The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
October 4, 2005
This is the latest data for calend
ar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However,
their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
October 10, 2003
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 61
Just for a moment, pretend that you actually own a house, have a wife, and raise children. Then, come and tell me that you pay no taxes.
1. Very few people WANT to live off welfare and government subsidies. They would prefer a job
2. Your federal income taxes pay for social security, medicare and defense/military spending - overwhelmingly
3. "Welfare" makes up about 1% of the federal budget, if that. I don't have the actual numbers
The late Ronald Reagan was a wonderful actor. He managed to make middle and upper class America jealous of the welfare mom, with three screaming kids in a one room aprtment, because she got a welfare check. Apparently, Reagan's legacy lives on. Shameful.
BUT BECOUSE OF THEW TAX STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW I WILL PROBABLY MAKE ANOTHER 4,000 WHEN I DO MY TAX RETURN... THAT'S BECOUSE THE RICH ARE PAYING MORE THEN SHEY SHOULD BE. I A POOR MAN WITH 3 CHILDREN AND A RENTAL, I DON'T OWN, FEEL I SHOULD PAY MORE FOR WHAT OUR COUNTRY GIVE MY FAMILY, I CAN'T AFFORD TO YET, BUT SOMEDAY I WILL BE IN THE TOP % FROM HARD WORK AND DEDICATION AND LIVING IN THE FREEEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. NOT TO MENTION THE DEBIT I OWE TO THE FINE SOLDIERS PROTECTING ME AND MINE.
WHEN THE DEMOCRAT'S SCREAM THE TAX CUT WAS ONLY FOR THE RICH!!! IT IS A BUNCH OF CRAP, BECOUSE HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CUT TAX'S ON 3.46% OF THE TAX BASE? THINK ABOUT IT 50% OF ALL AMERICANS PAY ONLY 3.46% OF NATIONAL TAX'S.
BUT IN ORDER TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY LIKE JFK DID YOU HAVE TO CUT TAX'S AND IT WORKS, IT IS WHAT JFK DID AND IT IS WHAT REAGAN DID AND IT IS WHAT GEORGE W BUSH DID AND WE WILL MAKE PERMANANT WHEN WE WIN THESE MID TERM ELECTIONS...
I AM A CONCERVATIVE, I AM POOR, AND YES BEING POOR SUCKS ... BUT I HAVE A FAMILY THAT WORKS HARD TOGETHER AND LOVES EQACH OTHER DOESN'T BOTHER TO WEATCH TV RESPECTS THERE ELDERS AND GOES TO CHURCH AND TRIEDS TO HELP ANY AND ALL ARROUND US, AND WERE HAPPY, WERE NOT DRINKIING IT UP LIKE PARIS HILTON AND DRIVING DRUNK OR DRUGGING IT UP LIKE MANY RICH LIBERALS IN HOLLY WOOD DO… OH AND I AM NOT DRINKING LIKE MR. CHAPPAQUIDDICK KENNEDY, IN FACT EVEN HERE IN TEXAS, I DON'T EVEN DRINK.
NOW I WAN 'T THE TAX CUTS TO STAY AND BE PERMANENT, AND THE INHARATANCE TAX DONE AWAY WITH AND NO MORE MARRIAGE PENALTY
TANF or AFDC is only one of 69 means-tested programs which include but are not limited to: food stamps, housing, and Medicaid.
Depending on how one counts welfare programs the cost is a staggering $9-12 Trillion spent since 1964.
Focusing on the federal aspects of welfare is rather silly since the social welfare spending occurs at all levels of government: State, Regional, County, and City as well as the non-profits.
As for blasting Ronald Reagan, may I suggest you let go of the distant past, it was president Clinton who proved Reagan correct when he signed Welfare Reform into law.......and the case loads dropped an astounding 50%.
The ensuing tragedy, it turns out, did not harm the poor as much as the white suburbanittes who make their living off of staffing welfare programs.
Our society relies on taxing the wealthy to finance the welfare state. One needs to seriously question the sustainability of such a structure when every year more and more wealth is being transfered from "the wealthy" to non-taxable funds.
