Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[zidane1strife]

Well, forgetting about the tax issues, and speaking more about the budget...

I've read that congress has been very generous in their spending and that Bush's not veto'ed much... Is that true?

real spending increases in fiscal 2002, 2003, and 2004 have averaged more than 7 percent—versus 1.5 percent over the past 40 years.

(is that real?)

If this is true... is this the path that should be seeked?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I've read that congress has been very generous in their spending and that Bush's not veto'ed much... Is that true?

Basically, yes. I'm not sure if Bush has actually exercised his Veto power yet, though he has threatened it once or twice recently. There are a few bills I would have like to have seen vetoed.

real spending increases in fiscal 2002, 2003, and 2004 have averaged more than 7 percent—versus 1.5 percent over the past 40 years.

(is that real?)

Doesn't sound like it...

No way in hell "real gov't spending" (whatever "Real" means) has only averaged 1.5 percent annually over the past 40 years.

But in the end, yes, cutting spending is the way forward.

 

[Willmeister]

Now, again, what you haven't done is show the data that supports that "overall" people have a higher tax burden today, than they did when Bush took office, which is Natoma's assertion.

You should have noticed that I was speaking of a future if things were not changed. I wasn't saying that they had a higher burden today than when the last popularly elected President was in office. It should have been obvious had you read the article.

 

[Stvn]

The rapid rise of state college inflation, which historically lagged the rate of tuition inflation in the private colleges and universities is attributed primarily to the state revenue shortfall throughout the recession.

Joe,

Now to be fair, some of this shortfall, this increase in "tax burden" through tax increases at the state and local level as well as additional "stealth taxes" such as gasoline taxes and higher tuition fees, have come about due to the economic downturn. It isn't all Bush's "fault" per se. However, the fact of the matter remains that there has been a definitive overall increase in the outlays for the "average american" due to the fiscal policies of the last 3 years.

So to say that the tax burden for average americans has actually increased during the bush presidency due to the tax cuts, levies, and spending policies at the federal, state, and local levels actually is pretty accurate.

I wrote that very same thing that Geeforcer put forth earlier. I'm saying that all of these things that make up fiscal policy have contributed. Tax cuts, the decreased budgetary outlays to states, etc, along with the recession.

You're not reading, which is partly why I feel sometimes that it's fruitless to discuss these detailed points. Sometimes I feel like you're just glossing over, expecting me to say something, and then rebutting on what you expect or believe I said, rather than what was actually printed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You should have noticed that I was speaking of a future if things were not changed.

You should have noticed that "the future" is completely irrelevant to this entire thread.

I wasn't saying that they had a higher burden today than when the last popularly elected President was in office.

That's exactly what Natoma was saying, and that's precisely what I object to..

 

[Joe DeFuria]

However, the fact of the matter remains that there has been a definitive overall increase in the outlays for the "average american" due to the fiscal policies of the last 3 years.

The fact of the matter, Stvn, is that this is not a fact at all.

You're not reading, which is partly why I feel sometimes that it's fruitless to discuss these detailed points. Sometimes I feel like you're just glossing over, expecting me to say something, and then rebutting on what you expect or believe I said, rather than what was actually printed.

Stvn, you keep on making tangental points which have nothing to do with my objection to Natoma, and my objection to your similar statement of "there has been a definitive overall increase in the outlays for the "average american" due to the fiscal policies of the last 3 years."

I read your posts. In fact, I said earlier that if you want to argue that some americans have a higher outlay, or that just looking at federal tax in and of itself is not the entire indicator of "outlays", then I would have no disagreement with you.

 

[Willmeister]

You should have noticed that "the future" is completely irrelevant to this entire thread.

No, it's not. You said Natoma was incorrect in his belief that Bush wasn't being disingenuous about his tax cut. Bush and his Tax-Cutting Cheerleader Squad clearly misrepresented how these tax cuts would negatively impact people in the future and how his tax-cut would eventually be financed by a very regressive tax system. They clearly left out key details in order to sell economic snake oil. After all, they'll be gone from government well before the economic sh*t hits the fan.

 

[Stvn]

You're not reading, which is partly why I feel sometimes that it's fruitless to discuss these detailed points. Sometimes I feel like you're just glossing over, expecting me to say something, and then rebutting on what you expect or believe I said, rather than what was actually printed.

