Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Joe DeFuria]

I have read through lots of it. Nothing to see.

But then, I'm looking for facts....not baseless assertions.

 

[Natoma]

Ahh the "witty" rebuttals. How I love thee..

 

[Natoma]

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.

I have been saying all this time Silent_One that the overall tax burden has gone up slightly because of a shift in the funding from the federal to the state. I must have stated that at least 3 times in this thread.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Since when does being truthful amount to being "witty"? I haven't found any facts on those sites to back your assertion.

I'm all ears though.

I wouldn't want you to lose focus on the "topic at hand":

... 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?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have been saying all this time Silent_One that the overall tax burden has gone up slightly because of a shift in the funding from the federal to the state. I must have stated that at least 3 times in this thread.

And you have yet to provide evidence that the overall tax + "stealth tax" burden has gone up at all, when all the evidence points to the contrary.

I've stated that at least 3 times in this thread.

 

[Natoma]

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.

And what have I been saying all this time? Tax burden = taxes and levies. What is the site that I linked to saying?

President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.

But yea, you go ahead with your witty "facts".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And what have I been saying all this time? Tax burden = taxes and levies.

You've also been saying "all this time" that overall tax burden has increased.

OK, let's "pick" apart your "evidence":

President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts.

Um....hello? Maybe that's because by next year, just about all of the "Latest Tax Cuts" have already been phased in as of 2003?

But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.

So, where exactly in there does it provide evidence to assert that "local / state taxes and levies" (the "effective tax increase" they talk about) have actually outpaced Federal tax burden reductions, such that the net is an increase? That's your entire overriding "point" in this thread...is it not?

 

[Stvn]

Living in Connecticut, I've seen my "cost of living" go up due to varying increases in state and local taxes recently, as well as other non-tax items that get passed along to me, but aren't necessarily taken as a tax hike by the state. Property taxes go up, so I have to pay more at the grocer, as example.

I don't know if this affect at the state and local level can be attributed as a Bush increase as American Progress and Natoma is stating, but it can certainly be looked at in that manner. I guess it depends on your perspective. One who doesn't like these policies will probably see it as a "stealth tax" increase while others who do will simply see it as "the way things should be."

"Stealth tax" is a common term among economist Joe. Don't know if you knew or not.

My worthless two cents.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Living in Connecticut, I've seen my "cost of living" go up due to varying increases in state and local taxes recently,

Has your state and local taxes ever invreased before?

I don't know if this affect at the state and local level can be attributed as a Bush increase as American Progress and Natoma is stating, but it can certainly be looked at in that manner.

Don't get me wrong...I completely agree that they can be looked at in that manner.

My main point of contention with Natoma is to show on what basis he can claim that the net effect of any such increases caused the overall tax burden to increase, when combined with federal tax burden reductions. This is what he's been claiming.

 

[Stvn]

So, where exactly in there does it provide evidence to assert that "local / state taxes and levies" (the "effective tax increase" they talk about) have actually outpaced Federal tax burden reductions, such that the net is an increase? That's your entire overriding "point" in this thread...is it not?

Natoma showed the slight increase in the percentages he gave earlier. American Progress gave many examples of the 'Bush Tax Increase'. He fleshed it out with macroeconomic figures. I've seen those actually by looking at the congressional spending reports, and the latest figures on the debt and how much the federal tax receipts have declined since 2001.

From there it's only a leap to figure out what makes up the rest. But I don't think you or anyone else who doesn't see this as a "stealth tax" would want to put it all together and form the big picture. As I said, i guess it depend on your perspective of the problem. My father worked in the government all his life, so i have a little inside tack on these things. As always, my worthless two cents. Take it as you will.

 

[Silent_One]

Property taxes go up, so I have to pay more at the grocer, as example.

That's to help pay for your town's fancy new High School built last year (I go by it almost daily)!

 

[Stvn]

Living in Connecticut, I've seen my "cost of living" go up due to varying increases in state and local taxes recently,

Has your state and local taxes ever invreased before?

I only moved gto connecticut in 2001, so I wouldn't have much knowledge on this. Lived in apartments in ny before then, so i wasn't as attuned to issues like property taxes. Sorry that I can't be more detailed. I just don't know.

