United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS—AND THE FACTS
Source:
Heritage.org
URL Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/bg_2001.pdf
Published: Jan 20, 2010
Author: Heritage.org
Post Date: 2010-01-20 15:59:41 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 1502
Comments: 60
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves. Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits. Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues. Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.” Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy. Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich. Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
#30. To: dont eat that (#0)
FYI: Source: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
#36. To: go65 (#30)
i see revenue rising every year after the 2003 tax cuts. What's the problem?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee's estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT's projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005.
Also, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told journalists at the Washington Times last October that the tax cuts prompted economic and stock market growth. But, the paper reported, “they conceded that the tax cuts…cut deeply into government revenue.”
.jpg)
Replies to Comment # 30.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]