In 1965, over 98% of investment wealth was held by wealthy individuals......, now over 56% of investment is held by non-taxable institutional investors.
Second - the GOP is going to lose the House, maybe even the Senate, because most Americans don;t believe this country is headed in the right direction on evrything from the war to taxes.
I didn't make much more than you did when I graduated college. I've been there. In fact, I'm a first generation American whose parents came to this country 40 years ago with $50. They rasied a family, struggled to put me through college and earned enough for a secure retirement.
I agree that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but those who can afford to pay more should. And the argument for permanent tax cuts is a gimmick. Who can forecast budgets accurately more than 5-10yrs out? Making tax cuts permanent now will force someone to raise them in a time of fiscal crisis - it's inevitable.
America isn't free, and if you believe that all your taxes pay for is someone else's welfare check, you're mistaken. Our taxes pay for things like medicare, social security and defense. I'd rather take Donald Trump's permanent, annual $1million dollar tax cut and put that revenue into securing our ports and inspecting all the cargo that comes into the U.S. I guess what I'm trying to say is that taxes are about priorities. If taxes were strictly about fairness, the income tax would be flat. We would all pay the same percentage on our income. That would be a disaster.
One more thing. I'm a PROUD Liberal, in the tradition of FDR, JFK, LBJ and yes, Ted Kennedy. We've all screwed up in our personal lives, but TK has done more good for people than most ever will. I don't know anything about Paris Hilton's politics, and have seen no evidence that she fits my perspective of liberal.
I wish you and your family all the very best, and admire the sense of communtiy you expressed in your post. In the end Matthew, I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree about.
Food stamps and some of the other 69 means tested programs you reference have value and actually help people climb out of poverty.
Truth remains, despite the twisting and spinning.
Without fail, every time federal taxes have been cut in the history of this nation, tax receipts have increased.
Tax receipts are perversely refered to as revenue by our esteemed government.
(Show me the work they've done to earn these receipts)
Tax receipts are at the highest level in the history of the United States. The problem is the profligate spending on both sides of the aisle by our so called representatives and senators.
Quit eating filet mignon when you are on a hamburger salary and make the correct budgetary decisions. Pretty simple,...unless you live inside the beltway and have lost touch with the real America.
*Most ironic federal fiduciary statement ever!!!
Bill Clinton commenting on the federal budget surplus balloon, when asked if the tax rates should be cut...
We feel the taxpayers would spend this money unwisely and the government will apportion it more appropriately.
IF THIS STRUCTURE AS YOU WRITE IT FOR THE TAXES IS TRUE EXPLAIN HOW PEOPLE LIKE BUSH AND CHANEY CAN DERIVE SO MUCH INCOME (INCLUDING THEIR WEALTHY STOCK MARKET ASSISTANCE) AND PAY SO LITTLE!?!?!
I FOR ONE AM SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING THOSE "POOR" RICH PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH OF THE TAX BURDEN..PLEASE..... FOR THE MOST PART THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AREN'T STUPID..WELL MAYBE THEY ARE THEY PUT BUSH BACK IN OFFICE AGAIN TO WREAK HAVOC ON THE COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY FOR FOUR MORE YEARS..
GEE. THOSE POOR RICH (BUSH & CHANEY JUST FOR EXAMPLE) BUSH IS THE LARGEST STOCK HOLDER IN EXXON (GAS PRICES HUM..) & THEN CHANEY AND THE GOVT. (REPUBLICANS) VOTE TO AWARD HALIBURTON A NON BID CONTRACT .. (OH & HE IS A MAJOR STOCK HOLDER IN THAT BUSINESS). NOTHING CORRUPT DISHONEST IN THAT ? YET, THEY BOTH PAY LESS TAXES THAN MOST & CONTINUE TO APPROVE FUNDING AND PROGRAMS THAT WILL BENEFIT THEM & THEIRS, & I DON'T MEANT THE COMMON JOE WHO WORKS EVERY DAY BUT BARELY CAN KEEP THEIR HEAD ABOVE WATER, PAY FOR THEIR FOOD, CLOTHING, GAS, HEALTHCARE, PRESCRIPTION ETC. SINCE THE BUSH ADM. & THERE TAX CUTS FOR THE POOR HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND CONTINUED?
