I came across this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5065&en=c30c7ae775ea0a39&ex=1121832000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) report this morning, and was quite taken aback, what with all of the naysaying by Dems, who asserted that tax cuts were never going to increase revenue. Well, they have.

One key phrase in the article: "Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well." So, revenue has increased among all of those evil, rich corporations that Bush was allegedly lowering taxes for...imagine that!

The main thrust of this story is that the rise in revenue will decrease the deficit, but that assertion is iffy, at best, due to the President's spending.

Either way, here it is: evidence that tax cuts really do increase revenue.

Sweet stuff, yeah our economy is picking back up. I know a couple people who've gotten jobs after having lost one for a while.

the article as a whole doesn't paint as rosey a picture as you make out. Though i have to admit that the whole thing is pretty impenetrable, and if the experts all have different opinions htere is no chance that us normal folks can understand what is really happening.

Sounds like a large part of the tax boost comes from the end of a tax loophole that allowed companies to put off paying tax... so a lot of the tax they would have paid last year they pay this year... making it look like a big jump.

It is interesting that Company taxes have risen though (if it isn't just all delayed tax from last year), as over the past century or so tax has changed from something that was only paid by companies to something that is mostly paid by individuals. A major shift in emphasis and an indication of a major shift in power.

Cutting tax in order to stimulate growth is a well known tactic (which gives short term paid for hoped for long term benefit). The only problem is that the damage done to services like social services in the short term can be almost impossible (and very expensive) to fix.
The problem a lot of people had was that while he claimed he was "cutting taxes" he was actually only cutting them for the smallest, richest minority.

Originally posted by toms
The problem a lot of people had was that while he claimed he was "cutting taxes" he was actually only cutting them for the smallest, richest minority.

Do we have to get into this again? The explanation for this is extremely simple: there were tax cuts across the board, but the richest got the biggest cut because they also pay the most.

As for 'damage' to social services, I think there are a lot of social services that should be done away with, if only to decrease government waste.

So police and firefighters are expendable eh?

I'm sure people will agree with you while their house is robbed or burning down.

Originally posted by rccar328
Do we have to get into this again? The explanation for this is extremely simple: there were tax cuts across the board, but the richest got the biggest cut because they also pay the most.

So the tax cut makes the rich richer, but does little for the little guy?

Hmm...

Originally posted by InsaneSith
So police and firefighters are expendable eh?

I'm sure people will agree with you while their house is robbed or burning down.
I was thinking more along the lines of programs the could use some trimming - such as welfare (get rid of those who turn the 'safety net' into a hammock), the bureacracy that plagues our education systems...stuff like that.

Police and firefighters hardly constitute government waste, but when the government throws money into programs that are regularly abused and others that are so over-inflated with administrators that they can't even put up a pretense of efficiency, it's time to stop throwing money at the problem, and time to start making cuts.

Originally posted by rccar328
the bureacracy that plagues our education systems...stuff like that.


So cut funding for education even more than it already has? Gotcha.

Originally posted by rccar328
Police and firefighters hardly constitute government waste

They're being cut, being cut a lot.

Originally posted by rccar328
I was thinking more along the lines of programs the could use some trimming - such as welfare (get rid of those who turn the 'safety net' into a hammock),

Just becuase they are poor does not mean they are lazy. They are most of them are having a hard time getting jobs espeacialy when the economy is low. you have any Idea how long it takes to find any one who is willing to hire you? what if you got fired and had to find another job right away. It would be tough crap without welfare.

Edit: the only reason any one would be aginst welfare is becuase companies don't want to pay into it. much like social security.

Originally posted by rccar328
I was thinking more along the lines of programs the could use some trimming - such as welfare (get rid of those who turn the 'safety net' into a hammock), the bureacracy that plagues our education systems...stuff like that.

Police and firefighters hardly constitute government waste, but when the government throws money into programs that are regularly abused and others that are so over-inflated with administrators that they can't even put up a pretense of efficiency, it's time to stop throwing money at the problem, and time to start making cuts.

So when a few people abuse something that helps many more others, the trick isn't to stop them abusing it, or punish those who do so... its to remove the whole system and punish everyone, even those that used the system as it was intended and relied upon it?

You know, if htey just shut down lucasforums when a few people made spam posts just think of all the efficiency savings for the moderators. ;)

I thought there was a time limit on how long you could claim unemployment these days in the US?

The main point of government is (or used to be) to do things to keep society functioning and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
These days it seems to be to meddle in everything EXCEPT protecting the weak. sigh.

PS/ Didn't realise we had gotten into the tax thing before. Must have missed/forgotten that. Out of interest, how much tax do you pay? I pay 22% plus national insurance works out about 25.6%.

So police and firefighters are expendable eh?

I'm sure people will agree with you while their house is robbed or burning down.

Police and firefighters are the sole responsability of local municipalities and the individual states(state police for example). They can get some funding by the Federal government, but its not the job of the Federal government.

Police and firefighters are the sole responsability of local municipalities and the individual states(state police for example). They can get some funding by the Federal government, but its not the job of the Federal government.
Bingo - the federal government is granted certain enumerated powers in the Constitution, and social security, welfare, and unemployment entitlement programs are not among them. Any programs that exist in our government outside of those expressly defined by the Constitution have only come about through rampant abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause.

So the tax cut makes the rich richer, but does little for the little guy?
This is a simple principle of economics/mathematics - percentages. If I pay $100 in taxes, then when the government gives a 5% tax break across the board, I'm gonna get a bigger break ($5) than someone who pays $10 in taxes (whose break would be $.50). Really, I don't understand why so many people can't seem to understand this concept - to the point where Senate democrats were up in arms because poorer people who didn't make enough to pay taxes weren't receiving the child tax credit (families who pay taxes were credited back a certain amount of their tax dollers per child). By insisting that they add in a provision for people who don't pay taxes to receive the child tax credit, they essentially used the IRS to set up another system of welfare.

Any programs that exist in our government outside of those expressly defined by the Constitution have only come about through rampant abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause.And of course, you don't treat your constitution like Holy Writ that cannot be changed, huh?

And of course, you don't treat your constitution like Holy Writ that cannot be changed, huh?
It's one thing to change the Constitution...that's why there are provisions there to amend it. But using one clause to justify a power grab by the government and the setup of a massive bureaucracy is something else entirely.

This is a simple principle of economics/mathematics - percentages. If I pay $100 in taxes, then when the government gives a 5% tax break across the board, I'm gonna get a bigger break ($5) than someone who pays $10 in taxes (whose break would be $.50).

Except that's not what happened. Dubya rammed through cuts in the income tax, which is a progressive tax (and the cuts affect only the topmost two brackets) and repeal of the estate tax, which affected only the richest 5% of all households. Indeed the surplus Dubya's tax cuts have squandered was made through the payroll tax and consumer taxes, both of which are flat-rate, and thus are effectively regressive.

Without seeing the whole article (there's some kind of subscription thingy that won't let me in) I obviously cannot comment on your specific assertion that the Bush plan is actually working. But I advise caution: The current American regime has a record record (bad pun, I know) of laundering deficits, obfusticating economic facts and making overt and outright lies about future prospects.

Additionally, there could be many reasons other than fuzzy accounting for increased revenue. For one thing, the US has been strongarming China over trade policy for some time... Though in the long run that's probably gonna backfire, and then you're in for a nasty surprise or two.

Besides, nubers have to be in the black for a fairly long time before the damages done by Dubya's tax cuts are countered.

Without seeing the whole article (there's some kind of subscription thingy that won't let me in) I obviously cannot comment on your specific assertion that the Bush plan is actually working.

You really must bookmark http://bugmenot.com/)

Ah. OK, well I trust NYT, I just thought that it was a pay-pr.-view-kinda subscription... Guess I didn't see the bright, orange letters on the registration form. Meh. But thanks for the link anyway.

Appearently those morons want a ZIP-code, and I haven't a clue as to whether the Danish Postal Service would even recognise the term... I guess it's BugMeNot for me then.

Ah, the lamentably short memories of reporters...

The claim that Social Security spending will ever be a problem is patently false. The only reason why Social Security doesn't have money is because Dubya used phony accounting to steal that money for his tax cuts. Dubya's tax cuts for the ultra-rich are the source of the deficit, not increased spending - because it was the tax cuts that wrecked the responsible contingency plans that were to keep the welfare services alive well into the next century. The solution to the US' monetary woes is not to cut back on welfare spending - which is already financed - but to cut back on the unfinanced tax cuts of the Bu$h administration.