Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah, more whitehouse.gov links. 8)

Yes, because going to the Source is always a bad idea.

Joe, Vince, you both argue like the states haven't for years relied heavily on federal funding, as if the two have traditionally operated completely separated.

No, I'm arguing that states HAVE for years relied on heavy federal funding with little to no accountability....and where has that gotten us?

As for NCLB, a co-worker's wife is a local educator and he was telling me about she loathes this program, loathes Bush, and how that feeling is almost unanimous among her fellow educators and school administration.

Of course...because now they are being held to some accountability. It's always nicer just to be able to "get the funding...no questions asked" isn't it?

I mean, you're talking about people who are not paid based on merit, but time of service. About people who once they've been at the job for a few years, need to basically be a child molester before it is even considered to fire them.

Gosh, I wish my job were like that.

Do you prefer to work with someone looking over your shoulder when you work? Of course not. But when the RESULTS of your work are not up to snuff, what do expect to happen?

Of course, they don't have to have someone looking over their shoulder...but then they don't get the money. My heart bleeds...

 

[Natoma]

My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And your point is meaningless.

Bush cut the taxes he has control over. True or false?

Bush cut my taxes, that's for sure. I still haven't seen any statistics (no matter how many times you try and point me to your talking points page) that show that "overall," the tax burden is in fact higher, and that Bush's Federal cuts are the reason.

All I see is ancilliary "some things went up", as if they woudn't have gone up anyway.

Let's do some math then shall we?

Spending has increased 28% since Bush took office in 2001
The debt has increased 27% since Bush took office in 2001 ($1.5 Trillion overall increase to date)
Tax cuts have reduced federal intake 12% since Bush took office in 2001

By all accounts, a spending increase of 28% and a tax cut of 12% should have increased the debt by 40%, given the % spread, and yet the debt has only increased 27%. What does that leave? A 13% coverage gap by State/Local tax increases and levies, i.e. higher than the federal cuts, even if barely. The point is, as I stated before, the overall tax burden is higher now, but it has been shifted to the states. Yes, Bush can say "I cut your taxes," but that is disingenuous given the reality of the tax situation in this nation.

Uhm, the state governments have no say in how they fund No Child Left Behind.

Yes they do, actually. It's called accountability. You show your compliance and results, and you get more money.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040108-1.html

President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 48% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001.

What the hell else do you want from the Federal gov't in terms of spendings? It's never enough for you libs, is it?

2005 Budget Joe, not to date. And that is what is being discussed. To date. Notice, 2005 is only if Bush gets re-elected, which at this point is not a sure bet.

And man, you rail about me providing my "liberal site of the day" and yet you go to whitehouse.gov, the epitome of unbiased reporting and spin.

Btw, maybe you should take note of all the fiscal conservatives in your party who are bitching up a storm about Bush's fiscal policies, especially when it comes to his spend-spend-spend mentality with no regard to the deficits and debt they are incurring. But of course, this is just a "liberal" problem.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

By all accounts, a spending increase of 28% and a tax cut of 12% should have increased the debt by 40%, given the % spread, and yet the debt has only increased 27%. What does that leave? A 13% coverage gap by State/Local tax increases and levies....

Please don't tell me you aren't considering economic growth...thanks for finally relaizing that a 28% tax cut DOES NOT equal a static 28% cut in tax revenue.

2005 Budget Joe, not to date. And that is what is being discussed.

Says who...you?

And man, you rail about me providing my "liberal site of the day" and yet you go to whitehouse.gov, the epitome of unbiased reporting and spin.

Yup.

Btw, maybe you should take note of all the fiscal conservatives in your party who are bitching up a storm about Bush's fiscal policies....

Why...because I largely agree with the fiscal conservatives that Bush is overspending?

Did I not reiterate a few posts back that I don't like the NCLB act? (That while I think it's better than other spending methods, it's still too expensive for what I think will be the end result.)

especially when it comes to his spend-spend-spend mentality with no regard to the deficits and debt they are incurring. But of course, this is just a "liberal" problem.

No, Natoma...the liberal problem is ATTACKING Bush for not spending enough.

 

[Natoma]

By all accounts, a spending increase of 28% and a tax cut of 12% should have increased the debt by 40%, given the % spread, and yet the debt has only increased 27%. What does that leave? A 13% coverage gap by State/Local tax increases and levies....