BUSH DIDN'T INHERIT HIS FORTUNE...REALLY.. I BEG TO DIFFER DADDY HAS TAKEN GOOD CARE OF HIM , AND HIS SON(FLORIDAS GOVENOR).
THEIR MONEY WAS EVEN SO GOOD THAT IT BOUGHT GEORGE II THE ELECTION.. BY DECEIT!
Reagan said nothing about being poor. What Reagan spoke of was a poverty of spirit that prompts people to "game the system" rather than move forward in life.
I know of no scholar who has ever suggested that means tested programs "help people climb out of poverty".
Most scholars maintain that means tested programs maintain people in poverty. One can spin that last sentence to their ideological satisfaction.
The reality of "The War On Poverty" is that poverty dropped initially from 18% to 11% then remained mostly unchanged at 11% for almost 30 years.
One can honestly say the poverty programs initially helped but have failed catastrophically for a generation and a half.
When one looks at the rapid decline in family formation among the poor in the wake of The War On Poverty, one can also honestly say that it was our nations most costly, most disastrous war.
Does anyone really believe that the Democrats would lower the deficit?
The only thing that allowed them to balance the budget in the 1990's was the page from the Calvin Coolidge textbook of economics which suggested taking a wild irresponsible ride on the NASDAQ bubble rather than doing the responsible thing and deflating it.
The sad reality of stock bubbles is that government revenues fall faster then profits on the downside slope, hence a large part of the current budget deficits.
Another main component of government short-falls is the dramatic rise in the cost of health-care. The Democrats, rather than advocating fiscal constraint simply want to uncork those costs and let taxpayers pick up the froth.
I have friends and good neighbors who are in that exact place. however, they didn't get their buy cheating and lying and stealing for their fellow neighbor.
There are people out there who are billionaires such as Bill Gates, & Tiger Woods whom I have the upmost respect for. But again they made their money honestly and return some of thier wealth by giving back to the people who helped him acquire his wealth, not by cheating and lieing to maintain and continue their wealth.
The late Ronald Reagan managed to make Americans poor and rich believe in America. Even the democrats of the day, felt better as Americans that's why they overwhelmingly voted for him... esp. the second time.
He reminded me and many others that America is not, a dream of the past; it indeed is the hope for the future. His vision for the country and the world has freed millions from behind the iron curtain, and he freed America from the gloom created by the depression of the 70's and the political malaise that was left after Viet Nam and Nixon... and whimpering Carter.
Karla I need to post answers to your ummmmm diatribe? in a different window...
This is what I have so far your words are in bold.
Tommarow I'll post the tax returns. =+)
----My Answer to Karla------
"Gee. Those poor rich (Bush & Chaney just for example) bush is the largest stock holder in Exxon (gas prices hum...) "
Are you sure about his stock holding? He isn't, it is in a blind trust as required by law.
& then Chaney and the govt. (republicans) vote to award Halliburton a non bid contract... (Oh & he is a major stock holder in that business).
Chaney has NO Halliburton stock unless the blind trust bought some, because he divested before he was elected. Made lots of $ true when he divested, but if you want to talk funny money business then how about $1000.00 invested in stock futures being returned in I think it was 3 months as $100,000.00 in Mrs. Clintons pocket… (It's called a payoff from Tyson chicken most believe)
Nothing corrupt dishonest in that? Nope in fact I just answered that…
Yet, they both pay less taxes than most
Um they pay more Tax's then at least 50% of America, remember they are part of the 50% that pays 95.6% of all Tax's
& continue to approve funding and programs that will benefit them & theirs, & I don't meant the common Joe who works every day but barely can keep their head above water, pay for their food, clothing, gas, healthcare, prescription etc.
If you look at President Bush's Tax return he gave more money then Hillary and Bill and I believe Gore combined to charity. And definitely more then the silver spoon merrier Kerry
Since the Bush adm. & there tax cuts for the poor have been in place and continued?
Um since Bush my $ has goes up and even after 9-11 we have more jobs and better over all prosperity and even many more home owners.