I don't know if this affect at the state and local level can be attributed as a Bush increase as American Progress and Natoma is stating, but it can certainly be looked at in that manner.

Don't get me wrong...I completely agree that they can be looked at in that manner.

My main point of contention with Natoma is to show on what basis he can claim that the net effect of any such increases caused the overall tax burden to increase, when combined with federal tax burden reductions. This is what he's been claiming.

See my last post.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma showed the slight increase in the percentages he gave earlier.

From 2002 to 2003. Overall, there has been a significant decrease from 2000 (Pre tax cuts) to 2003 (post tax cuts).

American Progress gave many examples of the 'Bush Tax Increase'.

But have not shown how the net effect is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what Natoma is pushing, and what I specifically object to.

 

[Stvn]

Property taxes go up, so I have to pay more at the grocer, as example.

That's to help pay for your town's fancy new High School built last year (I go by it almost daily)!

I suppose. Though my kids won't be able to take advantage of it for at least another decade. Damn those taxes to hell.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma showed the slight increase in the percentages he gave earlier.

From 2002 to 2003. Overall, there has been a significant decrease from 2000 (Pre tax cuts) to 2003 (post tax cuts).

American Progress gave many examples of the 'Bush Tax Increase'.

But have not shown how the net effect is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what Natoma is pushing.

As I've said over and over in this thread, tax burden = taxes and levies. What is this referring to? Stealth Tax.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But have not shown how the net effect is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what Natoma is pushing.

As I've said over and over in this thread, tax burden = taxes and levies. What is this referring to? Stealth Tax.

Sigh.

But you have not shown how the net effect INCLUDING THE STEALTH TAX is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what you are pushing.

 

[Silent_One]

Joe wrote:

From 2002 to 2003. Overall, there has been a significant decrease from 2000 (Pre tax cuts) to 2003 (post tax cuts).

Ya, how about that Natoma, there's been a decrease?

 

[Natoma]

So, where exactly in there does it provide evidence to assert that "local / state taxes and levies" (the "effective tax increase" they talk about) have actually outpaced Federal tax burden reductions, such that the net is an increase? That's your entire overriding "point" in this thread...is it not?

Natoma showed the slight increase in the percentages he gave earlier. American Progress gave many examples of the 'Bush Tax Increase'. He fleshed it out with macroeconomic figures. I've seen those actually by looking at the congressional spending reports, and the latest figures on the debt and how much the federal tax receipts have declined since 2001.

From there it's only a leap to figure out what makes up the rest. But I don't think you or anyone else who doesn't see this as a "stealth tax" would want to put it all together and form the big picture. As I said, i guess it depend on your perspective of the problem. My father worked in the government all his life, so i have a little inside tack on these things. As always, my worthless two cents. Take it as you will.

I definitely do see it as a stealth tax, as do a lot of other economists, in effect wiping out the gains from a federal tax cut. If you get $300 back from the government (median american), but you're forced to spend $301 because of higher state taxes and levies to fund any particular mandate, then you've seen your tax burden increase.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I definitely do see it as a stealth tax, as do a lot of other economists, in effect wiping out the gains from a federal tax cut. If you get $300 back from the government (median american), but you're forced to spend $301 because of higher state taxes and levies to fund any particular mandate, then you've seen your tax burden increase.

Right...so now all you have to do, is PROVIDE DATA THAT SHOWS that the "average American" is in fact "forced to spend" $301 in stealth taxes, vs. the $300 saved in both fed and state tax cuts.

 

[Natoma]

But have not shown how the net effect is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what Natoma is pushing.

As I've said over and over in this thread, tax burden = taxes and levies. What is this referring to? Stealth Tax.

Sigh.

But you have not shown how the net effect INCLUDING THE STEALTH TAX is an overall tax increase for most / Average American, which is what you are pushing.

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.

These percentage figures come from looking at the federal tax receipts decline since 2001, as well as the increase in congressional spending and the increase in the debt. From there, it's just math to figure out the other macro force that hasn't been accounted for, i.e. state and local tax burden.