Well that was fast....Strike three!

[byteware]

You didn't go read the numbers. revenue % of GDP declined also.

I did read the numbers, in fact I provided them for you in my post above.

If you care to provide something other than the Chief of the CBO's assessment... then I'd be happy to read it.

Also... The FY before Bush that I was comparing it to was the year of the internet crash.... so the numbers 4 years were compared to a recession year.

So was the year the CBO compared.

If you look to the year before that Bush had only 1 year out of 8 that income receipts were significantly higher.

Well, unfortunately, Bush didn't have the luxury of going back in time before the dot com bubble burst and the recession started.

The CBO itself is fairly nobn-partisan... the head of it is not. The CBO has stated that Bush's tax cuts would greatly increase the deficit.

As has been said, sales that go on forever are ineffective.

Funny... you reference an unlinked blog post to make your case. I post links to the actual numbers... and you claim the truth?

You posted links to links... you didn't post links to ANY actual numbers. Let's at least be honest Andy.

 

[AndyLL]

I did read the numbers, in fact I provided them for you in my post above.

You are so funny.

You have posted no numbers and no links.

If you care to provide something other than the Chief of the CBO's assessment... then I'd be happy to read it.

I provided the actual numbers. You are the one that claims the CBO put out an assement claiming the tax cuts increase tax receipts. You did not give a link so I assume you are talking about the CBO directors blog post when the 1st cuts were being debated. His own agency disagreed with him.

Well, unfortunately, Bush didn't have the luxury of going back in time before the dot com bubble burst and the recession started.

The 4 years of decreasing receipts WAS compared to a recession year. If you compare to a pre-recession year there was SEVEN years where receipts were less.

As has been said, sales that go on forever are ineffective.

makes no sense.

You posted links to links... you didn't post links to ANY actual numbers. Let's at least be honest Andy.

That tells me you didn't read the numbers. It was a page of CBO actual numbers in XLS downloads. I don't link to the spreadsheet directly because it causes your browser to want to download a file without going to a webpage.

You have nothing. You are embarrasing yourself.

You claim that the tax receipt drops where a result of a weakening economy into recession. ( which would mean that Bush's whole 8 years was a continuely weakening economy)

But in fact Bush started with a small recession in 2001 (started under Clinton) and ended with a huge recession that started in Dec 2007.
http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

There was GDP growth during that time and tax receipts were dropping. 2006/2007 had both tax receipt growth when the economy was actually starting to weaken. The actual numbers show the opposite of what you are claiming.

BTW... you can also go back to the Reagan years and see the same thing. He only had a couple of years of income recept drops but thats because he had a massive payroll tax hike.

 

[byteware]

You are so funny.

You have posted no numbers and no links.

Ok... let me stop you right here...

16.5 percent, and 18.5 percent are actual numbers Andy.

As far as links.

You can see the article that CNN posted.

Here's the link.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News

Hope that was helpful. So, now I've provided a link, and actual numbers... So, my numbers and my link trump your link and no numbers... and if you are curious as to where the numbers come from, please visits the Office of Budget Management's numbers here:

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[AndyLL]

Ok... let me stop you right here...

16.5 percent, and 18.5 percent are actual numbers Andy.

As far as links.

You can see the article that CNN posted.

Here's the link.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News

Hope that was helpful. So, now I've provided a link, and actual numbers... So, my numbers and my link trump your link and no numbers... and if you are curious as to where the numbers come from, please visits the Office of Budget Management's numbers here:

Historical Tables | The White House

Sometimes you really confuse me. Do you confuse yourself.

Your %s (not numbers) were given with no context about where they came from. The link you just posted is CNNs homepage?

Then you post a link that is the exact same link I posted which proves you wrong?

From the Historical tables link that both you and I have posted...

Clinton's last 2 years of receipts to GPD were: 20.6% and 19.5%:

The highest it was under Bush was 18.5%

So how exactly did those 3 Bush tax cuts bring in more revenue when it NEVER caught up to Clinton's last 2 years?

Bush and the republican congress did win over Clinton in one area:

Clinton's % of spending to GDP was: 18.2% & 18.2% his last 2 years.

Bush spent a higher % of GDP in every year of his administration then Clinton did.

(BTW... all those numbers were from Table 1.3 which was inflation adjusted)

 

[byteware]

Sometimes you really confuse me. Do you confuse yourself.

That's really really sad.

Your %s (not numbers)

You are actually making the claim that percentages aren't numbers?

were given with no context about where they came from. The link you just posted is CNNs homepage?

Yes, which was a sarcastic response to you providing a link to links, and not providing any numbers yourself.

Then you post a link that is the exact same link I posted which proves you wrong?

The link you provided doesn't prove anything. Which was my point by linking CNN's homepage. You posted a link that only linked to a series of OTHER links. It didn't link to any actual information. I'm sure that you want to claim that it proves something, but unless you link actual information... it's just a link to attempt to make people think you provided proof.

From the Historical tables link that both you and I have posted...

Clinton's last 2 years of receipts to GPD were: 20.6% and 19.5%:

The highest it was under Bush was 18.5%

So how exactly did those 3 Bush tax cuts bring in more revenue when it NEVER caught up to Clinton's last 2 years?

This shouldn't be THAT complicated, but here we go.

Clinton's Presidency ended with a recession, and tax revenues were declining.

The first year of Bush's Presidency (with Clinton's budget, and Clinton's taxes), only brought in 16.5% of GDP.

After the tax cuts, they brought in 17.6% of GDP. No one claimed that they brought in the highest percentage of GDP ever, just that it was higher than it would have otherwise.

(BTW... all those numbers were from Table 1.3 which was inflation adjusted)

Let me show you how to actually link to that...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z3.xls

 

[jpovis]

They will find tax revenue from other places. they can lower your initial income tax, but when they start to take away Flexible Spending accounts, Real estate interest, and raising the % of medical out-of-pocket expenses, then you will be paying more in taxes.

 

[byteware]

They will find tax revenue from other places. they can lower your initial income tax, but when they start to take away Flexible Spending accounts, Real estate interest, and raising the % of medical out-of-pocket expenses, then you will be paying more in taxes.

Gotta love the Health Care Reform that cuts Flexible Spending accounts to a third.

 

[AndyLL]

Let me show you how to actually link to that...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z3.xls

From your link: ( which was the same as mine )

2000 Clintons last full year: 20.6%
2001 Clintons last official budget: 19.5% ( in a recession year)

Bush's 8 years

2002 17.6%
2003 16.2%
2004 16.1%
2005 17.3%
2006 18.2%
2007 18.5%
2008 17.5%
2009 14.8%

With 3 tax cuts Bush never beat Clintons numbers.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton all had better receipt % of GDP numbers then Bush II.

The 16.5% number you keep using was in 1955. That's why I call you confused.

Your own link shows wildly different numbers then what you keep posting.

---------------
BTW... I didn't link directly to the spreadsheet because it causes a browser download without stating what the download is. That's considered bad manners on the internet if you did not know.

 

[Hangdog42]

They will find tax revenue from other places. they can lower your initial income tax, but when they start to take away Flexible Spending accounts, Real estate interest, and raising the % of medical out-of-pocket expenses, then you will be paying more in taxes.

Why would a simpler tax code be a bad thing? Personally, I'd like to see no deductions at all. Congress could only set the overall tax rate. That would cut down a lot on the loopholes and cheating that goes on now. Heck, even the IRS doesn't understand the current tax coded. If the code were simpler, enforcement could be fairer and cheats would get caught more often.

 

[byteware]

With 3 tax cuts Bush never beat Clintons numbers.

No one claimed he beat Clinton's numbers.

What was claimed was that the Tax cuts pulled in better receipts in the middle of a recession.

Receipts were already dropping as Clinton left a recession in progress.

Add onto that recession 9/11.

Tax receipts went up the year after the tax cuts were implemented.

I've never claimed that tax cuts were LONG term solutions. They aren't. But they can certainly be excellent short term solutions.

Permanent tax cuts are akin to a permanent sale. It's great for a period of time, but then people adjust, and it becomes the norm.

 

[AndyLL]

No one claimed he beat Clinton's numbers.

What was claimed was that the Tax cuts pulled in better receipts in the middle of a recession.

This is what was claimed.

After the Bush tax cuts went into effect, revenues went from 16.5 percent of the GDP to 18.5 percent of the GDP.

and this

Lowering tax rates tends to increase spending, which tends to increase tax revenues.

and this

The Chief of the Congress Budget Office has stated that the increase was due to the Tax cuts.

The problem is that there there were decreases after every tax cut (and rebate) and receipts never came close to the receipts of the Clinton years.

So the idea that tax cuts increased revenue is false.

Receipts were already dropping as Clinton left a recession in progress.

Add onto that recession 9/11.

The recession of 2001 lasted 8 months. It was a small recession. The tax cuts were also for the tax year of 2001... the year receipts dropped.

The current recession didn't start until December 2007.

So to recap...

Clinton raised taxes and receipts as a % increase EVERY year and peaked with 3 years over 20% ( not seen since 1945)

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and the % dropped and keep dropping.



Bush had 7 non-recession years and 3 tax hikes and revenues didn't even come close to Clinton's revenues.

So once again... so the idea that tax cuts increased revenue is false.

 

[byteware]

The problem is that there there were decreases after every tax cut (and rebate) and receipts never came close to the receipts of the Clinton years.

No one ever claimed that they came back up to the receipts of the Clinton years. They weren't at that level before the tax cuts were enacted.

Bush had receipts that were far below that level when he started, and he brought them up, via tax cuts.

The recession of 2001 lasted 8 months. It was a small recession. The tax cuts were also for the tax year of 2001... the year receipts dropped.

That's funny, because according to NBER, the recession lasted until 2003.

Clinton raised taxes and receipts as a % increase EVERY year and peaked with 3 years over 20% ( not seen since 1945)

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and the % dropped and keep dropping.

Actually, to recap... they were dropping when Bush took office, and continued to drop until the recession ended in 2003 (you may notice this is the year Bush's 2nd tax cuts went into effect, and then receipts started to climb, before we entered our second recession in 2007.

year receipts unemployment
2000: 20.6 3.9%
2001: 19.5 5.7%
2002: 17.6 6.0%
2003: 16.2 5.7% (recession ends this year)
2004: 16.1 5.4%
2005: 17.3 4.9%
2006: 18.2 4.4%
2007: 18.5 5.0% (current recession began)
2008: 17.5 7.4% (recession hit hard)
2009: 14.8 10.0%





You may notice a couple of things here:

1) Obviously you are wrong about this statement:

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and the % dropped and keep dropping.

As clearly, the receipts start coming up after the recession and as unemployment lessens.

2) The receipts rise and fall with unemployment. As unemployment was recovering from the first recession that ended in 2003, the receipts were coming back up quite nicely. From the trend that we saw there, they would have risen back to Clinton levels had we not entered another recession in 2007.

Bush had 7 non-recession years and 3 tax hikes and revenues didn't even come close to Clinton's revenues.

So once again... so the idea that tax cuts increased revenue is false.

Bush had 3 non-recession years, according to NBER. And didn't even come close? I would say that's just something you want to believe 18.5% for the year we entered this recession is a pretty good indicator that receipts were going up and doing so VERY well, up until this recent recession.