Skip to comments.So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Posted on 09/25/2010 9:48:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at tax.com ...
They would have worked a lot better coupled with massive spending cuts and regulation rollbacks.
After-tax incomes, which is more important, were greater because of the tax cuts.
Government has a very specific set of tasks that it's authorized to do. If the federal government wasn't so massively in violation of the constitution there wouldn't be a need to bleed every citizen of every last drop possible.
This is a lacking and frankly bizarre analysis. Tax rates are but one of many factors that impact total income produced across the economy. Using one year 2000 as a base for evaluating the entire decade following is bizarre, especially considering that year saw the beginning of a down turn, dot com bubble layoffs. Looks to me like an author that worked hard to manipulate the facts to back a predetermined conclusion.
This is a false analysis. Our economy was entering a recession as the dot com bubble burst. We were also hit with the worst foreign attack on our soil ever. So the question is not what was the economy like, but what would it have been like WITHOUT the tax cuts.
They are unrelated.
Given the NASDAQ meltdown and the resulting stock market performance, capital gains tax receipts were much lower during the decade. It has very little to do with the lowering of tax rates.
Clinton’s deficit into surplus had everything to do with the markets dot com blowoff, and very little to do with raising tax rates.
Why does this guy ignore the effect of 9/11 and the 2 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?
If I recall correctly, the dot-bomb cost the economy $5 trillion while 9/11 cost another $2 trillion. Hard to make up for those numbers.
Just looked...the author is a flaming libtard....that explains the massaging of reality...
There should have been a barf alert.
There’s number-crunching and then there’s number-scrambling. This would seem to be the latter, even to an economic dunce such as I.
...another distinguished graduate of The Paul Krugman Nobel Peace Prize School of Economics...
David Cay Johnston is a former tax policy reporter for the New York Times.
Sack-o-crap analysis from sack-o-crap lefty...
It's ALWAYS the tax cuts and NEVER the outrageous and inefficient spending that's the problem. Always.
Pets.com at 900. I rest my case.
Let’s face it...libtards can no more understand economics than a baboon can grasp quantum mechanics.
Even so, if I had to choose, I’d put my money on the baboon.
SO let me guess, Mr. Johnson here is suggesting that the Bush tax cuts not be extended and that America undergo the largest tax increase in US history? Couple that with the un-announced tax increases, such as VAT tax, etc., that these type idiots will slam us with......wonderful you live in Mr. Johnson, huh? =.=
So this “analysis” is total garbage where by a pre determined outcome was given a gloss of intellectual creditably by selectively manipulating the data.
Or, in other garbage in garbage out
The first 18 months of the 2003 Bush tax cuts yielded 300,000 jobs created, the next 20 months 5 million jobs created according to the heritage foundation analysis. The govt should live on less and the tax payers live on more!
Looks like this moron is auditioning for an 0bama economic position. So it follow that by this logic, we can expect proportionately more tax revenues at 70, 80 or 90 percent marginal rates. We also can expect more income and GDP with higher taxes? Marxist economists will never answer the question at which rate will revenue go down. Also, what good does it do to boast about a higher income if most of it goes for taxes, it’s only after tax income that matters to the individual.
This moron thinks that his data (which I believe will be shown to be manipulated because it is natural for a Marxist to deceive) is obviously sufficient to prove his insane thesis that higher income taxes actually increase individual income. There are other factors to be considered such as breakthrough economic innovation (internet, computers), wars (9/11), economic cycles (government sponsored housing bubble) occurring during a time period studied that have profound influences on individual incomes.
In order to prove this proposition, one needs not only raw economic empiric data (which can be manipulated by varying the starting points) but an account of outsides variables that affect the economy. Then, the proposition must also be subject to the fundamental logic that people act in their self interest in nearly all cases. Even Leftists do all they can to avoid paying taxes. At a certain point, a rational person will stop working when he cannot keep his money. This is as basic as the Pavlov dog experiments when behavior is extinguished after a reward is no longer given after the performance of a desired activity.
Even a dog knows more about economics than this Marxist. Perhaps zero can hire his dog Bo as and economic advisor. At least he would be more qualified.
Excuuuuuuse me! I have been having great success teaching baboons everything I know about quantum mechanics!
The dumbass that wrote that has no idea what the economy would be without the tax cuts! That is like the lying Marxist saying ‘jobs saved or created’.
It’s funny how people are always whining about lack of funding for things, yet the idea that perhaps if government wasn’t blowing money on things that aren’t its business, maybe it would have money to put towards things that are never occured to them.
Exactly what I was trying to convey. On other websites I had liberals challenge me as to what I'd cut and they were shocked into near silence when I gave them an extensive list of cuts and revision, why I'd make those changes and the likely effect. But at the core is bring the federal government into line with the constitution and they wouldn't be in such a situation that they need to confiscate ever larger sums of money. Of course that means that politicians would lose influence and power...and there is the rub.
Interesting that this writer only focuses on the tax income information, without giving any information about how much Congress SPENT. If spending hadn’t ballooned, the tax income would have been more than sufficient.