Stvn, you keep on making tangental points which have nothing to do with my objection to Natoma, and my objection to your similar statement of "there has been a definitive overall increase in the outlays for the "average american" due to the fiscal policies of the last 3 years."

I read your posts. In fact, I said earlier that if you want to argue that some americans have a higher outlay, or that just looking at federal tax in and of itself is not the entire indicator of "outlays", then I would have no disagreement with you.

Joe this is a semantics game. The statement, "Americans got $300 tax return" is not accurate semantically because you could then say, Some americans got $100 from their tax cuts. Some americans got $2000. Some americans got $100,000. If you want to make it semantically correct then you'd say: [The average] american got $300.

The average american is paying out more than $1000 more in aggregate outlays since 2001, and has seen their share of the national debt increase by $1,567 in that time as well. The average american received $300 in tax cuts. Is it a fair and truthful statement that the average american is indeed paying more over the last 3 years? Does this mean that some americans aren't paying more and in fact have a lower burden because they skew the average? Certainly. But the average is indeed paying more. The facts are there, indisputable.

If the average of 1000 americans was $500 in 2001 (everyone paid $500 each), and the average now is $1000, but 500 americans are paying $2000 and 500 americans are paying $0, is it still an accurate statement to say americans have a higher tax burden? Yes.

Natoma said that americans have a higher tax burden overall. Is that semantically correct? No. Would it have been semantically correct to say that the average american has a higher tax burden? Yes.

I think I finally see what you're arguing, and it's really nothing but a semantical game. You're not arguing facts. You're arguing word parsing and meaning. That may be useful in a debate on definitions or language or grammar, but that's completely worthless in a debate of numbers. This being the case, I see absolutely no reason to continue this discussion. I thought we were discussing something worthwhile, not semantics. :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, it's not. You said Natoma was incorrect in his belief that Bush wasn't being disingenuous about his tax cut.

Um...Natoma's specific claim:

In the real world, Bush's policies have caused a net tax increase on the "average" american.....My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased....The point is, as I stated before, the overall tax burden is higher now, but it has been shifted to the states.

Natoma specifically claims that Bush is being disengenuous when he claims to have cut taxes because from the time he took office to today, taxes and levies / stealth taxes outweigh the tax cuts.

Not you, nor Stevn, not Natoma has shown that.

Bush and his Tax-Cutting Cheerleader Squad clearly misrepresented how these tax cuts would negatively impact people in the future...

Says who? And as the tax cuts spur economic growth, causing prices to go down and more people employed, how is that a negative impact?

Christ...now you're trying to turn this into some "are tax cuts good or bad in general" discussion? That can be debated endlessly, and is not the point of my objection to Natoma's assertion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe this is a semantics game.

No, it's "just a matter of supplying the data game."

The average american is paying out more than $1000 more in aggregate outlays since 2001,

Based on what math?

But the average is indeed paying more. The facts are there, indisputable.

Lol...right.

Natoma said that americans have a higher tax burden overall. Is that semantically correct? No.

My God...someone said Natoma was wrong...

Would it have been semantically correct to say that the average american has a higher tax burden? Yes.

Who's playing semantic games here, Stvn? Now you're telling me what we all knew all along...that Natoma was wrong...but, well, if you change what he said, now you're claiming it's right? (Without having yet shown evidence?) Now how are you defining a "average" american? Someone who didn't pay any taxes in the first place?

I think I finally see what you're arguing, and it's really nothing but a semantical game. You're not arguing facts. You're arguing word parsing and meaning.

I don't believe I just read that.

You're putting words in Natoma's mouth...and you're accusing ME of playing sematic games? This is just too much. Now you've finally lost it, Stvn. NOW you see what I'm arguing? As if it has either changed, or is not directly refuting Natoma's actual assertion from the beginning?

I see absolutely no reason to continue this discussion.

Yeah, we've heard that before. Would be a nice surprise, but somehow, why do I doubt you're being sincere.

I thought we were discussing something worthwhile, not semantics. :?

We weren't discussing semantics and changing Natoma's words until brought it up. Go fiugure.