Please don't tell me you aren't considering economic growth...thanks for finally relaizing that a 28% tax cut DOES NOT equal a static 28% cut in tax revenue.

First of all, it is 28% increase in spending. The tax cut reduced federal intake since 2001 by 12%. What exactly are you saying now?

2005 Budget Joe, not to date. And that is what is being discussed.

Says who...you?

Obviously. Check everything I've written up until now. What have I been discussing? Bush's time in office, up until now. If you want to bring the 2005 Budget into play, then the debt has increased by $2 Trillion, not $1.5, since the shortfall in 2005 under this budget is estimated to be roughly $500 Billion.

Btw, maybe you should take note of all the fiscal conservatives in your party who are bitching up a storm about Bush's fiscal policies....

Why...because I largely agree with the fiscal conservatives that Bush is overspending?

Did I not reiterate a few posts back that I don't like the NCLB act? (That while I think it's better than other spending methods, it's still too expensive for what I think will be the end result.)

As I said before, the spending is only part of the problem. This thread began as a discussion on how Bush "cut taxes," but that in fact that is disingenuous because the taxes have merely been shifted to the states. I've long stated, I don't have a problem with spending if that's what people want to do. But you've got to have a sensible tax policy in place to make it happen, and that is not the case right now. Bush says that he's given people all the programs they want, as well as cut their taxes, well to someone in the real world, that hasn't happened. Sure the median american has seen $300 - $400 in federal tax relief, but state and local taxes and levies have gone up by that amount, and more, in order to pay for unfunded mandates and less aid from the government.

Federal Government Taxes: -2 overall
State/Local Taxes: +3 overall
Net Taxes: +1 overall

What's so difficult to understand about that point eh? This discussion has never been about whether it's right or wrong for the states to shoulder more of the burden, only whether it is an honest assessment to say that Bush has "cut the tax burden" on Americans rather than shifted the tax burden.

especially when it comes to his spend-spend-spend mentality with no regard to the deficits and debt they are incurring. But of course, this is just a "liberal" problem.

No, Natoma...the liberal problem is ATTACKING Bush for not spending enough.

Uhm, no. But thanks for deflection attempt. My problem is that Bush is saying that he "cut taxes," when the net effect, as I've shown, of his policies has been to only shift the tax burden from the federal government to the states. That there has been in effect no overall tax relief for average americans, at the same time he goes nuts with federal spending.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

First of all, it is 28% increase in spending. The tax cut reduced federal intake since 2001 by 12%. What exactly are you saying now?

I'm saying you don't just add 28+12 to get 40 as if it's a static number... And you don't attribute 12 percent loss in tax revenues to a tax cut.

Obviously. Check everything I've written up until now. What have I been discussing? Bush's time in office, up until now.

Because "up to now", bush hadn't spent what he's proposed on Education?

As I said before, the spending is only part of the problem.

It's the major part of the problem. And increasing Taxes is not the way out of it. Cutting spending is.

This thread began as a discussion on how Bush "cut taxes,"

Which he did.

Federal Government Taxes: -2 overall
State/Local Taxes: +3 overall
Net Taxes: +1 overall

What's so difficult to understand about that point eh?

Um...there's nothing difficult to understand about that point...other than you have provided no figures that state the actual "overall net tax" burden, and further more, the overall net tax burden on the "majority of americans".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Um...there's nothing difficult to understand about that point...other than you have provided no figures that state the actual "overall net tax" burden, and further more, the overall net tax burden on the "majority of americans".

I'll help:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal70-03.html

Total taxes (fed, state, and local), as a percentage of income.

Overall Tax Burden 2003: 30.0%
Overall Tax Burden 2002: 30.0%
Overall Tax Burden 2001: 32.2%
Overall Tax Burden 2000: 33.0%

So, your assertion is completely made up, B.S. Bush "cut taxes" no matter what distorted way you want to look at it.

 

[Natoma]

First of all, it is 28% increase in spending. The tax cut reduced federal intake since 2001 by 12%. What exactly are you saying now?

I'm saying you don't just add 28+12 to get 40 as if it's a static number... And you don't attribute 12 percent loss in tax revenues to a tax cut.

Joe, the tax cut chopped roughly 20% out of the budget, but factoring out economic growth during that time, the loss has only been 12%. Second, what is debt? Debt is the negative differential between your spending and your income. If you have an income of $100, and you increase your spending 28% while decreasing your income by 12%, what do you have? $88 income with $128 expenditures. What is that debt differential? 40%.

Economic growth due to the cuts was factored in Joe. I'm sorry if that wasn't immediately apparent.

Obviously. Check everything I've written up until now. What have I been discussing? Bush's time in office, up until now.

Because "up to now", bush hadn't spent what he's proposed on Education?

No. Up until now, Bush has shifted the burden to the states all the while stating "I've cut your tax burden." Why do you keep pushing your point when it's obviously not what I've been saying?

Let me quote myself again:

This discussion has never been about whether it's right or wrong for the states to shoulder more of the burden, only whether it is an honest assessment to say that Bush has "cut the tax burden" on Americans rather than shifted the tax burden.

I agree that Bush has cut federal taxes, but is it an honest statement to say that he's cut our tax burden when it's only been shifted to the states? I mean, come on now.

As I said before, the spending is only part of the problem.

It's the major part of the problem. And increasing Taxes is not the way out of it. Cutting spending is.

Yet we're not talking about increasing federal taxes. But we certainly are talking about the increase in state and local taxes that have come at the same time that there's been a decrease in federal taxes, that basically evens out the equation.

Federal Government Taxes: -2 overall
State/Local Taxes: +3 overall
Net Taxes: +1 overall

What's so difficult to understand about that point eh?

Um...there's nothing difficult to understand about that point...other than you have provided no figures that state the actual "overall net tax" burden, and further more, the overall net tax burden on the "majority of americans".

I could have sworn.........

Spending has increased 28% since Bush took office in 2001
The debt has increased 27% since Bush took office in 2001 ($1.5 Trillion overall increase to date)
Tax cuts have reduced federal intake 12% since Bush took office in 2001

By all accounts, a spending increase of 28% and a tax cut of 12% should have increased the debt by 40%, given the % spread, and yet the debt has only increased 27%. What does that leave? A 13% coverage gap by State/Local tax increases and levies, i.e. higher than the federal cuts, even if barely. The point is, as I stated before, the overall tax burden is higher now, but it has been shifted to the states. Yes, Bush can say "I cut your taxes," but that is disingenuous given the reality of the tax situation in this nation.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I could have sworn.........

....that those numbers of yours don't back your assertion. See previous post.

 

[Natoma]

Um...there's nothing difficult to understand about that point...other than you have provided no figures that state the actual "overall net tax" burden, and further more, the overall net tax burden on the "majority of americans".

I'll help:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal70-03.html

Total taxes (fed, state, and local), as a percentage of income.

Overall Tax Burden 2003: 30.0%
Overall Tax Burden 2002: 30.0%
Overall Tax Burden 2001: 32.2%
Overall Tax Burden 2000: 33.0%

So, your assertion is completely made up, B.S. Bush "cut taxes" no matter what distorted way you want to look at it.

It's nice to see that you're also ignoring the increase in state/local taxes alone.

9.6% in 2002, and 9.7% in 2003 Joe, while the overall tax burden stayed the same. Gee why is that? Because the taxes got shifted from the federal to the state! Your own numbers prove this. Christ.

And on top of this, it doesn't take into account taxes and levies to fund these federal programs. Homeland Security in NY wasn't solely funded by property tax increases, but they are definitely "stealth tax" increases on income. Tuition hikes aren't taxes, but it definitely is a "stealth tax" on income, for instance. MTA rates have risen 20% since 2001, in part to fund Homeland Security expenditures for paying Fire, Police, and Hospital workers. But that doesn't get taken into account as a state tax increase, but it is definitely a "stealth tax" on income.

Of course, your cherry picked numbers don't take that into account.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's nice to see that you're also ignoring the increase in state/local taxes alone.

9.6% in 2002, and 9.7% in 2003 Joe, while the overall tax burden stayed the same. Gee why is that? Because the taxes got shifted from the federal to the state! Your own numbers prove this. Christ.

Are you for fucking real? You're going to cherry pick numbers starting from 2002 after initial tax cuts took place?!

From the TIME BUSH TOOK OFFICE and started cutting taxes, the OVERALL TAX BURDEN HAS DECREASED. Not ONCE has the OVERALL TAX BURDEN that you've been bitching about and basing your latest round of "bush is lying" crap for the past 2 pages increased year over year, let alone from when bush took office.

The OVERALL TAX BURDEN has not been this low since 1992.

