Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Stvn]

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 a math problem to figure out the other macro force that hasn't been accounted for, i.e. state and local tax burden.

Look it's rather obvious that you are going to "put the numbers" together to form a picture that you want to see Natoma, and Joe is going to do the same. The numbers can be used to support both of your claims frankly. God just leave it be. Both of you, make nice, and stop. If you can that is, and you're not just arguing just to argue.

American Progress vs Heritage, CBO vs anyone, Joe DeFuria vs Natoma, East vs West, Gay vs Straight, Black vs White. It's hysterical, but frankly pointless. Get back to work Nat.

 

[Natoma]

Did I ever tell you you're a bitch steve? Leave me and Joe be. Go back to your perlmonks.org bitch fights.

 

[Stvn]

Did I ever tell you you're a bitch steve? Leave me and Joe be. Go back to your perlmonks.org bitch fights.

Hey now, at least I'm doing something constructive.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Spending has increased 28% since Bush took office in 2001

What spending? Federal, State & Local? Total?

The debt has increased 27% since Bush took office in 2001 ($1.5 Trillion overall increase to date)

How have deficits changed?

Tax cuts have reduced federal intake 12% since Bush took office in 2001

Annual basis? Have TAX CUTS reduced federal intake? Or tax cuts plus a variety of other reasons? What's the change in state deficits?

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%.

Source...and basis for your assertion that state and local taxes are the only other "macro force" in question? And we already know that barring "stealth taxes", state and local taxes have decreased? Leaving "stealth taxes" as the entire driving force to make-up reductions in federal and state tax burdens?

 

[Natoma]

Spending has increased 28% since Bush took office in 2001

What spending? Federal, State & Local? Total?

Congressional Spending.

The debt has increased 27% since Bush took office in 2001 ($1.5 Trillion overall increase to date)

How have deficits changed?

The Debt has increased from $5.5 Trillion in 2001 to $7.03 Trillion today, a 27% increase.

Tax cuts have reduced federal intake 12% since Bush took office in 2001

Annual basis? Have TAX CUTS reduced federal intake? Or tax cuts plus a variety of other reasons?

The Tax Cuts themselves reduced federal intake by 20%. When you factor economic growth due to the tax cuts, which is what I explained before, then the percentage decline in federal receipts is 12%.

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%.

Source...and basis for your assertion that state and local taxes are the only other "macro force" in question? And we already know that barring "stealth taxes", state and local taxes have decreased? Leaving "stealth taxes" as the entire driving force to make-up reductions in federal and state tax burdens?

Source for what in particular? Congressional spending has increased 28%. Federal receipts have declined 12% taking into account economic growth (20% if you don't take into account increased economic growth), and the National Debt has increased by 27%. What do you need a source for in particular?

State and Local taxes make up roughly 10% of the slice, according to your own numbers. That leaves stealth taxes at 3%, quite in line with the figures American Progress was stating.

 

[Stvn]

The Debt has increased from $5.5 Trillion in 2001 to $7.03 Trillion today, a 27% increase.

The sad thing is, the debt is going to be about $12 Trillion by 2011 if the entire bush tax cuts are made permanent. Scary.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Congressional Spending.

So you're looking only at congressoinal spending, and not state/local spending as well? You're accounting for state/local revenues, but not state/local spending and deficits?

Source for what in particular?

I'm looking for sources on all your percentages, for Time frames you're talking about (which fiscal years...as we know 2001 was the first year of effective tax cuts, so we should be looking at 2000 as the base line for pre tax-cut situation.) Congressional spending has increased 28% from what fiscal year to now, for example.

It's better / clearer to work in absolute numbers, btw. (Exact fiscal years, and dollar amounts).

State and Local taxes make up roughly 10% of the slice, according to your own numbers.

I don't know what "slice" you refer too. According to my numbers, state and local taxes take away roughly 10% of earned income. This doesn't say anything about the portion of that income factoring into national debt, or congressional spending.

 

[Natoma]

Congressional Spending.

So you're looking only at congressoinal spending, and not state/local spending as well? You're accounting for state/local revenues, but not state/local spending and deficits?

The state and local expenditures have nothing to do with what we're looking at. States are mandated to have a balanced budget. Since the 2001 recession, states have been in cost cutting mode in order to take into account decreased tax receipts from not only the tax cuts, but from the recession and slow economic recovery itself. I thought it was assumed that would be factored in, such as the 12% reduction in federal tax receipts being the number only when factoring in Economic Growth, and 20% reduction when taken alone. Again, I didn't think it mattered to actually stipulate that point.

Source for what in particular?

I'm looking for sources on all your percentages, for Time frames you're talking about (which fiscal years...as we know 2001 was the first year of effective tax cuts, so we should be looking at 2000 as the base line for pre tax-cut situation.) Congressional spending has increased 28% from what fiscal year to now, for example.

