Apparently the economey is so good that even with the "Taxcut" for the rich there is a flood of tax revenues and the result is the lowest deficit in 4 years. Every time I turn on network news I see Nancy Pelosi saying how were in such bad shape. I wonder if she gets the new reports on tax revenues and the decline in the deficit? Deficit
Terry... <t>That bug eyed socialist is about as low as it gets. Lets hear about Harry Reid and his land deal. Naw that is back page stuff.</t>
My tax accountant said it best...and I quote: "I only dream that one day I will wake up and be rich enough to be Republican".....
MCG, I often banter with a close friend/neighbor who is a successful lawyer and entrenched Republican. Over the years, we have had numerous fun intellectual "debates". He often tells me that I think and speak like a Republican, that I am really one of them. I reply that I could never be a Republican because I care about people. He wins the debate when he replies.......Yes, the history of the party is filled with people who didn't care about others.....like Abraham Lincoln.
His point of course is that to get the tax breaks the Republicans most often espouse you have to be one rich SOB or at least born into it. I make a damned good living fortunately that is better than most and I get absolutely killed at tax time and there isn't a thing my accountant can do about it. The real breaks are for the filthy rich and somehow the Republicans sell it to the masses that they are the party for the middle class when it comes to taxes. That's B/S.
I so disagree with that. I have always been a Republican because I thought our party was more interested in proper governance and proper economic policies for the country as a whole, along with usually (emphasize usually) following the principles of trying to keep government out of peoples lives. I have always believed that conservatives care just as much about the lives and well being of the middle and lower class...we just have a different (note I refrained from saying "better" :wink: ) theory of economic policies to benefit everyone. I have always felt that the Dems were more interested in building up their power base, and doing so by keeping the masses happy with pandering and promises. Now I see the Republicans doing exactly the same thing and it really pisses me off.
MCG, I'm a Democrat. The truth is, neither party is the party of the middle class, but in the last 25 years the so-called middle class has benefitted tremendously in terms of tax rates. I don't know how old you are, but until Reagan took office the tax rates under 20 years of Democratic rule were much more onerous than today's rates. The middle class of the 60s and 70s paid higher effective rates than today's mid six-figure earners. It's all relative. You can spin it to make the Republicans look bad, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Note I didn't say the Dems were better at taxes. It's just that the Republicans would have us middle classers (which is a huge group in America) believe that their tax plans always have our group at the top of their list of beneficiaries. And that is what my tax accountant refers to because it's just not the case and it would be better if they were just honest about it.
Honest about it??? Lower taxes=more jobs=more spending=more government revenue=lower deficits=better for everyone, especially the middle class. Since President Bush signed the "dishonest" 2003 tax cuts (Job and Growth Act of 2003...well here, see for yourself;
Explain to me how federal revenues rise without tax revenue increasing. If so then who bears the brunt of funding that increase in tax revenue.
Y'see, if the economy and jobs are stimulated by lower tax rates, then more folks are selling things (business taxes), more folks are working (income taxes) and more folks are spending (sales taxes) and more people are traveling (gas taxes) etc., etc., etc.,and the total amount of revenue goes up. When you choke off the economy with high tax rates, nobody sells things, nobody buys things, jobs are lost, and despite your nice big tax rates your governmental revenue goes down and your deficits go up.
The numbers do look good on your chart. I wonder how much gas taxes were a part of the revenue increase. I would also like to see numbers reflecting percentage of spendable income in the average American household in those years and also actual dollar amounts of spendable income in the average household for those years.. Where does your chart originate from...what site?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html I doubt gas taxes had a huge part of those numbers.
Here is another article (long)...when he talks about total earnings being up, keep in mind that those figures are already adjusted for inflation; http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1978.cfm Summary: James Sherk is a Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Talking Points The gains from America’s prosperity are being widely shared. Low- and middle-income Americans now earn more, reside in better homes, are more educated, live longer, and enjoy once unaffordable luxuries. American workers’ total earnings, after inflation, are up 3 percent since 2003 and 9 percent since 2000, and these gains represent more than just rising health care costs. Workers’ earnings as a share of national income are within their usual historical range. After accounting for structural changes within corporate America, corporate profits as a share of corporations’ contributions to society’s well-being are no higher than in the past. Productivity growth is not rising unusually faster than employee compensation. It is following the same pattern seen in the 1990s, and employee compensation will catch up over the course of the business cycle.
So from 1996 to 2000 compensation went up about $2.00 per hour or about 9% and then from 2000 to 2004 went up only $1.35/hr or about 6.5%. Is that good?