A Tax Increase That Bush Didn't Mention

[Guest]

imported post

President Bush has promised to fix the alternative minimum tax as part a fundamental overhaul of the tax code, and he has ordered a bipartisan advisory panel to come up with recommendations by the end of July.
Seen or unseen, the looming tax increases are almost as large as the president's tax cuts. Leonard E. Burman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, estimated that the government would have to raise ordinary income tax rates substantially in every bracket to offset the money lost in each bracket by the elimination of the alternative minimum tax. People in today's 28 percent bracket, for example, would have to pay a top rate of 35 percent. Those who now pay a top rate of 33 percent would pay 41.4 percent.

 

[Rolo]

imported post

It doesn'twork that way; it's not that simplistic. Tax cuts do not equate to less revenue.

 

[rokid]

imported post

Rolo wrote:

It doesn'twork that way; it's not that simplistic. Tax cuts do not equate to less revenue.

Apparently, Bush's tax cuts have equated to not enough revenue.


http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

 

[Rolo]

imported post

They are only comparing % of GDP but they do not show the changes in GDP or how much revenue was actually generated. They left out the facts and treated conjecture as fact. Also, why did they only compare 2005 w/2000 and not show a running history of revenue (in $) and spending (in $)?

This last chart came from this site, pretty cool one:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_C/c1.cfm

 

[rokid]

imported post

Your last chart shows thatrevenues have plunged since 2000 while expenditures have continued to rise. Interestingly, the largest gaps between revenues and expenditures, i.e. deficits,came during theReagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations.