigations.

Too bad for Trump that lying about.....well, everything, including the Trump towers, plural, has a cost and that cost is no one believes anything he says and will need the documents. Not divesting has a cost, which is disclosure. Giving the middle finger to the most basic steps to eliminate the massive conflicts of interest he has in his businesses has a cost, which is disclosure. Etc.

And what exactly is "fascist" about Congress doing its duty for oversight of a corrupt, dishonest President with a history of bad business practices and who surrounded himself with an all-star cast of thugs and criminals?
 
Bullseye said:
Now you just flat lying. I have NEVER said that spending should not be cut.
Click to expand...

No, you just said that we needed fiscal stimulus in a boom to make sure the boom continued. Well, spending cuts are fiscal drags in the short term. Same as tax increases. Tax increases and spending cuts work the same way on the economy - lower deficit spending, which lowers the economic boost of more borrowed money, dampening growth at least in the short term. It's math and multipliers, and if you want fiscal stimulus, the multipliers are much higher for many kinds of spending than they are for tax cuts for the donor class - several times higher in fact.

Point is if what you want is the economy to keep booming, a better option is more EBT, expand EITC, expand Medicaid or make the subsidies for ACA more generous. Those all get money in the hands of people who spend every dime nearly immediately, which boosts business revenues, profits, etc. A lot of tax cuts just go to more stock purchases.... Nothing bad about that, but the spending at the mall and grocery store has a bigger impact.
 
JasperL said:
LOL. Somewhere Hillary is LHMFAO at the newfound concern on the right wing for boundless, endless investigations.

Too bad for Trump that lying about.....well, everything, including the Trump towers, plural, has a cost and that cost is no one believes anything he says and will need the documents. Not divesting has a cost, which is disclosure. Giving the middle finger to the most basic steps to eliminate the massive conflicts of interest he has in his businesses has a cost, which is disclosure. Etc.

And what exactly is "fascist" about Congress doing its duty for oversight of a corrupt, dishonest President with a history of bad business practices and who surrounded himself with an all-star cast of thugs and criminals?
Click to expand...

My comment wasnt referring to congress, it was referring to Mueller, so your Hillary whataboutism is a fail.
 
JasperL said:
No, you just said that we needed fiscal stimulus in a boom to make sure the boom continued. Well, spending cuts are fiscal drags in the short term. Same as tax increases. Tax increases and spending cuts work the same way on the economy - lower deficit spending, which lowers the economic boost of more borrowed money, dampening growth at least in the short term. It's math and multipliers, and if you want fiscal stimulus, the multipliers are much higher for many kinds of spending than they are for tax cuts for the donor class - several times higher in fact.

Point is if what you want is the economy to keep booming, a better option is more EBT, expand EITC, expand Medicaid or make the subsidies for ACA more generous. Those all get money in the hands of people who spend every dime nearly immediately, which boosts business revenues, profits, etc. A lot of tax cuts just go to more stock purchases.... Nothing bad about that, but the spending at the mall and grocery store has a bigger impact.
Click to expand...
They way to create and continue an economic boom is to put money in the hands of economic decision makers; businesses, investors, consumers, entrepreneurs and employees and let them DECIDE where it goes rather than give it to a horde of unaccountable bureaucrats spending it on questionably effective government programs.
 
Bullseye said:
They way to create and continue an economic boom is to put money in the hands of economic decision makers; businesses, investors, consumers, entrepreneurs and employees and let them DECIDE where it goes rather than give it to a horde of unaccountable bureaucrats spending it on questionably effective government programs.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me - just pay for it with spending cuts! If not, and we're just handing out borrowed money, then if you increase EITC, that goes into the hands of consumers who will spend it nearly immediately, and that business can then expand or not, etc. All those are economic decision makers, same as the guys who fly around in private jets.

They and the Fortune 500 were already sitting on piles of cash, worth $trillions cumulatively, and don't start new businesses because they make no sense given current levels of demand.

And if there is anything "questionably effective" it's MOR TAX CUTS! Since Reagan we've brought the marginal rates way down, C corps pay an ever dwindling share of our tax base, we've incentivized capital gains with very low rates for decades, cratered the estate tax, and all that has worked beautifully to increase profits going to the Fortune 500 and the top 1% and above, but not so well for workers. So I can't see the evidence that more tax cuts is the missing link.
 
Greenbeard said:
The GOP's greatest strategist once again offers up a master class in one-dimensional chess.

Trump Tax Cuts Are (Probably) About to Become a Political Disaster
Click to expand...

that is because people are stupid. refund =/= to tax liability.
tax refund also is not always equal to lowered taxes.