How many companies that you know of obtain a non bid contract & just so happens that the VP has financial interest in said company that was just awarded this very luicrative contract.
More home owners, yes you are right the rich get richer thats been easily demonstrated in the Bush adm.
Real estate has been taking a big hit DOWNWARD, and forecasters are saying that this is just the beginning of this. BUSH & CHANEY = RECESSION if not DEPRESSION on the horizon. I can at least say I didn't vote for the man that causes another stock market crash & subsequent real pandemic!
People - the laws are set up for the rich. Not income tax laws, but business laws. If you are self-employed or an employee, you'll always pay the highest tax rate possible. In addition, your investments will always happen AFTER TAXES..................so you'll have less money to invest!
In contrast, if you're incorporated and you derive your income from portfolio and passive investments your income is taxed lightly...........or not at all, if you have good accountants. Plus, if your business does all the investing for you, the money you make is all invested PRE-TAX.
Bush and Cheney have almost no say in your investments, so stop envying what your neighbor has and get going on your own personal investment portfolio. Even when you start late, you can make amazing things happen, financially.
Quite a few. No-bid contracts are extremely common in domains where expertise is limited. Haliburton is one of the few companies that could handle large-scale projects in the Middle-East.
If Chaney did swing business their way, it is only logical that he did so because he was familiar with their capabilities. In short, it was Haliburton who did the government a favor not the other way around.
Haliburton's association with VP Chaney and the Iraq War has cost the company tens of $Billions in good-will and business opportunities around the world.
This statement is not true.
That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
The top tax brackeds were in the low 90's for the top income earners, they have been dramatically reduced since the 1970s.
These number/percentages are not useful without the actual income amounts.
I think many would be surprised to discover that the income in the payers that falls into the top 50% to 25% is not Rich, merly upper middle class.
Bush cut the income tax and left Social Security tax alone. It would be political suicide to cut the SS tax because of the pending retirement problems. If you want to make the tax system more progressive, I suggest having a discussion on the Social Security tax and how we are to save that system from tanking in the toilet 15 years from now.
Assuming that TANF (welfare) is a stop gap measure to help families in a time of need, why is it not expected that once the family is on its feet that welfare would be paid back, at least in some form?
Indeed, many people once on welfare are now doing quite well.
There are all kinds of well-meaning arguments why people are not expected to pay back the money but when you really look deeply into the dirty underbelly of how welfare is structured these arguments reveal a destructive mean-spiritedness that is pervasive in the system.
Let's take a look at two people, both poor, both under-class. We will call them HE and SHE.
HE and SHE are young, not married, are unemployed, and have a child.
SHE immediately receives food, housing, medical and cash assistance that is never expected to be repaid no matter how affluent she might become in the future. HE, on the other hand, is socked with an unforgivable child support debt that accrues despite his circumstances. If he is jailed or incapacitated, he still accrues unforgivable debt. For many young men, especially very young men of color, this burden is life shattering. It is a debt that they will never escape and continues to accrue for decades.
Now one can say, "men should pay for their children" and I would not argue with that but the reality is that the money DOES NOT GO TO THE CHILDREN. Child support and child support debt FIRST goes to the county to offset TANF payments.
So let's take a hypothetical situation. SHE spends five years on TANF working hard and acquiring a skill, with this skill she enters the middle-class where she marries and buys a home in the suburbs, fine for her. He goes the opposite direction, after spending three years in jail HE emerges with a large child support debt non-existent employment prospects.
SHE enjoys middle-class life unencumbered by debt; 25% of HE's wages are remanded to the country for ten years to pay off SHE's TANF payments.
So, let's review.
SHE does not have to repay the county for TANF payments despite her future circumstances. HE must repay the county for TANF despite his circumstances.
This is an outright lie.
To speak in terms of taxes and to speak only of federal income taxes is entirely dishonest. It really should come as no surprise that it is republicans who do this.
The FACT is that, under Clinton's economy, the deficit was eliminated and turned into a surplus, and the massive republican debt was beginning to move downward.
Voodoo economics has been responsible for all but $1 trillion of the massive $9 trillion in national debt that we currently are saddled and crippled with.