It's better / clearer to work in absolute numbers, btw. (Exact fiscal years, and dollar amounts).

2001-2004 is the time frame, i.e. the Bush's tenure in office, as I said when I brought up those percentages.

Discretionary Non-defense spending has increased 24%, or $441 Billion from $1.864 Trillion in 2001 to $2.305 Trillion in 2004.

Adding in increased Defense Spending of $200 Billion during that time for the Iraq war, which was not included in the budget, but as "emergency supplementals," raises the percentage to 34%.

I took the average, i.e. 28%, because some people like to talk about defense spending when dealing with the budget, while others do not, even though it is coming out of our budget one way or another, whether as an "emergency supplemental" or as an official part of the budget.

State and Local taxes make up roughly 10% of the slice, according to your own numbers.

I don't know what "slice" you refer too. According to my numbers, state and local taxes take away roughly 10% of earned income. This doesn't say anything about the portion of that income factoring into national debt, or congressional spending.

The national debt is nothing but an overall snapshot of spending vs intake. It doesn't matter where the money that is taken in via taxes is allocated. If you take in $10 and spend $11 on Widgets A B and C, you've got a $1 deficit, that if not taken care of becomes $1 in debt. Does it matter what Widgets A B and C are in the grand scheme of things?

 

[pax]

I think this should boil down to what state spending is to be considered pork and if that pork (if it can be agreed upon as such) can be reduced to the amount fed spending was cut.

In Canada we have near same debates tho the fed is expected to share expenses as they also share jurisdiction.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You didn't address my first question on considering state spending / deficits.

2001-2004 is the time frame, i.e. the Bush's tenure in office, as I said when I brought up those percentages.

Well, 2004 revenues (and exact spending and debt for that matter) are certainly no where near set in stone, so in the end, you're making guesses regardless. (And here I thought we were talking about the "here and now?") And are you telling me that you used spending and income projections through fiscal 2004....and yet, you only include the debt figures as of today...not projected through the end of Bush's Tenure?

This is why I asked for sources...you've got data from inconsistent time frames here.

Isn't the debt estimated to be more like 7.2 Trillion at the end of Bush's term, or a 31% increase from when he assumed budget responsibilities? Certainly higher than todays's 7.02 trillion you quoted. Plugging this actually relevant 7.2 number into your "all encompassing" formula, you end up with a 9% "coverage gap", below the 12% reduction in federal taxes.

....I took the average, i.e. 28%,

Not a weighted average?

Natoma, you're making conclusions based on estimated / improperly configured numbers from inconsistent time frames.

 

[Natoma]

You didn't address my first question on considering state spending / deficits.

Ok, then I need you to rephrase the question. I thought I did but if I didn't, I don't understand what it is exactly that you're asking of me.

2001-2004 is the time frame, i.e. the Bush's tenure in office, as I said when I brought up those percentages.

Well, 2004 revenues (and exact spending and debt for that matter) are certainly no where near set in stone, so in the end, you're making guesses regardless. (And here I thought we were talking about the "here and now?") And are you telling me that you used spending and income projections through fiscal 2004....and yet, you only include the debt figures as of today...not projected through the end of Bush's Tenure?

This is why I asked for sources...you've got data from inconsistent time frames here.

The $2.305 Trillion figure is based on Bush's 2004 Budget. I consider that the "here and now" because it has already been approved. The only expenditures that are going to affect this are the estimated $100 Billion "emergency supplementals" that will be required for the soldiers in Iraq once their funding dries up in the 2004 Budget in September, which wasn't included in the budget in order to make the 2004 budget look "smaller."

Isn't the debt estimated to be more like 7.2 Trillion at the end of Bush's term, or a 31% increase from when he assumed budget responsibilities? Certainly higher than todays's 7.02 trillion you quoted. Plugging this actually relevant 7.2 number into your "all encompassing" formula, you end up with a 9% "coverage gap", below the 12% reduction in federal taxes.

$7.78 Trillion actually, by Januarly 31st, 2005, if Bush is not re-elected. Number courtesy of the U.S. National Debt Clock, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

That means an overall 41.5% increase in the national debt since Bush took office, not 31%. This increase is taking into account the "emergency supplemental" that will be required after the September Budgetary deadline for funding our troops in Iraq, and I think, but am not sure, Afghanistan, runs out.

....I took the average, i.e. 28%,

Not a weighted average?

Natoma, you're making conclusions based on estimated / improperly configured numbers from inconsistent time frames.

I'm dealing from January 2001 through the approved 2004 Budget timeframe, which ends in October. I call the 2004 Budget "today" because it is set in stone in terms of the minimum spending we will see this year. Anything over that, such as disaster relief and emergency supplementals obviously add to the figure, but that is the baseline I'm working from.

