The Goat Pen

Red Bird wrote:Good idea! Pick and chose which numbers are good as needed.

Because they were in full effect in summer 2003 not 2006 and revenues increased every year from 2003 to 2007?"

You're dates are wrong, but never mind that. If cutting taxes spurs economic growth, why did tax revenues not increase as much as projected by the CBO before Bush took office?

And why, if cutting taxes is such a boost to the economy, did the revenues actually start to collapse in 2008?

Because nobody can be this dumb.

I've been doing this for a while, and I find that when people can't win arguments on the merits they often start tossing insults around. For your own sake, I suggest you stop now, because the ploy only makes you look desperate.

Show me where the dates are wrong. You can't, but go ahead and try.

...Because nobody can be this dumb...

red bird is the example that shows why that statement is an axiom and not a rule

You end up dying alone... and for what? Because adult children can't be bothered to be involved in their parents lives.

My parents didn't die alone. I moved to Arizona so I could be near them at the end. My brothers also helped. And we did it without askingt them to give up their home or their independence. Them giving up SS & Medicare would have made things more difficult for me & my brothers, not easier.

puterbac wrote:We've already determined that Dora does give a damn as long as she gets hers. That voting style is why nothing will be done until the there is no choice for something to be done which will be far more painful for the entire country.

What kind of crap is this? I've been contributing to the system all my life & have so far I've gotten nothing. I have never begrudged the elderly getting SS & Medicaid nor have I bitched about paying.

Hack, congrats to you and your little girl!

And as the New York Times uncovered in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cuts offered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a year. Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000." As the Times explained in a jaw-dropping chart: "The top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts in investment income."

I don't know how to get the whole chart to show up but it's here http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/ ... chart.html

In the past, I have generally agreed with the conservatives that tax cuts increase - not decrease - tax revenues.

But former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan sides with the liberals on this question. He's no class warrior.

innocentbystander wrote:

Dora wrote:

Better be careful. Your kids may get tired of paying huge taxes for a ponzi scheme. Better off paying for you themselves.

Nope, there is no way they could support me with the amount of FICA taxes they pay.

Of course they could.

Sell YOUR house, move into one room in THEIR house.

You are supported.

HAH! Like children of baby boomers want their parents to move in with them. They'll pay to make sure that's not the case.

Hacksaw wrote: You conveniently believed what you chose to believe and voted for people who kept the scam going.

What??? YOU voted for Gore in 2000? That was the primary proposal of Gore in the election, to put SS in a lockbox and to truly and accurately reflect the budget (one of the biggest jokes on SNL was Gore repeating lockbox over and over)

And why, if cutting taxes is such a boost to the economy, did the revenues actually start to collapse in 2008?

2007

Professor Tiger wrote:In the past, I have generally agreed with the conservatives that tax cuts increase - not decrease - tax revenues.

But former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan sides with the liberals on this question. He's no class warrior.

I can only post the IRS numbers so many times.

W cuts put fully in place and revenue grew each from 2003 to 2007 before real estate crash and millions fewer paying taxes in 2008.

I posted the links from Oprama's own sites for it. Even the raw excel file. Not much else I can do if you think the sky is a different color.

Dora wrote:

And who received the largest percentage decrease in taxes?

The friggin lowest income earners.

Now I know its hard to comprehend, but you can't give a 500,000 dollar tax cut to people that pay only 1,000 in income taxes.

The bottom brackets saw the largest cuts.

Once again the data from the IRS:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in03etr.xls


Total income tax share (percentage): This is the percentage of TOTAL income tax paid by top percentage of income:

Top 0.1% from 2001 to 2008 (latest year IRS has records for): Share dropped from 2001 to 2002 even though the only the bottom two brackets changed. Drop is due to market losses and less cap gains. Then from 2002 to 2007 the % paid by the top 0.1 % increases every year and in fact sees the biggest jump in % paid the 2 yrs following W tax cuts that lowered their bracket. They PAID a HIGHER % of all income taxes despite their tax bracket being lowered.

2001 16.06
2002 15.43
2003 15.68
2004 17.44
2005 19.26
2006 19.56
2007 20.19
2008 18.47

Its the SAME for each percent level of income earned including the top 50.

In 2001 the BOTTOM 50% of income earners paid 3.97% of all income taxes.

In 2002 it was 3.5%

In 2003 it was 3.46%

In 2004 it was 3.3%

In 2005 it was 3.03%

In 2006 it was 2.99%

In 2007 it was 2.89%

And in 2008 it was 2.7%

The lowest 50 percent of income earners have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of all income taxes EVERY year from 2001 to 2008. That is the definition of progressive taxation. The top 50, 25, 10, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.1 percent ALL paid a higher percentage of income taxes when the cuts were passed.

W's tax cuts made the tax code MORE progressive not less. People paid more in taxes despite tax cuts because they made more money. This is a good thing.

You miss the point.

1. The Tax cuts did little for the low income workers. As we've already established, these workers pay little income tax, they pay mostly payroll tax. The Bush tax cuts were designed to drastically cut the tax rates paid by the wealthy, and the success of Bush's plan is plainly visible in the chart Dora posted.

2. Such cuts directed at the wealthy do little to boost the economy because the wealthy people, who received the vast majority of the Tax savings, didn't spend the money. They invested it in China.

W cuts put fully in place and revenue grew each from 2003 to 2007 before real estate crash and millions fewer paying taxes in 2008.

You are making a logical mistake of assuming a cause and effect relationship. Revenues increased after the Bush Tax cuts in spite of the tax cuts not because of them. This is plainly shown by the 2 trillion dollar difference between the actual receipts and the numbers in the CBO estimate made before Bush's Cuts.

The lowest 50 percent of income earners have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of all income taxes EVERY year from 2001 to 2008. That is the definition of progressive taxation. The top 50, 25, 10, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.1 percent ALL paid a higher percentage of income taxes when the cuts were passed.

This is not "the definition of progressive taxation. "

Did it ever occur to you that the bottom 50% paid a lower percentage of the total taxes because they were making a lower percentage of the total income each year? Is it not also possible that this effect is partly due to wealthy tax payers paying more taxes because they were selling off capital assets due to lower capital gains rates?

Stats can elucidate, but they can also obscure. You have a tendency to present voluminous quantities of numbers with little useful analysis. Bottom line: your numbers don't serve your argument well because you offer no real analysis; in addition, your data is poorly organized and not clearly presented.

tax revenue dropped in 2007, the economic crash was 2008

Such cuts directed at the wealthy do little to boost the economy because the wealthy people, who received the vast majority of the Tax savings, didn't spend the money. They invested it in China


LMAO.....and jobs are created by low skill poor folks.