Cutting taxes on millionaires and raising them on the middle class and poor, all while driving up massive deficits while shoveling mountains of debt cash at corporations simply does not work to build a sustainable economy.
It should not surprise anyone that an injection of nearly $3 trillion over the past six years has created SOME positive economic numbers. However, when you examine actual GDP growth, in terms of real dollar growth, you'll see that the output has not matched the amount of debt spending poured in. In other words, without this massive debt spending, Bush's economic numbers would all be negative.
Aside from that failure, you've had 99% of the country on a wild debt-laden spending spree, as ridiculously rising housing prices and low interest rates until the past year, have combined to encourage people to extend themselves far beyond their means, through equity mortgages. Now that the housing market has cooled and interest rates are rising, we'll begin to see a serious retraction/correction take hold in the coming months. 2007 could very well bring us one very nasty, voodoo economics-induced recession.
The greatest myth of bushonomics, of course, is that ALL taxpayers have received tax cuts. Naturally, those who were too poor to pay any taxes at all got nothing, but let's leave that aside and focus on the middle class, which is the group that is really attacked the most harshly with voodoo economics.
While everyone in the middle class received a tiny pittance of a federal income tax cut, the dirty little secret is not that Paris Hilton and Bill Gates receive more in cuts each year than the average family GROSSES, but rather that federal taxes are the ONLY form of taxation that exists in the land.
In fact, one of the most insidious aspects of this failed economics policy is that it results in drastic cuts in funding from the federal level to states. This, in turn, results in states pushing costs of programs down to a lower level, either county or municipality. It also results in a flurry of new taxes, fees, and increases, as well as significant cuts in government services, which also is passed to the individual has an increased cost of living.
As a result, we all pay more just to carry out our day-to-day lives, because of the "trickle down" effect of gutting funding. Just because the fed cuts funding for specific programs that states carry out, doesn't mean that those programs aren't needed, or that they cost less to manage. It means that the costs are passed to the individual, either as higher taxes, fees, or lesser services provided. Cause. Effect.
Another dirty little secret of voodoo economics has to do with the massive debt spending that is required in order to provide the facade that it actually provides economic growth. While the massive debt load is being poured into the economy, there is naturally going to be SOME degree of economic growth, although it should surely be debated as to whether or not "growth" can be actually achieved by driving the nation deeply into debt.
Surely, if I load up my credit cards and max out my home equity with loan debt, I may have the APPEARANCE of wealth, but I certainly do not have REAL wealth.
What this nasty, massive debt does is really sinister, because it does it almost in stealth. As long as the white house can shove numbers into different shells and push off any real accounting methods until later, they can effectively put off reality from sinking in.
However, what inevitably happens, as more and more of our cash is sent overseas to cover the interest on more and more debt, less money is available to our own economy, meaning that interest rates rise. (supply and demand)
In the case of Bushonomics, the fed began to artificially drive the value of the dollar down a few years ago, by printing a massive amount of unbacked dollars and dumping them onto the streets, in order to lessen the disastrous effects of this massive foreign debt owed.
This has also allowed them to artificially manipulate interest rates to a degree, to stave off reality a bit longer. The problem has been the underlying threat of inflation.
Normally, inflation will come about as a result of either demand outpacing supply or manufacturing costs rising. If demand outpaces supply, it is a boon for labor, because companies will hire more people, at higher wages. If the inflation comes as a result of higher production costs, we all have to hope that higher wages are somewhere in that equation.
This time, however, they're not. Wages are DOWN over the past five years, while inflation AND interest rates have risen. The fed has played a very delicate, and risky balancing act, in order to hide the real effects of the massive debt incurred through voodoo economics.
The party is not sustainable, however, as has been forewarned by numerous economics experts. The bill for this reckless borrow and spend policy WILL come due, probably just as Bush is leaving office. Most of his shifty accounting tricks were tabled to smack into the wall of reality in 2008-2010, just as we're beginning to be hit with significant expenditures for medicare and SS.
The bill WILL be paid. It will NOT be paid by Paris Hilton and her pals, however. It will be paid by the middle class, and the cost will be very high and painfully extracted. Fiscal irresponsibility the likes of voodoo economics entails comes at a very high cost to society in the long term. It is the most vicious form of class warfare, as we'll all be witness to shortly.