 

[Stvn]

If you play petty semantic games Joe, then you are right and Natoma is incorrect. If I said that americans got $300 in a tax return, that would be wrong of course in a strict semantics sense, because the average american got $300 back, not every american individually.

But who in the world makes such asinine arguments in order to be correct? It's pretty obvious what was being conveyed. Are you really that desperate to win, that desperate to be right? It's useless talking to you if you simply must parse every single word down to its base meaning and argue every last period and exclamation point. This is almost as bad as it is trying to get Vince to have a cordial conversation.

You're even playing semantic games right now. I did not say Natoma was wrong in his idea. I said that his use of the language in making that point was not correct, if you're going to be the anal college english taskmaster-type teacher. His ideas and what he presented, and for that matter I presented, are in fact completely correct.

Listen to me well. I don't like these semantical nits that you like to parse and weed through in order to make a point at all. Your discussion style is just not conducive to good and wholesome exchanges. I'm trying to talk big picture here and you're complaining about my dotted Is and crossed Ts and whether a word is out of place.

And no, this has nothing to do with this discussion in particular, but the way in which you engage people in general. As far as I am concerned, I've proved my point here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=230260&highlight=#230260

So as I said before, there's nothing to discuss further on this subject. You can parse my words down to their very atomic structure in order to find some "flaw" all you like if that so pleases you. With that, I'm done completely with this thread. Anything further would just be a waste of my efforts it seems.

 

[Vince]

Whatever your data shows, no matter how much you try and separate it from spending, in the macroeconomic picture, growth did occur, with massive historical deficits in tow. You keep saying that government revenues increased under supply side economics. Vince no one is saying anything to the contrary. In fact, every economist I've read states quite clearly that growth occurred in the 1980s, just as growth is occurring today.

I think what every economist on the other hand has said, and I have repeated, is that supply side economics have failed to grow us out of deficits. Stop for a second, stop inventing this argument that people are saying Supply side economics have not generated growth, and read what is being said.

This "macroeconomic" argument is fallacious and politically motivated. For example, there was clear revenue growth in the '80s beyond that which occurred before the Supply-Side cuts were implemented. You, yourself, stated that it's beyond question that growth happened and the actual revenue numbers agree with those predicted by Arthur Laffer.

Thus, it's logical that if revenues at level N occurred before the cuts, with mN (m+>1) occurring after the cuts - no taxation policy would have produced a non-deficit!

It's immediately apparent that with the Laffer Curve bounding revenue generation (which you admit to) NO economic policy then could have greater revenues!

Thus, either the economy is incapable of yielding a surplus in praxis at anytime or there are independent influences on the government profit isolated from revenue generation. Which is what Spending is, read a frickin 101 macroeconomics book.

Right here we've shown that based off what you already agreed to, your argument is logically inconsistent and incorrect. It's been fun.

This is something you keep missing Vince. What has been the main argument behind implementing supply side economics? That it can spur growth enough to grow us out of deficits.

And what you keep missing is that the Supply-Side camp stated that it would grow us out of deficits threw the raise in government revenue predicted by Arthur Laffer when you cut taxes.

This is exactly what happened. Your entire statement is so amazingly obtuse; you just have no clue as to what was being stated and how the almost Keynesian Spending policies comming from the Congress influenced the total deficit. Way to be a tool of partisan politics; let’s put it this way:

• I own a restaurant and make $10 a day in revenue with $12 in costs, some of my advisors predict that if I cut my prices more people will buy my product and my total revenue will increase and I'll grown out of my deficit.
  
  I then cut my prices and my revenues go from $10 a day to $15 a day from the pricing change.
  
  Meanwhile, my restaurant is attacked by cockroaches and I need to hire an outside firm to eliminate the threat. So, I end up paying an additional $5 a day to this firm to kill the cockroaches - bringing the total effect to a deficit of $2/day.

Now, answer:

• Were my advisors wrong*?
• Was their policy incorrect?
• Is the pricing policy just a theory with no empirical evidence?

And since you're a macroeconomics guru:

• How would an economist treat the system? Would he "try and separate it [Revenue] from spending", why and why not.

Only in the eyes of people like you and Natoma....

