This will warm the cockles of Doove's heart

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Originally Posted by Marshall

Doofus, nothing to say about the other tax cuts mentioned in the article......NO?.............. ...ha! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Just because my radicals are just as looney as your radicals does not make either of them right. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Do charts make your eyes glaze over?

.

And just for the record, between 1960 and 2000, total revenues decreased from one year to the next all of two times. '71 and '83. But in George Bush's eight years, they decreased from one year to the next (are you ready for this?) four times. That's right, four times in eight years. After falling only twice in the previous forty.

Not sure why i point that out, exactly, but since i seem to remember having read somewhere how Bush's tax cuts increased revenues, i just thought it was worth mentioning.

Citation. Originally Posted by Doove

I guess i was remiss in not mentioning that Bush also cut taxes in 2001, whereby revenues dropped in '01, '02 and '03 - at least according to what i've read recently. And while, after the '03 tax cuts, revenues went back to increasing on a yearly basis, as they did for about 94% of the 40+ years prior to Bush coming into office, they again dropped in '08.

My apologies for not being more explicit.

I guess i was remiss in not mentioning that Bush also cut taxes in 2001, whereby revenues dropped in '01, '02 and '03 - at least according to what i've read recently. And while, after the '03 tax cuts, revenues went back to increasing on a yearly basis, as they did for about 94% of the 40+ years prior to Bush coming into office, they again dropped in '08.

My apologies for not being more explicit. Originally Posted by Doove

I was waiting and waiting and waiting for you to say this, so I could say:

Many of the tax reductions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!....etc etc

Now does anyone want to discuss the revenue drop in 2008?????

I know I do!

Someone once said, and i quote:

"Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues".

I would like to correct this poster.

Tax cuts INCREASE Revenues; They have ALWAYS Increased Revenues....except when they didn't.

Like after the 2001 tax cuts which don't count because, of course, some of the cuts were designed to be gradual over the course of 5 years or so. Nor can we count the Reagan tax cuts because when revenues decreased in 2003, well, that was so pre 9/11.

Someone once said, and i quote:

"Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues".

I would like to correct this poster.

Tax cuts INCREASE Revenues; They have ALWAYS Increased Revenues....except when they didn't.

Like after the 2001 tax cuts which don't count because, of course, some of the cuts were designed to be gradual over the course of 5 years or so. Nor can we count the Reagan tax cuts because when revenues decreased in 2003, well, that was so pre 9/11. Originally Posted by Doove

the old bromide is applicable here: you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

The problem you have is you don't know WHY tax cuts lead to an increase in revenue.....you can't figure it out......if that doesn't bother you, it should

As Sinatra would say: I'm done with you....your money's on the dresser

Actually, I just started this thread because I wanted to use the word "cockles" Originally Posted by pjorourke

LMAO!

x

the old bromide is applicable here: you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts! Originally Posted by Marshall

You know it!

Doove, you do realize, despite the fact that The New York Times routinely characterizes them as "tax cuts for the wealthy", that most of the benefits of the early '00s tax reductions went to taxpayers who are decidedly not well off, don't you?

That should certainly warm the cockles of your heart.

Shoudn't it?

Doove, you do realize, despite the fact that The New York Times routinely characterizes them as "tax cuts for the wealthy", that most of the benefits of the early '00s tax reductions went to taxpayers who are decidedly not well off, don't you?

That should certainly warm the cockles of your heart.

Shoudn't it? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If you want to compare how those cuts benefited me vs how they benefited Bill Gates or Bill O'Reilly, then let's have at it.

If you want to compare how those cuts benefited me vs how they benefited Bill Gates or Bill O'Reilly, then let's have at it. Originally Posted by Doove

See thats the point Doofus. You ask the question like Gates and O'Reillly are in the same situation. Back in 2000, gates had very little "income" -- lots of wealth, but little income. O'Reilly was the reverse.

I suspect that as a percentage of your tax bill, those cuts had a bigger effect on you than O'Reilly. Gates probably paid more taxes as a result of that bill because it dropped the capital gains rates and he stepped up his sales of MSFT stock so he could reinvest the money in his tax-free foundation -- the contributions to which dropped his taxable income.

See thats the point Doofus. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You're right, it is the point. To say that 120 million people, in aggregate, received a greater benefit than 1 million people (or however it is the numbers shake out) is.....how does the saying go......you can use statistics to prove anything you want? And while CM was incredibly vague in his point, as he often is, vague enough to claim that's not what he meant, i'm pretty confident that is what he meant.

I read somehwere that during the internal debate over the 2003 tax cuts, even George Bush attempted to argue that the well off got such a nice benefit in 2001 that he thought 2003 should be geared more towards those lower on the income scale. But President Cheney over-ruled him.