Clark was caught with his pants down knowing nothing of the NASDAQ bubble, now he just tries to slither around the issue.
Crediting Clinton for "balancing the budget" is like crediting Calvin Coolidge for putting two chickens in every pot.
We know what happened to both the Coolidge and Clinton economy.
I cannot help but silently mouthing "Wow" to the hubris and foolishness of that irrational spike upward and disasterous dive downward.
The chart reveals the ignorance and stupidity of people like Clark who are foolish enough to credit Clinton with a success rather than condemn his policies for a Coolidge-like calamity.
I believe there are two things you can do to Congress and Washington in order to keep government spending, and thus the deficit, low. One, have term limits. Once politicans become life-long jobs, all they want to do is stay in power and spend to achieve this. Two, starve the government of excess cash so politicians can't come up with create ways to spend it.
Example: did we really need a prescription drug coverage for all seniors? Talk about stupidity. Another example: the billions of dollars that supposedly went to reconstruct New Orleans that ended up instead being embezzled? Who didn't see that coming?
There are many other examples of small time to big time pork barrel, earmarks, and just outright stupid spending to buy votes. Neither side of the aisle should be spared from the vote-lashing this fall since both sides have contributed to the problem.
In my opinion, changes in the tax structure does not impact the economy and people's behavior immediately. Thus, the current economy cannot be linked to current tax policy changes. But we do know that over time, lowering taxes provide positive incentives for people to work more and invest more. That is what we should encourage.
One more note... the economic recovery from the recession in 2001 was none of Bush's doing or his oft-debated tax cuts. It was the interest rate cuts, which sparked the incredible mortgage refinancing boom and the housing sector, which then drove consumer spending (2/3 of GDP). Bush had nothing to do with this. Sure, his tax cuts probably added a bit to the spending spree, but a drop in the bucket relative to the trillions taken out of the home equity.
I agree with you completely, especially about interest rates.
I am not particularly a fan of tax cuts mainly because much of the economic impact is invested abroad. On the other hand, revenue cuts force up the deficit which puts political pressure on structural increases in spending.
One of the reasons for the repeated rise in the deficit is that spending increases during times of increased revenue but is locked in by means-tested programs and budgetary committeemen's even in times of lower revenues.
When revenues increase on the next rise of the cycle, spending increases again. The effect is a ratchet like increase in federal, state, county and city spending.
Several governors have done what Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty did to disrupt this ratching by declaring a "no-new-taxes" pledge.
What a foolish, meaningless statement. The sign of the truly clueless.
"Crediting Clinton for "balancing the budget" is like crediting Calvin Coolidge for putting two chickens in every pot."
Sorry. I can certainly understand why someone who worships failed policies like voodoo economics would find it difficult to accept, but Clinton's tax increases DID help to bring the deficit under control. It's just one of those harsh little facts that you're going to have to live with, if you care to be seen as anything but a shameless, clueless, partisan hack, that is.
"The chart reveals the ignorance and stupidity of people like Clark who are foolish enough to credit Clinton with a success rather than condemn his policies for a Coolidge-like calamity. "
Simple little Greggie. He thinks that increases in top tax rates did NOTHING to bring in federal revenue, while CUTTING those rates DOES bring in revenue. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your ignorance is showing.
Btw, Capt. Clueless, just exactly what would you have had Clinton do, to drive down the stock market? (this outta be good) And, do you feel that Bush should've done something to prevent the coming housing bubble burst?
"One more note... the economic recovery from the recession in 2001 was none of Bush's doing or his oft-debated tax cuts. It was the interest rate cuts, which sparked the incredible mortgage refinancing boom and the housing sector, which then drove consumer spending (2/3 of GDP). Bush had nothing to do with this. "
Bingo. Bush is responsible only for driving the nation nearly three addition trillion dollars into debt. He hasn't even managed to post positive net employment during his disastrous 6 years of mismanagement and reckless debt spending. I'm sure that's somehow Clinton's fault, though, as will be the upcoming recession.