PS. You're use of the term macroeconomics in the way you did is an insult to the field; being a field which is built upon the separation and study of market forces such as of intake (revenue) and expenditure and the resulting dynamics of when the seperate and controllable forces are in a system. It's clear you have little concept of how this works (less than even I), other than the talking points you've picked up from politicians and google.com

* I'm eagerly awaiting the typical semantic game based off this question of "Yes, they were wrong because they didn't play Miss Cleo and factor in the non-cyclic, atypical occurrences that happen"

 

[zidane1strife]

Thus, either the economy is incapable of yielding a surplus in praxis at anytime or there are independent influences on the government profit isolated from revenue generation. Which is what Spending is, read a frickin 101 macroeconomics book.

Well I assume you mean spending is separate from revenue generation. Yes spending is in some ways isolated from revenue generation, but not entirely I'd say.

And what you keep missing is that the Supply-Side camp stated that it would grow us out of deficits threw the raise in government revenue predicted by Arthur Laffer when you cut taxes.

You could out grow the deficits, if they didn't begin rising at ever increasing speeds ad infinitum. That is to say that if we supposedly allowed the government to keep spending at an ever increasing pace(say a 10Trillion program, over 2 years, to build an atlantis esque city got approved, and follow that with similar ludicrous escapades indefinitely...), you can't possibly expect the deficit would be outgrown in such a scenario. No?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you play petty semantic games Joe, then you are right and Natoma is incorrect. If I said that americans got $300 in a tax return, that would be wrong of course in a strict semantics sense...

Who's being petty, Stvn?

Natoma argued for two pages trying to defend this so-called "strict" definition.

....because the average american got $300 back, not every american individually.

1) How is that figure arrived at?
2) If the "average" american got $300 back due to the cuts, then you realize that the "average" american is no longer paying ANY income tax AT ALL.. As $300 per individual is the difference between tax based on the "old" low tax bracket, and the new one.

So, then, the so-called average american pays no federal taxes? I'm going to be really pissed off if I find out that's true.

I see then. Natoma is playing semantical games with the President. I mean, you can't cut taxes from someone who isn't paying any, and you can't cut taxes such that people are getting refunds of more than they actually paid. So, Bush is being disengenuous when it's implied that TAXPAYERS have a lower tax burden?

But who in the world makes such asinine arguments in order to be correct?

(/Looks at Natoma...)

It's pretty obvious what was being conveyed. Are you really that desperate to win, that desperate to be right?

Um, hello? As I said Natoma spent multiple pages, pulling "percentages" out of his ass to try and prove the very thing you're telling me is "petty". At least maybe now you understand why I've been particularly harsh toward Natoma and his line of argumentation, and the fact he still has not recognized he's wrong.. He had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to set the record straight about "semantics", if indeed he was trying to argue "what you say" he was trying to argue. And yet, he didn't...he just vehemently defended his position.

It's useless talking to you if you simply must parse every single word down to its base meaning and argue every last period and exclamation point. This is almost as bad as it is trying to get Vince to have a cordial conversation.

This is a laugh riot. This is about the 10th time in this discussion you've told me how "useless" it is to have a discussion with me. Yet, you keep having it. You're the one doing the parsing here, Stvn. Not Me. Natoma was the one trying to defend the "overall tax increase", and after having been shown how wrong that was, still defended it. Not me.

And no, this has nothing to do with this discussion in particular, but the way in which you engage people in general.

And this has as much to do with this as you Natoma coming to you and asking for help every time he gest in over his head? Do I have to go and dig up some threads where Natoma says "Well, I've talked to some people at work, and they all agree with me?"

So as I said before, there's nothing to discuss further on this subject.

Yes, you've said it countless times.

With that, I'm done completely with this thread. Anything further would just be a waste of my efforts it seems.

At what point do I just get to call you a liar?

 

[Legion]

and then there was silence...

 

[Willmeister]

Says who? And as the tax cuts spur economic growth, causing prices to go down and more people employed, how is that a negative impact?

*If* that happens, which it won't. Why? Economy isn't a closed system. So Bush gave a bunch of tax cuts? Think that makes up for the millions of jobs lost and outsourced? I don't think so, and history will prove us right. At best, Bush's taxcut might have stemmed a little blood loss.