What you have to compare is your tax liablity from 2017 to 2018.

if you owed 5000 in taxes during 2017 and only owe 3500 in taxes in 2018
then you received a tax cut.

now the refund part.

most people did not adjust their tax withholdings at the beginning of the year.
refunds/owe is based on how much you paid in taxes through the year.

if you paid more than you were supposed to then you get a refund.
this does not change your tax liability.

if you did not pay enough then you owe taxes.
again still does not change your tax liability.

most people so an increase in take home pay but that could affect their end of the year tax filings as they didn't pay enough.

it is only an issue because people are so uneducated these days that they think refund = lower taxes.
 
Luckyone said:
To begin with, the tax cuts were mostly a scam on the middle class to give the rich the big cut on tax breaks. As it is, the increase in costs of products bought (because of the Tariff war) and the increase in inflation, means the middle class got crumbs while the rich got the entire pie.

It is all a scam on the middle class to feed the rich. That is what it is.
Click to expand...

lies do not well go over well. this is a lie you should probably stop.

so what is the difference in tax refund and tax liability?
please tell us.
 
JasperL said:
That's fine with me - just pay for it with spending cuts! If not, and we're just handing out borrowed money, then if you increase EITC, that goes into the hands of consumers who will spend it nearly immediately, and that business can then expand or not, etc. All those are economic decision makers, same as the guys who fly around in private jets.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.
JasperL said:
They and the Fortune 500 were already sitting on piles of cash, worth $trillions cumulatively, and don't start new businesses because they make no sense given current levels of demand.
Click to expand...
Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.

JasperL said:
And if there is anything "questionably effective" it's MOR TAX CUTS! Since Reagan we've brought the marginal rates way down, C corps pay an ever dwindling share of our tax base, we've incentivized capital gains with very low rates for decades, cratered the estate tax, and all that has worked beautifully to increase profits going to the Fortune 500 and the top 1% and above, but not so well for workers. So I can't see the evidence that more tax cuts is the missing link.
Click to expand...
Workers that continue improving the worth to their employers have done quite well. Those that punch the time clock twice a day go home, dry a six-pack of Budweiser and what Survivor reruns - not so much.
 
Bullseye said:
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Economic growth has not approached the 4.5% that Trump and the GOP promised (and considered necessary for flat/negative deficit numbers).

Bullseye said:
Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.
Click to expand...

Most of the corporate tax windfall is being applied to stock/share buybacks, raises for the corporate hierarchy, mergers/buyouts, and automation.
 
Bullseye said:
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.
Click to expand...

That is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP fiscal strategy, which is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP. It's just not true. There isn't an economist anywhere who believes tax rate cuts RAISE revenue, and it's because the empirical evidence contradicts that claim. It's a fantasy, akin to a belief in a Tax Santa Clause, a Tax Money Tree.

Bush II cut taxes twice and revenues cratered, he blew up the deficit, and we didn't even come back to "balances" seen at the end of Clinton at the top of a just massive, unsustainable debt and related housing bubble, that then burst because bubbles always do, and cratered revenues.

Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.

Workers that continue improving the worth to their employers have done quite well. Those that punch the time clock twice a day go home, dry a six-pack of Budweiser and what Survivor reruns - not so much.
Click to expand...

That's not what the evidence I've seen shows. Wages are going up because we're on the tail end of a years long expansion in the labor market, not because GE or whoever has some extra cash lying around.

As to workers - that's not also not an evidence based analysis. You're just blaming 10s of millions of workers for being lazy, but there is no evidence to support that.
 
JasperL said:
That is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP fiscal strategy, which is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP. It's just not true. There isn't an economist anywhere who believes tax rate cuts RAISE revenue, and it's because the empirical evidence contradicts that claim. It's a fantasy, akin to a belief in a Tax Santa Clause, a Tax Money Tree.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, there are hundreds of thousands of economists that believe exactly that.

JasperL said:
Bush II cut taxes twice and revenues cratered, he blew up the deficit, and we didn't even come back to "balances" seen at the end of Clinton at the top of a just massive, unsustainable debt and related housing bubble, that then burst because bubbles always do, and cratered revenues.
Click to expand...
Again, not true. In 2003 when Bush cut more tax and accelerated some others revenues grew at almost 9% annually with the deficit dropping to $163 billion, Unfortunately the Dems took control of Congress in 2007 and :hitsfan: By the end of the year we were in the Great Recession.