You also said, "Clinton's tax increases DID help to bring the deficit under control." He was aided by a hopping stock market and a pissed off Republican Congress who forced the balanced budget. I'm sure you didn't forget the Gingrich Revolution. I give Clinton credit for not blowing it by going on a massive spending spree above the intake of tax revenues, unlike Bush. But Federal spending grew in both presidencies so neither can say they were good stewards of the public's money.
No, it's not. Bush drove down revenues and drove up debt by cutting taxes and going on a wild, reckless borrow and spend spree. The recession, as you'll recall, was actually rather short lived, and had very little effect on the deficit. He has added nearly 3 trillion in debt since stealing office, with a combination of ill-thought tax cuts on millionaires and massive debt spending.
Also, it was not I who said that Clinton's economic policies were not responsible for increased tax revenue. That was Greg. Obviously, Clinton increasing tax rates on the upper income earners created a massive increase in federal revenues, and the growing economy only increased it further as it grew.
"You also said, "Clinton's tax increases DID help to bring the deficit under control." He was aided by a hopping stock market and a pissed off Republican Congress who forced the balanced budget. "
The fact is that not a single republican signed onto his 1993 budget. It is factually incorrect to state that Clinton was able to produce a budget surplus because of republicans, when they had nothing to do with the very budget that created the surplus.
"But Federal spending grew in both presidencies so neither can say they were good stewards of the public's money. "
In terms of adjusted spending growth rates, Clinton was the cheapest SOB we've had in office for decades. Meanwhile, Bush has bloated federal spending by 25%. I would hardly lump them together as being poor stewards of the national treasury. Only one of them has shown to be such.
So, if you were to assume that GDP remains constant, but the stock market tanks, then already tax revenues fall by 30% compared to the late 1990s. On top of that, GDP falls because of a recession (which also is not Bush's fault as the economy boom is not Clinton's fault...). Finally, you add on the fact that people can continue to deduct their capital gains losses in later years - for individuals, you can deduct $3,000 each year until you run out, for corporations, more but there's a time expiration date. So tax revenues will be depressed somewhat by the massive losses (the Nasdaq fell over 75% from peak to trough) into the future.
The combined effect from all those would have put the budget in a deficit position without Bush's help. However, I do agree with you that Bush did much to exacerbate the situation. Again, I know how much you hate Bush, but you cannot leave out blame for Congress.
In fact, Clark, and I'm pretty sure you know this, the president may submit a budget but he has no POWER in legislating the budget. Congress is in fact responsible for appropriating monies. So while Clinton may have submitted a budget to which no Republican signed on, it was actually the Republican-led Congress, obviously joined by a significant amount of Democrats, in passing a balanced budget.
See Bursting Bubbles
Why do I not find it odd that an ideologue like Clark refuses to see what plainly infront of him, even when the majority of his ideological ilk are nudging his shoulder and saying....."uh, psst CLARK!!!!"
Sometimes it's just other factors that get the economy moving and slowing and has nothing to do with Presidents.
For instance, if Clinton had done the responsible thing and jaw-boned hard about the "irrational exuberance" of the NASDAQ Bubble, the stock market would not have gone so high or fallen so far.
While it is silly to credit or condemn a president for the happenstance of the economy on their watch, it is an equal folly to discredit their actions or potential actions.
Investors in the grips of fierce emotion, in this case greed, just can't be reasoned with. Bubbles like this have happened over and over again throughout history. I wouldn't want to blame Clinton for not talking it down. I don't believe it could have been done.
Greenspan made a single statement regarding "irrational exuberance" on December 5th, 1995.
Not a peep was heard since from Greenspan or Clinton, yet Clinton basked in the glow of an out of control market.
To suggest that his jaw-boning may not have worked is fair, to suggest he did the right thing is just plain wrong.
Can we admit that a president really has little control over the market. So, therefore, Clinton had very little to do with the great market during his term, as neither can Bush assume credit for the great housing market. Clinton and Bush make mistakes!! Now they will never admit them, I guess it is an ego thing. Sort of when Bush was asked during a debate on whether he has made any mistakes during his first term, his answer was no. To tell me that a person can go through 4 years in the presidency and never have made a mistake is just unthinkable.