 

[Natoma]

I think this should boil down to what state spending is to be considered pork and if that pork (if it can be agreed upon as such) can be reduced to the amount fed spending was cut.

In Canada we have near same debates tho the fed is expected to share expenses as they also share jurisdiction.

The only problem pax, is that "pork" to one state is "necessity" to another. Here in NY, I look at corn-based ethanol subsidies as a waste of money. But try telling that to a corn farmer in Nebraska. Or tobacco subsidies for farmers in South Carolina.

Is that what you're referring to?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

$7.78 Trillion actually, by Januarly 31st, 2005, if Bush is not re-elected.

Um, then that significantly lowers the "Coverage Gap" even further. But your whole forumla is meaningless anyway. You are adding and subtracting "percentages" that are not based on the same thing. (You're subtracting a percent debt increase from a percent revenue decrease?)

Earlier you said something like it doesn't take a "mathemetician" to figure this stuff out. It does take simple algebra though. Pull some annual, absolute numbers for tax revenues and spending for the years in question, then we can actually talk.

It's clearly obvious though that any conlculsion you reached in terms of "net tax increase/decrease" is not valid in the slightest.

I'm dealing from January 2001 through the approved 2004 Budget timeframe, which ends in October.

But you didn't account for the debt amounts projected to October.

 

[Natoma]

Joe I said that I was dealing with the timeframe through the end of the 2004 budget. As I said before, if you want to bring the debt amassed by January 31st, 2005 into play, then we can do so, but only if we bring the 2005 Budget into play as well. But that is not what has been discussed to this point.

Taking that into account, the debt will have increased 36% by October of 2004, since Bush took office in 2001. Including emergency supplementals the increase is 37.7%, which is right below the 38% figure I gave earlier.

Anyway, It's 6pm. My work day is over. Tootles.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma,

You're not hearing me. Let's try it this way.

When does the 2004 fiscal period end? September 30, 2004. Right?

If you are using the fiscal 2004 buget (tax revenues and spending) in your projections, you also need to use the projected debt figures as of the end of the 2004 fiscal period, not the "right now" debt figure.

 

[Natoma]

December 2004 is when the federal fiscal year ends afaik, but the 2004 budget itself ends in October. Lord knows why.

Why do you ask?

Point taken. Then by complete 2003 figures, the coverage gap actually increases. At the end of 2003, the national debt was $6.7 Trillion, an increase of 22% since 2001. Spending had increased 26% in that same timeframe, and federal tax receipts had declined 12% still. That leaves a 16% gap, of which 10% is covered by states. A 3% increase if you will over my prior numbers.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

See revised post above.

 

[pax]

I think this should boil down to what state spending is to be considered pork and if that pork (if it can be agreed upon as such) can be reduced to the amount fed spending was cut.

In Canada we have near same debates tho the fed is expected to share expenses as they also share jurisdiction.

The only problem pax, is that "pork" to one state is "necessity" to another. Here in NY, I look at corn-based ethanol subsidies as a waste of money. But try telling that to a corn farmer in Nebraska. Or tobacco subsidies for farmers in South Carolina.

Is that what you're referring to?

Oh ya Im sure there are pork programs but some are far from pork. But in neo con thinking any tax thats seen as income redistribution is pork. No matter how basic the assistance a given program is. Im just saying the argument boils down to what portion of state spending can be called pork. But if that amount of spending is actually pork in the case of recent fed state subsidies transfers is whats not dealt with.

Joe seems to have a legal argument that seems pretty strong tho it wouldnt hold up north here. But definitely much state spending is essential to the welfare of the community in those states. So you tend to hold the moral side of the argument much better I think...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh ya Im sure there are pork programs but some are far from pork. But in neo con thinking any tax thats seen as income redistribution is pork.

Nice way to lay down the blanket there.

Joe seems to have a legal argument that seems pretty strong tho it wouldnt hold up north here. But definitely much state spending is essential to the welfare of the community in those states. So you tend to hold the moral side of the argument much better I think...

More accurately....conservatives think about stuff....liberals "feel" about it.

 

[pax]

Lets just say if either side can define what is pork and if it can account to the amount the states lost in fed transfers then the argument will have been won by that side... In Canada there is very little pork left. virtually 99% of spending is on essentials that both sides agree on. Even canadian neo cons wouldnt give up the huge subsidy to biz that the low taxes (vs high private sector premiums) deliver in health care.

The only debate in regards to health care is that the feds need to shoulder more than the 16% share they do now in the cost of national health care. If increased to 25% the few non essential waiting lists will dissapear. And we will still spend about half as much per capita as you guys do on health care.

Canada recently ranked 1st in terms of attractiveness to multinational corporate investment. Dont ask me how but we even beat the States as a better place to do biz. Even with the recent high dollar... This was amongst first world countries... I think it was The Economist but Im looking for links from the newbit I caught on CBC...