Thursday, May 11, 2006
New York Times Tax "Cut" Agenda
There is yet another edtorial at the NYT about extending the President's tax rate cuts, decrying, you guessed it, tax cuts for the rich. Is this part of the repeat it until they believe it plan? Here are some of the tired old arguments:
The top 10 percent of income earners will get almost all of the benefits, and everyone else will get crumbs.
To justify the giveaway, President Bush and Congressional Republicans insist that tax cuts for investors benefit everyone — and pay for themselves — by stimulating economic growth. That assertion is seriously delusional.
Tax rate cuts obviously help the tax burden on tax payers. What could be more clear. What has it done to tax revenues? Last month this is what occurred:
$ 119 billion = Government surplus in April '06.
13% = Increase in monthly federal tax receipts (April '05 v. April '06).
Maybe that increase in tax revenues is just a delusion. Seriously.
You'd think the NYT would be aware of the spectacular success President Bush's tax rate cuts have been in invigorating the recessionlike, diving economy he inherited 5 years ago, but I guess truth is not the agenda at the NYT; Democrat success in '06 is the agenda, the truth be damned.
The top 10 percent of income earners will get almost all of the benefits, and everyone else will get crumbs.
To justify the giveaway, President Bush and Congressional Republicans insist that tax cuts for investors benefit everyone — and pay for themselves — by stimulating economic growth. That assertion is seriously delusional.
Tax rate cuts obviously help the tax burden on tax payers. What could be more clear. What has it done to tax revenues? Last month this is what occurred:
$ 119 billion = Government surplus in April '06.
13% = Increase in monthly federal tax receipts (April '05 v. April '06).
Maybe that increase in tax revenues is just a delusion. Seriously.
You'd think the NYT would be aware of the spectacular success President Bush's tax rate cuts have been in invigorating the recessionlike, diving economy he inherited 5 years ago, but I guess truth is not the agenda at the NYT; Democrat success in '06 is the agenda, the truth be damned.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:35 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
First,
April is always a surplus month. Why? that is when taxes come in.
Yes, revenue is growing, up from the pitiful rates that we experienced directly after the tax cut. The surge in the economy has helped get revenue back in line with what it was before the cut, but should a downturn take place that 15% Capital Gains tax rate is going to really sting.
I'm not saying that the lefties are being strait, (they are not), but you wingers are doing the same thing with this kind of one-sided information.
I heard someone say that revenue was growing faster between 2001 and 2005 that it did between 1995 and 1999. Of course it did! Between 95 and 99 revenue was growing at a steady 7-9%. In 2001, revenue was shrinking, now it is growing again, so of course it is growing faster. DUH!!!
Kind of like starting with a month that has higher than usual casualties and then charting an "improving trend" from there.
Both examples, while true, hide the bigger picture.
You are playing the same game as the NYT: Misinformation.
You probably don't even know it though.
April is always a surplus month. Why? that is when taxes come in.
Yes, revenue is growing, up from the pitiful rates that we experienced directly after the tax cut. The surge in the economy has helped get revenue back in line with what it was before the cut, but should a downturn take place that 15% Capital Gains tax rate is going to really sting.
I'm not saying that the lefties are being strait, (they are not), but you wingers are doing the same thing with this kind of one-sided information.
I heard someone say that revenue was growing faster between 2001 and 2005 that it did between 1995 and 1999. Of course it did! Between 95 and 99 revenue was growing at a steady 7-9%. In 2001, revenue was shrinking, now it is growing again, so of course it is growing faster. DUH!!!
Kind of like starting with a month that has higher than usual casualties and then charting an "improving trend" from there.
Both examples, while true, hide the bigger picture.
You are playing the same game as the NYT: Misinformation.
You probably don't even know it though.
Thanks for only accusing me of ignorance rather than knowing deception. Right back at ya'.
About the casualty rates. I started doing it last October--there was no decision to pick a month with a lot of battle deaths. And OK, April is a good month for tax revenues, but isn't the comparison all the way back to 2005 a valid one?
And wasn't the pitiful revenue after the tax rate cut overwhelmingly because we were in a shallow depression? Just asking, your knowledge about the financial world dwarfs mine. Happy Czech Spring.
About the casualty rates. I started doing it last October--there was no decision to pick a month with a lot of battle deaths. And OK, April is a good month for tax revenues, but isn't the comparison all the way back to 2005 a valid one?
And wasn't the pitiful revenue after the tax rate cut overwhelmingly because we were in a shallow depression? Just asking, your knowledge about the financial world dwarfs mine. Happy Czech Spring.
You started with October?
The first one I read was in December, which was tracking back from October so from my vantage it was playing with statistics.
If you started in October, kudos.
The drop was a combination of both actually. Revenue was slumping, but the tax cuts exasperated the problem in the short term. Right now the supply-siders are looking pretty good, but this has been an incredible bull run for the market.
The key will be to see if it holds out when there is a downturn.
And most important (and what is being ingored in all of this) is that the public debt is still rapidly growing. The record for one fiscal year was 2003-2004 when it grew by just under $600 billion. In 2004-2005 it grew by closer to $550 billion.
So far in the first 7.5 months of fiscal year 2005-2006 it has grown by about $420 billion, even with this surplus. We are on track for a new record.
So despite the fact that tax cuts are "working", the hole that it helped put us in continues to grown unchecked.
The first one I read was in December, which was tracking back from October so from my vantage it was playing with statistics.
If you started in October, kudos.
The drop was a combination of both actually. Revenue was slumping, but the tax cuts exasperated the problem in the short term. Right now the supply-siders are looking pretty good, but this has been an incredible bull run for the market.
The key will be to see if it holds out when there is a downturn.
And most important (and what is being ingored in all of this) is that the public debt is still rapidly growing. The record for one fiscal year was 2003-2004 when it grew by just under $600 billion. In 2004-2005 it grew by closer to $550 billion.
So far in the first 7.5 months of fiscal year 2005-2006 it has grown by about $420 billion, even with this surplus. We are on track for a new record.
So despite the fact that tax cuts are "working", the hole that it helped put us in continues to grown unchecked.
By the way, thanks for the spring greetings.
Yesterday, while I was working it was absolutley beautiful. Today, it rained and now it is kind of cool and cloudy.
Spring.
How is it out in Denver? Can you see snow still from where you are? California is still buried.
Yesterday, while I was working it was absolutley beautiful. Today, it rained and now it is kind of cool and cloudy.
Spring.
How is it out in Denver? Can you see snow still from where you are? California is still buried.
We couldn't agree more that the overspending has to stop (I don't know how to get that done unfortuantely) but in WWII we were borrowing what 30% of GDP? Now it's 3%. I'm just not that worried (but that is based on the belief that overspending will get better--perhaps I'm living in a fool's paradise. This is your area of expertise anyway.
Roger,
You could catch up with me in six months of concerted effort. I'm not an expert, but ever since I invested in a foreign country I have been facinated with exchange and world economics.
The US lives in a bubble economically. Maybe bubble is the wrong word, because it aint poppin'. The US lives in an economic fortress which they protect with everything they have.
Unfortunately the US government is borring at more like 7% which is making even people like Tony Blankley nervous. 5% is the consevative cut-off and that has come and gone long ago.
You could catch up with me in six months of concerted effort. I'm not an expert, but ever since I invested in a foreign country I have been facinated with exchange and world economics.
The US lives in a bubble economically. Maybe bubble is the wrong word, because it aint poppin'. The US lives in an economic fortress which they protect with everything they have.
Unfortunately the US government is borring at more like 7% which is making even people like Tony Blankley nervous. 5% is the consevative cut-off and that has come and gone long ago.
I forgot to mention spending. First of all, a war in Iran is not going to help. But it will send oil to $100 a barrel which will be great for Exxon and their support companies like Haliburton.
Who is getting the spending money? The spending is the tax cut itself. What else (beside miliary) is getting more money?
Post a Comment
Who is getting the spending money? The spending is the tax cut itself. What else (beside miliary) is getting more money?
<< Home
