Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Published: Sep 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-09-25 13:13:21 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 146092
Comments: 184
The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars: Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels. That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes. In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years. Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years. Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts. Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week. The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data. Now that we have looked at the whole eight-year period, what does the new data show about 2008, the worst recession ear since the 1930s, show when compared to the peak year of 2007, when the average taxpayer made $63,096, which was 2.5 percent more than in 2000. In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more. Now surely some will say that it is not fair to saddle George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cuts with the economic figures from 2001 and 2008. The first would be on the theory that President Clinton should be charged for that year (just as Bush should be charged with 2009, the first year of the Obama administration). The second is on less solid ground, but let's consider it for the sake of argument. Just measuring the second through seventh years we find that total income was still nearly $2 trillion lower than if 2000 level income continued. Stacking the deck in President George W. Bush's favor does not change the awful performance or even soften it much. The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base." In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated. One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s. Now let's look at wages, the source of most people's income. In 2008 the average taxpayer made $58,000. That was $5,100 less than in 2007, a decline of 8.1 percent. The number of taxpayers reporting any wages in 2008 was 1.26 million fewer than in 2007, a scary figure when you consider that most people do not expect to be out of work for an entire year and that the population grew by more than a percentage point. In August 42 percent of the unemployed -- 6.2 million people -- had been out of work for 27 weeks or more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The average for all jobless workers was 33.6 weeks of unemployment, the equivalent of going from New Year's Day through August 23 without a paycheck. The number of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 with any wage income fell in 2008 by 1.8 million. Because married couples file many tax returns, this means more than 2 million people who worked in 2007 earned no wages in 2008. Total wages in 2008 fell by nearly 4 percent, compared with a year earlier, for the 87 percent of Americans whose total income was less than $100,000. Since 2000, population grew more than wages. Those reporting negative incomes quadrupled from less than 600,000 in 2000 to nearly 2.5 million in 2008. Their losses worsened slightly from -$64,000 on average to -$66,000. The number of workers earning $500,000 or more in total income also fell, by just under 100,000 (or nearly 12 percent), but their average wage of $718,000 is still more than the average American earns in a decade at 2008 levels. The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000. In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998. The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166. The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free. Table 1. 2008 Average Incomes Fell Well Below 2000 Level The one bright spot in the SOI data at Table 1.4 was that the number of people making $100,000 to $200,000 grew significantly between 2007 and 2008. Their ranks increased by 393,465, or 3 percent, to more than 13.8 million taxpayers. This truly is good news, because most of the increase had to be people who worked their way up into six-figure incomes from 2007 to 2008. We know this because fewer than 160,000 taxpayers fell out of the $200,000-and-up income groups. Even if we assume that every one of them fell into the $100,000-$200,000 class, that still leaves 233,000 taxpayers who joined this income group. These 233,000 taxpayers must be people who increased their incomes enough to get them above the $100,000 line. And we know that they did it mostly through becoming more valuable workers, because this group relies on paychecks for more than 77 percent of its income. But despite that one sliver of good news about low six-figure incomes, the data show overwhelmingly that the Republican-sponsored tax cuts damaged our nation. Examining performance against the promises, what do we find? Overwhelming evidence that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 made us much worse off. Table 2. More Taxpayers, Less Revenue Ignore the cynics who say the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, in Wasilla, and on the airwaves care only about the rich. I don't believe that. I think they are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme. I take them at their word, that they truly believe their policies will produce broad benefits for all, but accepting that does not diminish the fact that the policies these Republicans promote also produce massive tax savings for the superrich who finance their campaigns. The question to ask is whether their policies worked as promised. Have they even come close? Where is the prosperity -- and where was it in the Bush years, when massive increases in both military and discretionary spending provided a chronic stimulus to the economy? Table 3. 2007 to 2008: Fewer Jobs, Less Money (Mostly) The hard, empirical facts: The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable. This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals. So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the "lamestream media," who treat these policies as worthy ideas? The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick. When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death. Our government, the basis of our freedoms, is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more. Those who ignore evidence and pledge blind faith in policy based on ideological fantasy are little different from the clerics who made Galileo Galilei confess that the sun revolves around the earth. The Capitol Hill and media Republicans differ only in not threatening death to those who deny their dogma. How much more evidence do we need that we made terrible and costly mistakes in 2001 and 2003? Figure 1. High-Income Paying Zero Tax 1998-2008 The number of individual income tax returns showing adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, but no income tax liability, has been rising rapidly in recent years. Table 4. 2008: Fewer Jobs, Lower Pay (With Exceptions in Bold)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 121.
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
It let people who earned money keep more of the money they earned. No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
Do you think that is anything close to intelligent conversation? Got to fund those wars you guys support so much.
Do you smoke crack? You must if you think I ever supported any of these new world order wars.
I'm sorry, I lumped you in with all conservatives. Still doesn't mean your communist insult isn't retarded.
Commies/socialists/progressives are all about taking money out of the economy so they can control us. The less money the govt takes the more free we are. Money they take out of the economy makes us poorer. People who earn the money should be able to keep it.
The less money the govt takes the more free we are. Money they take out of the economy makes us poorer. People who earn the money should be able to keep it. They money is taken when it is spent. Mainstream conservatives will fight tooth and nail on taxes, but have absolutely no problem with massive government spending. That money will be taken from our economy, now or later. Funding government is necessary, and the income tax is constitutional. The budget needs to be balanced, or at least more balanced. And tax cuts are not helping. Your argument might make some sense of the budget was balanced and democrats wanted to take more money for no reason. But taking money from the private sector to pay for government spending is in no way communist.
Govt revenue increased after the tax cuts. Probably more then 80 percent of what govt spends on is unconstitutional.
Govt revenue climes because the economy climes. It would have climbed more without the tax cuts. I concede there is a point at which tax cuts do increase revenue. But not at 40% of the top marginal tax rate.
You should look up Arther Laffer.
Right. His current plan for restoring economic health is to suspend ALL federal tax collection for a year and a half.
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...! Please provide an empirical argument to counter his position...
Just like Communism, "STARVE 'em...", is another plan that doesn't work in real life. Bush's tax cuts for instance, reduced tax collections by $2.4 trillion. California's prop 13 was "going to starve the beast" and look at where we are now.
Just like Communism, "STARVE 'em...", is another plan that doesn't work in real life... My reply assumed that you wish this country and countrymen well. It didn't occur to me that you might have a different goal until after hitting the post button. If that's the case then of course "STARVE 'em" might just be a very good idea from your perspective.
You need to get it through your empty skull, that the government is broke. They're like a parasite, that has sucked so much life out of the host, that the host is now dying... (the host, BTW, is us) As we, the hosts, lose energy, and our lives fade, the parasite gets less nourishment, and starts to suck harder, to keep itself fat and happy, with no regard to the fact that the host is now critical. The only way we- the hosts- will survive, is to cast off, or BURN off, the parasites. They will starve and die; we will survive. It's them or us. I choose to make them starve, so we can possibly survive. What's your choice?
... The only way we- the hosts- will survive, is to cast off, or BURN off, the parasites. They will starve and die; we will survive. It's them or us. I choose to make them starve, so we can possibly survive. What's your choice? Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic. Destroy what you call the parasites and you could well destroy the host too.
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. PROVE me wrong.
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001? Repeat a lie often enough and people begin to accept it as truth. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. Sounds Biblical to me: There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. That's straight from the Book of Acts.
Nonsensical question. The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[2][3] Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Could this be happening in America? If so, how? Our "elected representatives" have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America. In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties! First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.) Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.) Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.) Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.) Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.) Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40- hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.) Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.") Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head- start" programs, textbooks, library books.
And yet during the last two years of the Clinton administration unemployment was lower, taxes were higher, and the debt was lower than they are today - go figure. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. How so? Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html Could one say that the above site has a certain bias?
Could one say that the above site has a certain bias? Aha. I understand, now. YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... BTW, I really like your pic... Which one are YOU?
YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... I thought you were smarter than that.
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket. You can wrap it up in fantastic rationalizations, say "oh, it's to feed the poor widdle babies..." Of course, that means it's harder for me to feed MY babies... And I have to earn more money, to support my family with MY money. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. And you are one STUPID woman...
Take it up with the freedom loving founding fathers who authored the Constitution and those who ratified it. No doubt taxation under Articles of Confederation would have been more to your liking, however it just wasn't working out. The Constitutional Convention addressed the issue of an adequately funded federal government by expanding the authority of the central government to tax. It was a survival issue. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. You ain't no slacker in the emoting department yourself. It appears to me that you want all the blessings, protections, and opportunity of a civilized community without paying the price.
You have YET to answer my question: Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
I do...what of it.
There are no replies to Comment # 121. End Trace Mode for Comment # 121.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
It let people who earned money keep more of the money they earned. No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
#7. To: Rhino (#2)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Do you smoke crack? You must if you think I ever supported any of these new world order wars.
#11. To: Rhino (#10)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
Commies/socialists/progressives are all about taking money out of the economy so they can control us.
#14. To: Rhino (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
Govt revenue increased after the tax cuts. Probably more then 80 percent of what govt spends on is unconstitutional.
#20. To: Rhino (#15)
I concede there is a point at which tax cuts do increase revenue.
#21. To: Capitalist Eric (#20)
You should look up Arther Laffer.
#40. To: lucysmom (#21)
His current plan for restoring economic health is to suspend ALL federal tax collection for a year and a half.
#41. To: Capitalist Eric (#40)
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...!
#42. To: All, Capitalist Eric (#41)
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...!
#47. To: lucysmom (#42)
"STARVE 'em" might just be a very good idea from your perspective.
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#47)
As we, the hosts, lose energy, and our lives fade, the parasite gets less nourishment, and starts to suck harder, to keep itself fat and happy, with no regard to the fact that the host is now critical.
#64. To: lucysmom (#59)
Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic.
#66. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't.
#71. To: lucysmom (#66)
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001?
The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs."
Part of a series on Marxism
#83. To: Capitalist Eric (#71)
The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt.
#85. To: lucysmom (#83)
Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
#87. To: Capitalist Eric (#85)
Aha. I understand, now.
#97. To: lucysmom (#87)
(Edited)
I thought you were smarter than that.
#117. To: Capitalist Eric (#97)
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket.
#118. To: lucysmom (#117)
#121. To: Capitalist Eric (#118)
Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
Replies to Comment # 121.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]