Who's chaning the discussion now, Natoma? Are you going to look at statistics dead in the face and still defy them? Did I say or claim that SOME states haven't increased their tax burdens?

Let me repeat your own words, with some emphasis:

Most Americans, due to the decreases in federal aid to states, as well as unfunded mandates that states have to shoulder, have seen their taxes go up overall.

False.

My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased.

False.

Again, your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. What was the point of this thread in the first place?

Bush: Americans have a lower tax burden.

And what Bush said is 100% true.

Federal Government Taxes: -2 overall
State/Local Taxes: +3 overall
Net Taxes: +1 overall

Um, no, its (From calendar 2000, last non-bush year, to 2003, last year of record)

Federal Government Taxes: -2.9 Overall
State/Local Taxes: -0.2 Overall
Net Taxes: -3.1 Overall

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh jeezus...now we're talking about Stealth Taxes?! Good grief...

Who's doing the lying and being disingenuous here...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You talk as if major Tuition Inflation is some "recent phenomenon." I guess you never looked at college tuition inflation statistics. I'm saving for college for two kids. I have.

http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml

 

[Natoma]

If you want to quote people Joe, I suggest you quote in full. Every statement I have made has been clear. Tax burden = Taxes and Levies. Whether its an increase in income tax or property tax, or a stealth tax increase in tuition or transportation or veterans outlays (as examples), it is still an overall tax burden on your income. I have been quite consistent on this point, as the following quotes show. But you go cherry picking as you love to do.

Also, the whole point of the originating article was "The Bush Tax Increase." How? Through stealth taxes. That is of course, if you even bothered to read it.

Here's the link again if you care to read it instead of work from your own misguided preconceived notions: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34039

This is what many economists and politicians (most notably Howard Dean) were stating throughout 2003 and early 2004. Most Americans, due to the decreases in federal aid to states, as well as unfunded mandates that states have to shoulder, have seen their taxes go up overall.

My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased.

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans

I suppose you're not around when Bush cut funding for pell grants and other student financial institutions, causing states to raise their local taxes in order to fund their state colleges. I also suppose you're not in any state or city where raising the "terror alert" color each time costs the local taxpayers tens of millions in overtime fees for fire, police, and hospital workers, again, causing tax increases and/or spending hikes (NY comes to mind in this department especially).

Whether or not you agree with federal student funding through pell grants, stafford loans, perkins loans, etc, is irrelevant Joe. The fact of the matter is, Bush has cut funding to each student financial loan system, causing a net tax increase on families sending their kids to their state colleges. In effect, a tax increase.

Actually, we're owed money by the federal government. We still haven't received the appropriation funds from 9/11 in full, let alone the funds for homeland security. NY is mandated to have a balanced budget. So how have we coped in the last 3 years? Double digit increases in property taxes, among others.

"Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again." Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. Meanwhile, the American Legion called it "utterly ridiculous." [Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03]

Again, you're quite welcome to stop the baseless ranting and actually read the originating article on this issue, as well as look at the facts that taxes and cost of services at the state and local level across this nation have indeed gone up because of a lack of federal funding for package after package after package sent forth by this administration.

Again, your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. What was the point of this thread in the first place?

Bush: Americans have a lower tax burden.

That is obviously not the case. It's simply been shifted to the states. As I said, it's disingenuous to make a statement like that, and you are free to read the originating article. Americans don't have a lower tax burden at all.

agree that No Child Left Behind is poorly executed, however, as I said before, it is putting demands and standards on the education system at a time when there is no money to actually fund those demands and standards. Yes, we all got the $2 Trillion in tax cuts in some form or another, but that has been easily offset in part by the increases in taxes at the state and local level required to fund No Child Left Behind and other programs. And it is still underfunded, even with state and local increases.

Let's do some math then shall we?

Spending has increased 28% since Bush took office in 2001
The debt has increased 27% since Bush took office in 2001 ($1.5 Trillion overall increase to date)
Tax cuts have reduced federal intake 12% since Bush took office in 2001

By all accounts, a spending increase of 28% and a tax cut of 12% should have increased the debt by 40%, given the % spread, and yet the debt has only increased 27%. What does that leave? A 13% coverage gap by State/Local tax increases and levies, i.e. higher than the federal cuts, even if barely. The point is, as I stated before, the overall tax burden is higher now, but it has been shifted to the states. Yes, Bush can say "I cut your taxes," but that is disingenuous given the reality of the tax situation in this nation.

As I said before, the spending is only part of the problem. This thread began as a discussion on how Bush "cut taxes," but that in fact that is disingenuous because the taxes have merely been shifted to the states. I've long stated, I don't have a problem with spending if that's what people want to do. But you've got to have a sensible tax policy in place to make it happen, and that is not the case right now. Bush says that he's given people all the programs they want, as well as cut their taxes, well to someone in the real world, that hasn't happened. Sure the median american has seen $300 - $400 in federal tax relief, but state and local taxes and levies have gone up by that amount, and more, in order to pay for unfunded mandates and less aid from the government.

Federal Government Taxes: -2 overall
State/Local Taxes: +3 overall
Net Taxes: +1 overall

What's so difficult to understand about that point eh? This discussion has never been about whether it's right or wrong for the states to shoulder more of the burden, only whether it is an honest assessment to say that Bush has "cut the tax burden" on Americans rather than shifted the tax burden.

Uhm, no. But thanks for deflection attempt. My problem is that Bush is saying that he "cut taxes," when the net effect, as I've shown, of his policies has been to only shift the tax burden from the federal government to the states. That there has been in effect no overall tax relief for average americans, at the same time he goes nuts with federal spending.

And on top of this, it doesn't take into account taxes and levies to fund these federal programs. Homeland Security in NY wasn't solely funded by property tax increases, but they are definitely "stealth tax" increases on income. Tuition hikes aren't taxes, but it definitely is a "stealth tax" on income, for instance. MTA rates have risen 20% since 2001, in part to fund Homeland Security expenditures for paying Fire, Police, and Hospital workers. But that doesn't get taken into account as a state tax increase, but it is definitely a "stealth tax" on income.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

*Yawn*

I'm still waiting for your statistics that include these so-called "stealth taxes" (I still have to laugh at that...) that back your assertion. Really, since I apparently "cherry picked" some numbers to selectively exclude thes stealth taxes, these statistics must be readily available at your fingertips.

I suggest you quit while you're behind.

 

[Natoma]

You're only reading what you want to read Joe. I read through the document you provided and showed in effect that what I've been saying, that the tax burden has been shifted to the states, is true, and the overall tax burden (taxes and levies, as I've stated on a few occassions in this thread) has increased, even if slightly. But of course you just lop off the link that started this thread in the first place as "liberal site of the day" without actually going through it. It's obvious having a discussion with you on this is pointless.

* Natoma waits for some absurd "witty" word play rebuttal

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You're only reading what you want to read Joe.

I'm reading what you wrote...and what you *claim* to be true.

And I have yet to see you present any factual evidence to back your claim.

I read through the document you provided and showed in effect that what I've been saying, that the tax burden has been shifted to the states, is true,

No, from the time Bush took office to now, that's not true.

and the overall tax burden (taxes and levies, as I've stated on a few occassions in this thread) has increased, even if slightly.

For which no factual evidence has been provided concerning these "Stealth Taxes" and their net impact on overall Tax Burden. Other than some ASSUMPTION on your part that they tip the scales from a net 3.1 percent decrease in tax burden to some net incerase.

What you're claiming, Natoma, is that while the state and local tax burden decreased 0.2% overall over the past 3 years...these "stealth taxes" not only increased overall, but that the increases are so huge, that they actually have a 16.5x greater impact than state and local taxes?

Are these "stealth tax revenues" even comparable to State and Local taxes in the absolute sense?

Do you know how unreasonable you sound?

But of course you just lop off the link that started this thread in the first place as "liberal site of the day" without actually going through it.

No, I lopped off the link because it has no factual information to support your parroted claim.

 

[Natoma]

*Yawn*

Did I get it right Joe, even down to the stretching?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, actually.

You shouldn't be yawning...you should be frantically searching for the data that actually backs what you have asserted as fact. Until then, I'll remain bored while you continue to post nonsense, rather than just admit you are wrong.

*Yawn*

 

[Natoma]

Maybe you should try reading the links provided. Until then,

or maybe,

 

[Silent_One]

9.6% in 2002, and 9.7% in 2003 Joe, while the overall tax burden stayed the same. Gee why is that? Because the taxes got shifted from the federal to the state! Your own numbers prove this. Christ

Not for nothing Natoma, but reading your posts through all this it sure sounds like the increases would be a LOT more that what the figures indicate. No offence but, I mean, you do sound a little unreasonable.