Deficit Shrinks???

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

It is wonderful how Republicans:
[*]take credit for the 2nd Reagan term (but not the first),
[*]Ignore much of Bush #1's term,
[*]Take credit for all of Clinton's term, and give it to Reagan and not Bush #1,
[*]Give Clinton credit for 2000/2001 (which was during Bush #2's term),
[*]Then give Bush credit for the recovery after 2001.

It must be nice to just pick and choose the best years.

And when you add that to an ability not to think, everything is coming up roses.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

Your own quote above said more tax revenue came from the rich, causing the increase in tax revenues. There is no evidence that the middle class and poor are paying more, as you have claimed, but one thing is for sure and you have admitted this and is exeplified by the increase in tax revenues...the rich are paying more of their fair share as they are responisble for the gains this fiscal year.

I never said there was more evidence that the middle and poor were paying more, as well. I said they could be. You were making a conclusion that just didn't make sense, logically speaking.

But, yes, it would appear that the rich are getting hit harder than before but that still doesn't mean the less-well-to-do aren't either. Personally, I've seen my refunds stay about the same but my marital status has changed since the Propagandist took office.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

Your own quote above said more tax revenue came from the rich, causing the increase in tax revenues. There is no evidence that the middle class and poor are paying more, as you have claimed, but one thing is for sure and you have admitted this and is exeplified by the increase in tax revenues...the rich are paying more of their fair share as they are responisble for the gains this fiscal year.

I never said there was more evidence that the middle and poor were paying more, as well. I said they could be. You were making a conclusion that just didn't make sense, logically speaking.

But, yes, it would appear that the rich are getting hit harder than before but that still doesn't mean the less-well-to-do aren't either. Personally, I've seen my refunds stay about the same but my marital status has changed since the Propagandist took office.

You claimed the everyone could be paying more:

Originally posted by: conjur
All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more...

Therefore you yourself know that the deficit is indeed shrinking on the backs of the rich, we can both agree on this. Now I want you to back up your claims that "all classes are paying more", otherwise we can assume just the rich are the cause of the increased revenues. Increased meaning more than the year before...

I'm saying the poor/middle class are paying less of their share as compared to the year before, you are claiming their taxes went up.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

Your own quote above said more tax revenue came from the rich, causing the increase in tax revenues. There is no evidence that the middle class and poor are paying more, as you have claimed, but one thing is for sure and you have admitted this and is exeplified by the increase in tax revenues...the rich are paying more of their fair share as they are responisble for the gains this fiscal year.

I never said there was more evidence that the middle and poor were paying more, as well. I said they could be. You were making a conclusion that just didn't make sense, logically speaking.

But, yes, it would appear that the rich are getting hit harder than before but that still doesn't mean the less-well-to-do aren't either. Personally, I've seen my refunds stay about the same but my marital status has changed since the Propagandist took office.

You claimed the everyone could be paying more:

Originally posted by: conjur
All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more...

Therefore you yourself know that the deficit is indeed shrinking on the backs of the rich, we can both agree on this. Now I want you to back up your claims that "all classes are paying more", otherwise we can assume just the rich are the cause of the increased revenues. Increased meaning more than the year before...

I'm saying the poor/middle class are paying less of their share as compared to the year before, you are claiming their taxes went up.

I fixed your emphasis. *Could* be.

And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

And when you add that to an ability not to think, everything is coming up roses.

Think? What does "think" mean?

Lets look at Krk3561's post. The claim is that Reagan's policies allowed Intel to be created. Hmm. Intel was founded in 1968. While was true that Intel made leaps and bounds with the 286 processor in 1982, that processor was in the works far before Reagan took office. So I'm not really sure how Reagan's policy resulted in conditions where Intel was created.

Maybe that Intel part was just a mistake. Maybe lets look at Microsoft instead. Nope, 1980 was the critical year of Microsoft and its deal with IBM.

That does leave Sun. Sun incorporated in 1982 and had its first big deal in 1983. So, maybe, just maybe Reagan's policies helped Sun. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

It is wonderful how Republicans:
[*]take credit for the 2nd Reagan term (but not the first),
[*]Ignore much of Bush #1's term,
[*]Take credit for all of Clinton's term, and give it to Reagan and not Bush #1,
[*]Give Clinton credit for 2000/2001 (which was during Bush #2's term),
[*]Then give Bush credit for the recovery after 2001.

It must be nice to just pick and choose the best years.

If you understood policy lags then maybe you would understand the points.

#1. Reagan was handed an ailing economy (stagflation anyone?) when he came into office, much in the way Bush 43 was. The recession started in the summer of 1981 and ended in 1982. It did not start after Reagan's economic policies were in place but before they were passed/signed into law. The benefits of the tax cuts were not received until 1982, as they were not signed into law until the fall of 1981.

#2 & #3. Bush 41 was VP under Reagan, he basically continued most of his policies and he didnt really have any major initiatives, he wasn't in office long enough to really have had that big of an effect.

#4. FYI, Bush wasn't in office when the recession began in the late 1999/early 2000. Clinton's budget surpluses hurt our economy by removing money from the economy that could have been spent. The money's effect would have been multiplied greatly in the economy because of the spending multiplier.

#5. Are you trying to claim that Clinton's policies which led to the Recession also brought us out? Who else turned around the economy? Ted Kennedy?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

Your own quote above said more tax revenue came from the rich, causing the increase in tax revenues. There is no evidence that the middle class and poor are paying more, as you have claimed, but one thing is for sure and you have admitted this and is exeplified by the increase in tax revenues...the rich are paying more of their fair share as they are responisble for the gains this fiscal year.

I never said there was more evidence that the middle and poor were paying more, as well. I said they could be. You were making a conclusion that just didn't make sense, logically speaking.

But, yes, it would appear that the rich are getting hit harder than before but that still doesn't mean the less-well-to-do aren't either. Personally, I've seen my refunds stay about the same but my marital status has changed since the Propagandist took office.

You claimed the everyone could be paying more:

Originally posted by: conjur
All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more...

Therefore you yourself know that the deficit is indeed shrinking on the backs of the rich, we can both agree on this. Now I want you to back up your claims that "all classes are paying more", otherwise we can assume just the rich are the cause of the increased revenues. Increased meaning more than the year before...

I'm saying the poor/middle class are paying less of their share as compared to the year before, you are claiming their taxes went up.

I fixed your emphasis. *Could* be.

And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

So you have no evidence of your claims that the poor/mid class are paying more in taxes? And why are you complaining about the rich paying more taxes then? I really don't get what your point is...

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

And when you add that to an ability not to think, everything is coming up roses.

Think? What does "think" mean?

Lets look at Krk3561's post. The claim is that Reagan's policies allowed Intel to be created. Hmm. Intel was founded in 1968. While was true that Intel made leaps and bounds with the 286 processor in 1982, that processor was in the works far before Reagan took office. So I'm not really sure how Reagan's policy resulted in conditions where Intel was created.

Maybe that Intel part was just a mistake. Maybe lets look at Microsoft instead. Nope, 1980 was the critical year of Microsoft and its deal with IBM.

That does leave Sun. Sun incorporated in 1982 and had its first big deal in 1983. So, maybe, just maybe Reagan's policies helped Sun. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

Okay, maybe I should have chosen a better word than created. Reagan's supply side economics (business tax cuts) helped those companies grow, allowing them to hire more people, spend more money on R&D, etc.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888032_mz011.htm

On Aug. 13, 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the legislation that defined his vision for the U.S. economy. The Economic Recovery Tax Act, also known as the Kemp-Roth bill, slashed taxes for many individuals and corporations and ushered in a new era. From that date on, government would play a far smaller role in the economy, and markets would reign supreme.

Just the previous day, with far less attention and fanfare, IBM (IBM ) announced the introduction of its first personal computer, the IBM PC. Powered by a microprocessor from Intel Corp. (INTC ), which then had revenues of less than $1 billion, and sporting an operating system by a virtually unknown company called Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ), the IBM PC, and the machines that followed, took the country by storm.

In a way that few have realized, Reagan's economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. Reagan's first term saw the creation of such future giants as Sun Microsystems (SUNW ), Compaq Computer (HPQ ), Dell (DELL ), and Cisco Systems (CSCO ) -- the greatest entrepreneurial burst of new companies since the early 20th century.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I fixed your emphasis. *Could* be.

And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

So you have no evidence of your claims that the poor/mid class are paying more in taxes? And why are you complaining about the rich paying more taxes then? I really don't get what your point is...

I have no complaint. I was just noting that your conclusion wasn't based upon any proffered evidence. You said the rich were paying more and the poor were paying less but offered nothing to show that.

 

[maluckey]

SOMEONE is paying mre taxes, and the obvious choices are NOT the lowest class, nor the middle class. that leaves........

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: maluckey
SOMEONE is paying mre taxes, and the obvious choices are NOT the lowest class, nor the middle class. that leaves........

Why are they the obvious choices? We've already seen and heard the reports that even the White House admitted tax cuts favored the rich. Capital gains reduced, death tax eliminated, etc. The rich are paying more because their salaries are increasing dramatically and stock options galore (according to one of those articles)

That article didn't address the amount of taxes still being paid by the lower classes. It COULD be more, too, just not as much of an increase as the rich are paying. We need to see more detail.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
SOMEONE is paying mre taxes, and the obvious choices are NOT the lowest class, nor the middle class. that leaves........

The Rich? Kudos to them for doing their patriotic duty instead of being selfish like the Middle and Lower Class!!

I'm sorry but I will care about the Rich if and when I become one of them, of course if I were to become one of them I don't think I would mind paying more taxes as long as I was able to remain rich. Of course that's all conjecture because I'm not rich so how would I actually know if I would care or not, maybe I would want to hoard my money and not pay any taxes at all.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
SOMEONE is paying mre taxes, and the obvious choices are NOT the lowest class, nor the middle class. that leaves........

The Rich? Kudos to them for doing their patriotic duty instead of being selfish like the Middle and Lower Class!!

I'm sorry but I will care about the Rich if and when I become one of them, of course if I were to become one of them I don't think I would mind paying more taxes as long as I was able to remain rich. Of course that's all conjecture because I'm not rich so how would I actually know if I would care or not, maybe I would want to hoard my money and not pay any taxes at all.

You'd be working to secede and form RedDawnistan.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I fixed your emphasis. *Could* be.

And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

So you have no evidence of your claims that the poor/mid class are paying more in taxes? And why are you complaining about the rich paying more taxes then? I really don't get what your point is...

I have no complaint. I was just noting that your conclusion wasn't based upon any proffered evidence. You said the rich were paying more and the poor were paying less but offered nothing to show that.

Your own quote stated the rich were paying more.
That means the poor are paying less than the previous year.

For example:
rich guy pays $1mill in tax in 2004 and $1.5mill in 2005, and the poor guy spends $100 in 2004 and $100 in 2005, the poor person has less of the tax burden. Therefore the poor guy is paying less in taxes than the year before (smaller piece of the pie).

My information is supported by your quote and the article posted, you need to justify your claims that all levels are paying more in taxes.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

It is wonderful how Republicans:
[*]take credit for the 2nd Reagan term (but not the first),
[*]Ignore much of Bush #1's term,
[*]Take credit for all of Clinton's term, and give it to Reagan and not Bush #1,
[*]Give Clinton credit for 2000/2001 (which was during Bush #2's term),
[*]Then give Bush credit for the recovery after 2001.

It must be nice to just pick and choose the best years.

LOL, so true. What hacks.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
If you understood policy lags then maybe you would understand the points.

Wow a personal attack on my education. That is helpful in a discussion.

The president has impacts on the economy in multiple time frames.
1) Negative time span. A president can have a mild impact before taking office. This impact can be seen with big jumps in numbers right after an election. Consumer/Business confidence can swing wildly with big news on the next president. Heck, even if a poll shows a president will likely be elected, the confidence can swing before the election. Confidence is one major portion of the strength of the economy. So a president can have an effect before taking office. However, confidence is very temporary and sporadic. Thus this effect is mild and short-lived.
2) Instant time span. A president can have a mild impact before making any major law changes while in office. Just the announcement of a policy stance can be enough for a mild instantaneous effect on the economy. See #1 as the same confidence stuff applies.
3) Short term time span. A president can have a short term ~1-2 year impact with a new law being passed. Take the typical tax cut/increase. Its full impact really isn't felt until the next time tax season rolls around. This is the biggest impact a president has on the economy.
4) Long term time span. Yes some policies can have a long term effect. A policy that helps a new factory/oil rig/etc be built is an example. Typically these take 4-6 years to construct. Thus the president can have an impact 4-6 years after office. Beyond 4-6 years there has been no statistical evidence reported. The reason? Simply since the laws usually have been changed by then. This tends to be a relatively mild effect.

#1. Reagan was handed an ailing economy (stagflation anyone?) when he came into office, much in the way Bush 43 was. The recession started in the summer of 1981 and ended in 1982. It did not start after Reagan's economic policies were in place but before they were passed/signed into law. The benefits of the tax cuts were not received until 1982, as they were not signed into law until the fall of 1981.

Stagflation was in the 1970s, not during Reagan's term. Yes, the economy wasn't great at the start of Reagan's term. 1982 was one of the worst declines in real GDP and 1980 wasn't really great either. But except for 1984, the growth in real GDP wasn't at all spectacular during Reagan's term. And 1984 was not that wonderful compared to the real GDP growth in 1997-2000. Heck, the average growth in real GDP during Reagan's 8 year term was less than during the previous president's average real GDP growth (during the bad 1970s years).

#2 & #3. Bush 41 was VP under Reagan, he basically continued most of his policies, he wasn't in office long enough to really have had that big of an effect. I'm not even sure

So if Bush #1 continued Reagan's policies, and Reagan's policies are good for 4-6 years after his end, why was there a recession in 1991? Heck that is smack dab in the middle of Reagan's policies. But of course, you'll cherry pick the data and ignore this term. So the same policy in place in 1981 (by your link), had no effect in 1991 but suddently had a great impact in 1997-2000? Do you have one shread of evidence of that claim? Even the years 1993 and 1995 weren't too great. Why did Reagan's policy fail in those years? I mean, if Reagan's policy created the boom from 1997-2000, it must be in effect during 1993 and 1995 right?

#4. FYI, Bush wasn't in office when the recession began in the late 1999/early 2000. Clinton's budget surpluses hurt our economy by removing money from the economy that could have been spent. The money's effect would have been multiplied greatly in the economy because of the spending multiplier.

FYI the recession officially started March 2001 when Bush #2 was in office (the GDP actually was growing throughout 1999, 2000, and beginning 2001). But no, I don't blame Bush #2 for it at all. I blame the lawsuit against Microsoft which happened under Clinton's term.

My opinion: yes a president impacts the economy. But most of the economy is outside the president's hands. The impacts are visible, but mild. And no you can't ignore some years and claim credit for others. That is just one of my pet peeves.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
I fixed your emphasis. *Could* be.

And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

So you have no evidence of your claims that the poor/mid class are paying more in taxes? And why are you complaining about the rich paying more taxes then? I really don't get what your point is...

I have no complaint. I was just noting that your conclusion wasn't based upon any proffered evidence. You said the rich were paying more and the poor were paying less but offered nothing to show that.

Your own quote stated the rich were paying more.
That means the poor are paying less than the previous year.

For example:
rich guy pays $1mill in tax in 2004 and $1.5mill in 2005, and the poor guy spends $100 in 2004 and $100 in 2005, the poor person has less of the tax burden. Therefore the poor guy is paying less in taxes than the year before (smaller piece of the pie).

My information is supported by your quote and the article posted, you need to justify your claims that all levels are paying more in taxes.

