Bush wishes his name wasn't attached to tax cuts

[redandguilty]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/10/news/economy/bush-speech/?hpt=hp_t3

Not an admission that they were a bad idea, but perhaps recognition of his popularity/popular perception of his legacy.

"I wish they weren't called the Bush tax cuts. If they were called someone else's tax cuts, they'd be less likely to be raised,"

 

[redandguilty]

It was clear they were a bad deal even back when they rolled out. If memory serves, the bulk of the tax cuts were immediate for the poor and middle, and the cuts for the wealthy rolled out over the course of a few years. So when the legislation passed, they could just point to what would happen to taxes in the next year. But longer term, the deal got sweeter for the top brackets.

 

[tsmith7559]

It was clear they were a bad deal even back when they rolled out. If memory serves, the bulk of the tax cuts were immediate for the poor and middle, and the cuts for the wealthy rolled out over the course of a few years. So when the legislation passed, they could just point to what would happen to taxes in the next year. But longer term, the deal got sweeter for the top brackets.

revenues soared with his cuts.....highest revenues ever.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

 

[Michchamp]

It was clear they were a bad deal even back when they rolled out. If memory serves, the bulk of the tax cuts were immediate for the poor and middle, and the cuts for the wealthy rolled out over the course of a few years. So when the legislation passed, they could just point to what would happen to taxes in the next year. But longer term, the deal got sweeter for the top brackets.

yeah.

I also don't agree that the tax cuts "made money."

That whole Laffer Curve premise has been disproven. you can easily google it. And even if the government DID bring in more revenue over the next years, the tax cuts didn't happen in a vacuum; the economy was recovering from the dot-com bust & the cost of the 9/11 attacks during '01-'03...

...as we raced into the "Bush Boom" fueled by easy credit, high consumer debt, and an overheated mortgage market that exploded and required the biggest government bailout in the history of mankind. Remind me again how 2001 - 2008 wasn't a complete disaster?

 

[redandguilty]

revenues soared with his cuts.....highest revenues ever.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

Oh...ok...that justifies the deception.

 

[tsmith7559]

yeah.

I also don't agree that the tax cuts "made money."

That whole Laffer Curve premise has been disproven. you can easily google it. And even if the government DID bring in more revenue over the next years, the tax cuts didn't happen in a vacuum; the economy was recovering from the dot-com bust & the cost of the 9/11 attacks during '01-'03...

...as we raced into the "Bush Boom" fueled by easy credit, high consumer debt, and an overheated mortgage market that exploded and required the biggest government bailout in the history of mankind. Remind me again how 2001 - 2008 wasn't a complete disaster?

the economy was in a recession when Bush took over... 911 cost 1 trillion to this country....

I dont believe its a conservative principle to give money to people who cant pay it back....that only happens when your forced to give loans to people not worthy, ie. a liberal utopia

 

[redandguilty]

The whole "job creator" argument is fundamentally flawed in its popular usage anyway. Job creators aren't employing people with the money subject to personal income tax. If you want to talk job creation, talk about corporate taxes. People directly employing other people isn't where the jobs are in the economy.

 

[Michchamp]

The whole "job creator" argument is fundamentally flawed in its popular usage anyway. Job creators aren't employing people with the money subject to personal income tax. If you want to talk job creation, talk about corporate taxes. People directly employing other people isn't where the jobs are in the economy.

No, no, no. You have to understand things the "correct" way.

when taxes are lowered, the government collects more of them, because taxes on rich people are the only factor that affects the U.S. economy. Once taxes are lowered on rich people, businesses go nuts and start producing more goods, hiring more workers and paying them higher wages.

 

[Michchamp]

BTW, this IS pretty funny:

"I wish they weren't called the Bush tax cuts. If they were called someone else's tax cuts, they'd be less likely to be raised,"​

At least we didn't name any of the other terrible things he did after him, like "The Bush Iraq War," or the "Bush Afghanistan War," or "The Bush Economic Collapse," or the "Bush Domestic Spying Scandal." etc. etc.

 

[byco42]

The Laffer Curve does not solely claim that "tax cuts raise revenue." Its main point is that there is a marginal point of taxation that will collect the most revenue, and it is not always the same point. Circumstances can dictate that that marginal point could be anywhere along the curve, from a zero-percent rate to a 100-percent rate or anywhere in between.

 

[redandguilty]

The Laffer Curve does not solely claim that "tax cuts raise revenue." Its main point is that there is a marginal point of taxation that will collect the most revenue, and it is not always the same point. Circumstances can dictate that that marginal point could be anywhere along the curve, from a zero-percent rate to a 100-percent rate or anywhere in between.

What you actually tax matters too.

 

[Michchamp]

The Laffer Curve does not solely claim that "tax cuts raise revenue." Its main point is that there is a marginal point of taxation that will collect the most revenue, and it is not always the same point. Circumstances can dictate that that marginal point could be anywhere along the curve, from a zero-percent rate to a 100-percent rate or anywhere in between.

okay, well insofar as it is an abstract concept, I agree. To the extent it is used by some conservative commentators as a basis to justify specific tax cuts on the wealthier members of society which correspondingly put more of the burden on the poor & middle class... it is not accurate.

 

[byco42]

okay, well insofar as it is an abstract concept, I agree. To the extent it is used by some conservative commentators as a basis to justify specific tax cuts on the wealthier members of society which correspondingly put more of the burden on the poor & middle class... it is not accurate.

I think that everyone's marginal income tax rate should be the same: Zero Percent.

 

[cheeno]

I think that everyone's marginal income tax rate should be the same: Zero Percent.

Isn't your kin in the military? Guess he would be taking a pay cut.

 

[redandguilty]

okay, well insofar as it is an abstract concept, I agree. To the extent it is used by some conservative commentators as a basis to justify specific tax cuts on the wealthier members of society which correspondingly put more of the burden on the poor & middle class... it is not accurate.

Exactly. The validity of and ability for us to know where we are on the Laffer curve does nothing to justify the strategy of sneaking huge tax breaks for the rich in a deal that's packaged to look like tax breaks for the middle in its 1st couple years. In a time when the middle class is shrinking, why do the rich get a bigger cut than the middle?

 

[byco42]

Isn't your kin in the military? Guess he would be taking a pay cut.

He served from 2002-2010. There are other ways to raise revenue for the government coffers than skimming people's income. Nine states manage to do it.

 

[Michchamp]

He served from 2002-2010. There are other ways to raise revenue for the government coffers than skimming people's income. Nine states manage to do it.

good luck raising the Pentagon's yearly budget that way.

maybe a 100,000% increase on the cost of a pack of Marlboros would do the trick.

 

[byco42]

good luck raising the Pentagon's yearly budget that way.

maybe a 100,000% increase on the cost of a pack of Marlboros would do the trick.

Interesting that the status quo is tax and spend and even people as intelligent as you accept it as axiomatic.

 

[Michchamp]

Interesting that the status quo is tax and spend and even people as intelligent as you accept it as axiomatic.

Yes, I generally agree with the concept. There are certain duties, services and obligations that the government can and should provide, and fairest way to raise the funds to support them is through a tax of the citizenry. This is not really complicated.

 

[byco42]

Yes, I generally agree with the concept. There are certain duties, services and obligations that the government can and should provide, and fairest way to raise the funds to support them is through a tax of the citizenry. This is not really complicated.

We very likely differ on the nature and extent of those "duties, services and obligations," which would then affect the way they are funded.