Both parties do have some great ideas. I wish we could share get into a great discussion, without the name calling, and work out the problems we have as a country.
Since you all like statistics here is some I have learned as a financil planner.
The majority of the population spends 116% of it's income
Wages have not kept up with inflation. Inflation is really at 4% not 2. The country fudges the numbers.
The majority of americans live paycheck to paycheck and would be in dire straits if they went without 2 paychecks.
American consumers have 3 trillion in debt.
The majority of today's retirees live on less than $12,000 annual income.
We as a people must start doing a better job ourselves to better America. No politician can do it for us.
1. All things good come from republicans.
2. All things bad come from Clinton.
3. Nothing that the president does can affect the economy in any way whatsoever, unless it is a good effect, and then only if the president is a republican.
4. Clinton should've intentionally destroyed the stock market, in order to avoid a bubble burst, but Bush is right to let the housing bubble continue to burst point.
5. The upcoming recession, brought on by massive debt spending during the past 6 years, will be Clinton's fault.
6. Facts are only pertinent to the degree that they can be bent to favor republicans and/or disparage democrats, particularily Clinton.
7. When facts get in the way of the argument, simply ignore them.
8. Numbers are meant to be twisted in republican favor. So twist.
9. Clinton was a failure.
10. Bushs' were successes.
Any questions? See Groggie.
"We as a people must start doing a better job ourselves to better America. No politician can do it for us."
I'm always a bit puzzled when people trash "government." Government isn't a set of buildings in Washington DC or your State Capital; Government isn't a bureaucrat who sits in one of those building all day recklessly spending taxpayer dollars.
Government is your kid's 1st grade teacher. Government is your town's police and firefighters. Government is your community college. Government, ladies and gentlemen, is us. The sooner we take responsibility and accept that we have a stake in that government and how WE mange ourselves, manage OUR money, the better off we'll all be.
You are nearly hystrical in you "reasoning"
Does anyone really believe that the Democrats would lower the deficit?
Isn't that exactly what your Clinton did?
Is Bush doing it?
Clark simply cannot see the world in anything but cartoon colors.
Clark simply cannot acknowledge that the shrinking deficit of the 1990's and the widening deficit of the last 5 years were the result of the same artificial economic wave.
As waves are want to do, the economies rise on one side and fall on the other. This wave was shaped like a spike (see chart linked above) with a sharp rise and an equally sharp decline.
I can understand why the left clings to the notion that the 1990's were an economic success.....it is all they have.
Please read the article from the cited above from the socially progressive website Alternet.org.
"Clinton" did not lower the deficit, the NASDAQ Bubble, Housing Bubble and Dollar Bubble created an artifical spike in government revenues which then collapsed in Clinton's last year.
Where are your brains,
When Clinton left office there was a surplus, something that angered you, you want it back in tax cuts. Your revered Bush has squandered it.
Now you want more tax cuts. Of course you will be long dead as this mess is paid for.
Reading your comments anywhere. Here is what we can learn of your thoughts.
All good comes from Republicans
All bad comes from Democrats
If something good has happened it was because of Republican action
If something bad has happened it is because of the Democrats.
Don't you realize that this makes you seem to have no real ability to understand anything.
"We as a people must start doing a better job ourselves to better America. No politician can do it for us."
"
And to this taking responsability doesn't mean just yelling that others are doing it wrong...ie blame game.
Such statements are reminiscent of the fool who left a party dead-drunk, singing and swaying with a bimbo who subsequently wakes up with both a head-ache and the clap but cannot connect the fact that the good times and bad times were related. Such a person, until they mature, continually seek out intoxicants, parties and sexual partners because these things feel good but avoids sobriety, work and doctors because these things are unpleasant.
Upthread I created a link to an article from the socially progressive Alternet.org which explained the link between the party and the hangover.
At least someone on the left has gotten the message.
I am glad of that......I thought this was a lesson that was learned in the 1920's and 1930's, the last time the economy partied and woke up with a crushing hang-over.
No, I do not "want" tax cuts. I thought that I was rather clear on that fact. While tax-cuts have historically been used to stimulate the economy to mitigate recession, the structure of the economy has changed and too much revenue is invested abroad to have the desired effects.