JasperL said:
That's not what the evidence I've seen shows. Wages are going up because we're on the tail end of a years long expansion in the labor market, not because GE or whoever has some extra cash lying around.
Click to expand...
Whether you've seen or not, it's a fact. Companies have sped up capital spending, increased hiring and are planning further growth.
JasperL said:
As to workers - that's not also not an evidence based analysis. You're just blaming 10s of millions of workers for being lazy, but there is no evidence to support that.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you need? Some folks are earning raises and moving up the ladder, and others are not. Increased skills and knowledge earns increased income.
 
Bullseye said:
Sorry, no, there are hundreds of thousands of economists that believe exactly that.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. If you want to quote someone, that would be great. What many will argue is the tax cuts boost economic growth, so we need "dynamic" estimates of the impact, and they show that $1 in nominal tax cuts might only cost 80 cents or 70 cents, but they still lower revenue from the baseline.

Again, not true. In 2003 when Bush cut more tax and accelerated some others revenues grew at almost 9% annually with the deficit dropping to $163 billion, Unfortunately the Dems took control of Congress in 2007 and :hitsfan: By the end of the year we were in the Great Recession.
Click to expand...


Here are real receipts in total (which is giving your argument the easiest bar to clear...): Access Denied table 1.3

2000 2,541.0
2001 2,433.2
2002 2,227.6
2003 2,083.6
2004 2,141.8
2005 2,371.6
2006 2,561.9
2007 2,663.1
2008 2,529.0
2009 2,105.0

So, Bush cut taxes and despite a bubble economy, years of growth, $trillions in added household debt setting up the great collapse and the Great Recession, we didn't match revenues in the last year of Clinton until 2006. So, no, tax cuts don't raise revenue, the lower them.


Whether you've seen or not, it's a fact. Companies have sped up capital spending, increased hiring and are planning further growth.
What evidence do you need? Some folks are earning raises and moving up the ladder, and others are not. Increased skills and knowledge earns increased income.
Click to expand...

Evidence is evidence. Anecdotes =/= evidence.

And if you want to allege that workers in just lazy, it's a convenient argument because it's made up, unprovable.
 
JasperL said:
I don't think so. If you want to quote someone, that would be great. What many will argue is the tax cuts boost economic growth, so we need "dynamic" estimates of the impact, and they show that $1 in nominal tax cuts might only cost 80 cents or 70 cents, but they still lower revenue from the baseline.
Click to expand...
Again, what you "think" really doesn't matter compared to facts.


JasperL said:
Here are real receipts in total (which is giving your argument the easiest bar to clear...): Access Denied table 1.3

2000 2,541.0
2001 2,433.2
2002 2,227.6
2003 2,083.6
2004 2,141.8
2005 2,371.6
2006 2,561.9
2007 2,663.1
2008 2,529.0
2009 2,105.0

So, Bush cut taxes and despite a bubble economy, years of growth, $trillions in added household debt setting up the great collapse and the Great Recession, we didn't match revenues in the last year of Clinton until 2006. So, no, tax cuts don't raise revenue, the lower them.
Click to expand...
Revenue in Clinton's last year was $1991 billion according to CBO. Your table is mathematically altered by converting values to 2009 dollars, they are not actual numbers.



JasperL said:
Evidence is evidence. Anecdotes =/= evidence.
Click to expand...
Funny, your entire posting history is anecdotal.
JasperL said:
And if you want to allege that workers in just lazy, it's a convenient argument because it's made up, unprovable.
Click to expand...
Nope, not lazy, just not motivated to advance.
 
Bullseye said:
Again, what you "think" really doesn't matter compared to facts.
Click to expand...

You said thousands of economists believe tax rate cuts increase revenue. I'm aware of zero economists, so quote one.


Revenue in Clinton's last year was $1991 billion according to CBO. Your table is mathematically altered by converting values to 2009 dollars, they are not actual numbers.
Click to expand...

They come from the White House and they're inflation adjusted. It's how to compare apples to apples. If you don't accept that as valid, I'll quit here because it's the only legitimate way to compare receipts over a 10 year period like we are doing and no reason to debate someone who won't at least acknowledge that much.

FWIW, I was doing you a favor by using total receipts, including payroll taxes and corporate income taxes, which didn't see tax rate cuts. So we'll look at NOMINAL receipts (where we ignore inflation like idiots) but just for individual income taxes. Table 2.1 from the above link if you want to follow along:

2000 1,004,462
2001 994,339
2002 858,345
2003 793,699
2004 808,959
2005 927,222
2006 1,043,908
2007 1,163,472
2008 1,145,747
2009 915,308

So, using nominal numbers for individual income taxes it took till 2006 to match the last year of Clinton, despite all those years of growth, top of a MASSIVE bubble, etc. If we eliminate the effects of inflation, those terrible numbers get worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom