Skip to comments.Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit [Democrats sadden.......]
Posted on 07/08/2006 10:20:32 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 8 An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say that the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves their argument that tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well that sucks .. more good news for our Country
Tax cuts always work.
The piece is spun with the usual NYT pessimism towards the end...
Any good news for the Bush Administration is always spun as bad by these cretins...and then Bad News is spun as World Ending Horror...the Slimes can always be counted on to use every rhetorical device in their arsenal to cover good news.
Now if we could just sober up all those sailors on both sides of the Aisle...
Unexpected by everyone except Republicans! How does a Party that is consistantly wrong have ANY credibility?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
And yet the NYT cannot connect the dots....
Has anybody considered involuntary electroshock treatment for all NYT editors and writers? Or are they still convulsing from the last series?
The Big-Bang Story of U.S. Private Business
By Lawrence Kudlow
Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.
This is an extraordinary fact, although you may be reading it here first. Most in the mainstream media would rather tout the faults of American capitalism than sing its praises. And of course, the media will almost always discuss supply-side tax cuts in negative terms, such as big budget deficits and static revenue losses. But here's another suppressed fact: Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.
For those who bother to look, the economic power of lower-tax-rate incentives is once again working its magic. While most reporters obsess about a mild slowdown in housing, the big-bang story is a high-sizzle pick-up in private business investment, which is directly traceable to Bush's tax reform. It was private investment that was hardest hit in the early-decade stock market plunge and the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist bombings. So team Bush's wise men correctly targeted investment in order to slash the after-tax cost of capital and rejuvenate investment incentives.
The democrat party is collectively tearful and sobbing with rage over this good news for the USA.
< snicker >
I have a vision of Paul Krugman standing on a window ledge on the NY Times building shouting "No No, this can't be true" (LOL)
Not to Ronald Reagan and millions of conservative Americans.
Can't the 'Rats spend some more money to fix this problem?!
And how! It came on dripping with so much acid that now I'm going to have to re-tile my floor.
They must have strangled several at the NY Slimes to get this printed. Of course Khan, a Dem on the House Budget Committee says it's bad in the long run. More gloom and doom, go figure.
I proudly accept thanks for my role in these increased tax receipts! I changed jobs two years ago and doubled my salary and bonus. I pay a lot more income tax than I did then, but of course I am taking home much more too. And I know many other people who are enjoying significantly higher incomes than they were a few years ago. It isn't just wealthy investors with cyclical increases in capital gains and investment income. But go ahead and believe the Treason Times' propaganda if you want to.
(I hope this formatting comes out OK. I couldn't remember how to use courier, and had to wing it).
So, this will get the deficit back to roughly 2002 levels. However, our Republican President, Senate, and House have added ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt in those three years, and the out-of-control spending just keeps on going.
I'm not impressed. I wont be impressed until I see the numbers on the right go down to at least what they were before Bush took office.
That just can't be - I have been hearing over and over how the deficit is continuing to grow exponentially because of all the tax cuts to the mega-rich - the ad that uses a Paris Hilton impersonation (a rather bad one at that).... The ad encourages us to contact our Senators to tell them we don't want any more tax breaks for the mega-rich...
maybe instead of Democrats sadden it should have read New York Times sadden.
Remember...to the jurno-tards at the NYT, they are the informed and the rest of us are just the misinformed, naive, masses in dire need of enlightment.
Group Think is so pevasive at the NYT, that the place is beyond all hope and should just be marginalized, and their publication should be put to more practical purposes...fish wrap, bird cage liner, packing box stuffing, and (last but not least) puppy blotter...
Once again, Bush's fault! LOL
I'm coming around to supply side economics. I've been a conservative more because of social issues than economic ones but I have been watching the federal government revenue growth since the tax cuts and it's amazing. It is also having a ripple effect on state government revenues. They have also increased dramatically in the past couple of years. Of course revenue can alway be spent faster than it's taken in. It time to start telling liberals we might need a tax increase to slow the economy. I'm sure they'll appreciate the comment.
I should have added: there's no reason that taxes shouldn't be lower -- even if that actually decreasing, rather than increases government revenues. In fact, it's easy to argue that decreasing government revenues is a good thing. However, the point of this article was that revenues increased despite tax reductions -- and that sort of thing has its limits.
Now if they can only control the spending...
Added a trillion in national debt...huh?
I'll give you three guesses what that spending has been on over the last three years...but you are only going to need one.
Actually I think both are deeply saddened, especially since November is not that far away. Their platform of criticism is rapidly eroding.
And all this IN SPITE of the terrible economic impact of 9-11, an expensive war on Islamofascistism, rebuilding of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ever-increasing Federal budget with its myriad of wasteful programs.
If Albore had been successful in stealing the 2000 election, we'd be in an economic sinkhole right now.
Tax RATE cuts always work!
The national debt was artificially low at the end of Clinton's term considering he spent practically nothing on maintaining our military forces. Had he been investing properly in national defense, the debt in 2000 could easily have been 4 trillion.
Considering we were then sucker punched on 9/11, 1.2 trillion to fix our military and rid the world of vermin is money well borrowed in my book.
Only for those who enjoy arguing about everything under the sun. I prefer to argue in favor of increases in my income, regardless of taxes. Not everyone feels this way --some would rather live penniless and in squalor if it meant less taxes. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $thousand in taxes as long as it meant an extra after-tax $3thousand in my income.
In general, this is what's been happening nationwide.
Historically unprecedented increases in Medicare/Medicaid. Massive increases in Social Security. Across the board increases in all other socialistic spending programs, designed to keep incumbents in office.
There's your three. The WOT is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the budget (just in case that is the "one" you were talking about).
"In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy..."
Where are the voices that were so quick to cry "prosperity!" during the Klinton years?
So does spending constraint.... which is the other half of the equation that both parties appear to be missing at the moment.
Tax cuts work, every time they are tried.
I know some drunken sailors and they resent that. The Congress gives them a bad name.
Only for those who enjoy arguing about everything under the sun.
The more money government gets, the more money government will spend. Curtailing government revenue would be a good thing. Tax cuts are good because they let people keep more of their own money, despite the fact that they increase revenues.
Actually, Clinton spent close to what President Bush has spent on Defense per GDP. They both are close to 3.5 overall I think.
Carter was spending close to double that. I'm surprised it's been so low while we are fighting WWIII. We all know that War spurs other advances in technology, Health, and other areas.
It wasn't unexpected and it wasn't a surprise.
My apologies, I was incorrect on Carter. He was closer to 4.5. Not the amount I said before.
As far as I know, cutting taxes results in increased government revenue after a few years at the outside. Every time.
If liberals really want to raise money to spend, they should cut taxes.
But they'd apparently prefer to slam the brakes on the economy, take money away from families, and hurt everyone, all under the guise of doing something compassionate.
Of course Bubba's platform was "It's all about the economy, stupid" and he raised our taxes. Poor Hillary. Things just aren't working out.
But the budget would be balanced this year if the Congress had not spent so much money.
... notice how the debt has increased over $450B since the end of Sept. 05.. just over 9 months...
The war spending is old-fashioned Keynesnian government spending, much of it is "off budget". Not the model of a true free enterprise state I'd like to see.