Thursday, July 22, 2010

10 Myths About The Bush Tax Cuts

I found this interesting research piece on Heritage.org. Don't worry, they don't all defend Bush to the last man. I thought that this piece did a good job explaining the reasoning behind the deficit Bush left behind, and the reasoning behind why most people think it was because of the tax cuts that there was a deficit. This piece doesn't defend Bush, but rather shows that it wasn't the tax cuts that left the $247 billion budget deficit, rather spending increases.



Here's an excerpt I rather enjoyed:
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.
The unsustainability of America's long-term budget path is well known. However, a common misperception blames the massive future budget deficits on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In reality, revenues will continue to increase above the historical average yet be dwarfed by historic entitlement spending increases.
Read on here. Let me know what you think. I'd rather like to know what a lot of you think of supply-side economics and the Laffer-Curve.

4 comments:

rmwarnick said...

The Laffer Curve actually makes some sense if you start from a high marginal tax rate, such as the 91 percent top income tax bracket of the Eisenhower administration. However, trickle-down economics became a national joke because Republicans got the idea that lowering taxes always increases revenue. That's insane.

As for the deficit-creating effect of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, I invite you to read this analysis by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Unknown said...

The 91% tax rate is practically meaningless without accounting for the tax base. Prior to 1986, the tax base was much narrower. Passive investment losses could be deducted from ordinary income. Non-mortgage interest was still deductible. The 1986 TRA was revenue-neutral even though the rates were significantly reduced.

To say the deficit is driven primarily by revenue losses ignores the fact the annual federal spending has increased by $1 trillion in just three years, from $2.7 trillion to 3.7 trillion. Also, OMB's own forecast shows that federal revenues will exceed the historical 18% average even if most of the Bush tax cuts are renewed which Obama plans to do.

rmwarnick said...

Spending cuts ought to begin with the Pentagon. There is no reason why USA military spending should exceed that of every other country combined. Then we ought to cut the out-of-control spending on surveillance, especially domestic surveillance in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Other suggested cuts-- subsidies for corporations, especially the oil and gas industry and the nuclear power industry.

Unknown said...

We should cut subsidies for wind and solar as well. Per MW-hr, wind and solar subsidies are about 50 times greater than subsidies for coal, according to the Energy Information Administration.

I should also point out that the budget debt is going to reach $20 trillion even if Obama lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Post a Comment