Ok, let me break this down:

2004
Rich: Pays $1 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $15,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $500 in taxes

2005
Rich: Pays $1.5 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $18,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $1,000 in taxes


See what I'm saying? It's possible that everyone is paying more but that the rich are paying an even great amount.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: daveymark
waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

welp, didn't take long for that to happen.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, let me break this down:

2004
Rich: Pays $1 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $15,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $500 in taxes

2005
Rich: Pays $1.5 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $18,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $1,000 in taxes


See what I'm saying? It's possible that everyone is paying more but that the rich are paying an even great amount.

Most of the revenue increase came from the rich, as you already stated, the poor's exemption is raised with inflation, therefore the poor's tax would not go up, maybe even less; not 50%. There are far less rich people, therefore the increased burden, which we are discussing was significantly weighted to the rich. Even if taxes rised across the board (which i doubt, we are using arbitrary numbers), the increases were on the backs of the rich, why are you trying to bring it around as if the poor/middle class are getting screwed when they obviously are not in this situation?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: maluckey
SOMEONE is paying mre taxes, and the obvious choices are NOT the lowest class, nor the middle class. that leaves........

More people working as well as slight increases in pay = more tax revenue.

Also, tax holiday for corporations to bring in overseas profit at a lower tax rate resulted in billions of new tax dollars that would have otherwise not been here (money would have been sitting in overseas accounts instead of US economy).

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard

#1. Reagan was handed an ailing economy (stagflation anyone?) when he came into office, much in the way Bush 43 was. The recession started in the summer of 1981 and ended in 1982. It did not start after Reagan's economic policies were in place but before they were passed/signed into law. The benefits of the tax cuts were not received until 1982, as they were not signed into law until the fall of 1981.

Stagflation was in the 1970s, not during Reagan's term. Yes, the economy wasn't great at the start of Reagan's term. 1982 was one of the worst declines in real GDP and 1980 wasn't really great either. But except for 1984, the growth in real GDP wasn't at all spectacular during Reagan's term. And 1984 was not that wonderful compared to the real GDP growth in 1997-2000. Heck, the average growth in real GDP during Reagan's 8 year term was less than during the previous president's average real GDP growth (during the bad 1970s years).

The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.

Originally posted by: dullard

#2 & #3. Bush 41 was VP under Reagan, he basically continued most of his policies, he wasn't in office long enough to really have had that big of an effect. I'm not even sure

So if Bush #1 continued Reagan's policies, and Reagan's policies are good for 4-6 years after his end, why was there a recession in 1991? Heck that is smack dab in the middle of Reagan's policies. But of course, you'll cherry pick the data and ignore this term. So the same policy in place in 1981 (by your link), had no effect in 1991 but suddently had a great impact in 1997-2000? Do you have one shread of evidence of that claim? Even the years 1993 and 1995 weren't too great. Why did Reagan's policy fail in those years? I mean, if Reagan's policy created the boom from 1997-2000, it must be in effect during 1993 and 1995 right?

Corrections in the economy will always take place, regardless of policy. Its an inherent trait of the business cycle.

As I said before, Reagan's supply side economics (business tax cuts) allowed many of the tech companies (i.e. IBM, Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.) that fueled the 90's to grow, allowed them to hire more people, spend more money on R&D, etc.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

A little late to the discussion but here goes...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly what happens when you cut taxes. You take the shackles off corporations and people with money so they can USE their money. When that happens they MAKE more money and therefor pay MORE tax. It's not a mystery, it's the plan coming to fruition.

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

See that 2000 number right above you? It say $18B. That's it. Minus $18B. What would the next fiscal year have been? POSITIVE $XB.

You are correct sir! And with the tax cuts that were in the process of being put in place it would have been looking at a huge surplus. BUT! (There's always a "but" isn't there?) I don't know if you remember this or not, in September some a-holes decided to fly some planes into some buildings. It was in the news. You may have caught it on TV. Anyway... After that, the already tanking stock market went into full retreat and our economy lost around $1 trillion and a million jobs. The entire airline industry had to be bailed out by the federal gov and we lost tax revenue for all those lost jobs. After that we started a war. So we took a double hit. Loss of revenue and increase in spending.

Despite the increase in spending and because of (not in spite of) Dubbya's tax cuts, revenue to the treasury derived from the income tax has poured MORE money into the treasury, not less.

Originally posted by: conjur

That doesn't prove the middle and poor classes are paying less. All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more due to their expanding stock options and exhorbitant salaries.

You're making it sound like a bad thing but that is the whole POINT of the tax cuts. Tax cuts increase tax revenues and it works EXACTLY the way you described it. It's a GOOD thing. And just FYI, when Dubbya's tax cuts took effect, a larger share of the tax burden did shift to the upper class and the lowest wage earners had their 10% tax eliminated altogether.

Originally posted by: conjur

But, yes, it would appear that the rich are getting hit harder than before but that still doesn't mean the less-well-to-do aren't either. Personally, I've seen my refunds stay about the same but my marital status has changed since the Propagandist took office.

The size of your refund has absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts. Your refund is nothing more than the ammount of tax you were over charged throughout the year. If anything, your refund was probably smaller due to the fact that your deductions stayed the same and your tax was reduced.

Originally posted by: conjur
And, I'm not claiming all classes ARE paying more. I'm saying they COULD be. I haven't done the research. It's entirely possible that everyone is paying more in taxes but that the rich are paying an even higher portion. I don't know. I haven't analyzed the tax revenue.

Tax cuts aren't going to affect the working middle class as much as the wealthy because the wealthy tend derive more income from investments than the middle class do. If your only form of income is your job, a small tax cut will mean you pay a little less in tax. If your income is determined by how much money you have to invest (rich people) then the tax cuts leave you with more liquidity which you can invest in other endevors that make you even more money. (Ergo you make more / you pay more tax)

The rules for money are very different for workers than they are for investors. Rich Dad/Poor Dad by Robert Kyosaki does an excellent job of spelling out the advantages of being an investor/owner vs being an employee.

And Conjur... I'm not picking on you. You just had the most for me to work with.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
As I said before, Reagan's supply side economics (business tax cuts) allowed many of the tech companies (i.e. IBM, Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.) that fueled the 90's to grow, allowed them to hire more people, spend more money on R&D, etc.

Or Moore's law (which was valid far before and far after Reagan, pretty much unchanged by Reagan's policies) finally resulted in products that people wanted/needed. Which to believe - the fact that 16 years ago a president had a policy or the fact that the technology is finally ready. Hmmm.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

And when you add that to an ability not to think, everything is coming up roses.

Think? What does "think" mean?

Lets look at Krk3561's post. The claim is that Reagan's policies allowed Intel to be created. Hmm. Intel was founded in 1968. While was true that Intel made leaps and bounds with the 286 processor in 1982, that processor was in the works far before Reagan took office. So I'm not really sure how Reagan's policy resulted in conditions where Intel was created.

Maybe that Intel part was just a mistake. Maybe lets look at Microsoft instead. Nope, 1980 was the critical year of Microsoft and its deal with IBM.

That does leave Sun. Sun incorporated in 1982 and had its first big deal in 1983. So, maybe, just maybe Reagan's policies helped Sun. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

Mine was an example of a thoughtless remark.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, let me break this down:

2004
Rich: Pays $1 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $15,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $500 in taxes

2005
Rich: Pays $1.5 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $18,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $1,000 in taxes


See what I'm saying? It's possible that everyone is paying more but that the rich are paying an even great amount.

Most of the revenue increase came from the rich, as you already stated, the poor's exemption is raised with inflation, therefore the poor's tax would not go up, maybe even less; not 50%. There are far less rich people, therefore the increased burden, which we are discussing was significantly weighted to the rich. Even if taxes rised across the board (which i doubt, we are using arbitrary numbers), the increases were on the backs of the rich, why are you trying to bring it around as if the poor/middle class are getting screwed when they obviously are not in this situation?

JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.