The Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
5,313
154
CA
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

Newly revised estimates from Citizens for Tax Justice show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost
$2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010). Preliminary estimates from the
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats’ health care reform legislation
is projected to cost $1 trillion over the decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019).
It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide
us with two and a half times the benefits of health care
reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally
phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will
go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
You can't look backwards for tax revenues, it never works out the way that government plans.

Besides the current health care proposal does very little to help solve the problem we are facing, unless the problem is assumed to be that insurance execs don't have enough money in their pockets already/politicians need more political funds for 2010/12.

Also the decade proposal is misleading as benefits don't start until well into the decade.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
You can't look backwards for tax revenues, it never works out the way that government plans.

Besides the current health care proposal does very little to help solve the problem we are facing, unless the problem is assumed to be that insurance execs don't have enough money in their pockets already.
I assume you can't defend the fact they cut taxes but didn't nothing to make up the difference.
 

GfPQqmcRKUvP

macrumors 68040
Sep 29, 2005
3,211
373
Terminus
Scared. No way they can defend this but just say "But it stimulated the economy moar! Big government bad!" :rolleyes:
We aren't scared, it's just beating a dead horse. I don't view the government taking less of a share from people's paychecks as "costing" the government anything in terms of it having a negative connotation.

And of course most of the benefits of the tax cuts went to the richest Americans: the poor hardly pay any income tax and receive tax money while the rich are progressively taxed. The Bush tax cuts reduced how progressively they are taxed, that's it.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,174
quae tangit perit Trump
We aren't scared, it's just beating a dead horse. I don't view the government taking less of a share from people's paychecks as "costing" the government anything in terms of it having a negative connotation.
"Costing" is probably the wrong word, but in an era in which thousand appear to have discovered that the government runs a deficit, it's a good comparison. The US government went from surplus to deficit and this trend started with the Bush tax cuts—although two wars, a recession, etc. furthered this effect.

The question really should be, were the tax cuts effective? And will the health care proposals be effective?

And of course most of the benefits of the tax cuts went to the richest Americans: the poor hardly pay any income tax and receive tax money while the rich are progressively taxed. The Bush tax cuts reduced how progressively they are taxed, that's it.
And, that should help us understand whether or not these tax cuts were effective in supporting economic growth. If the answer is no, then maybe similar tax cuts should be abandoned for other solutions.

Simply put, can we learn from this?
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
Tax cuts should come with spending cuts. You won't find an argument from me on that point.
And they did not have any cuts as far as I am aware. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The hypocrisy with Republicans and "less government" is hilarious. They do nothing but grow it while in power. Their base doesn't complain. But BOOM! As soon as a Democrat gets in there and attempts to clean up after them now they're all for small government and less spending. :rolleyes:
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
And they did not have any cuts as far as I am aware. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The hypocrisy with Republicans and "less government" is hilarious. They do nothing but grow it while in power. Their base doesn't complain. But BOOM! As soon as a Democrat gets in there and attempts to clean up after them now they're all for small government and less spending. :rolleyes:
No one rallied harder against Bush's bank bailout plan then the republican base.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
No one rallied harder against Bush's bank bailout plan then the republican base.
That may be true but 1) I doubt it would have happened if it was during a reelection year or at anytime not during his last year. And 2) It was badly needed. Companies even like General Electric would have went bankrupt if the bailout hadn't happened. It would have been extremely bad. I wish Bush had put more restrictions in place and more conditions on what they had to use the money for. Why that didn't happen (with regards to Geithner) still troubles me as it does probably you too.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
The Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal
Perhaps you would be good enough to show us how the Bush tax cuts cost Americans anything? The article did not dwell on that point... The Bush tax cuts indeed addressed and relieved the recession of 2000/2001 and prompted a drop in unemployment to its 8% average in 2002 onward... To refresh, tax cuts reduce the amount of money Americans pay to the IRS to fund government. So the "cost" of a tax cut is actually a net benefit to taxpayers! Indeed, if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, economists project that specifically, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits would be, beginning, in 2011:

"For example, (1) Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average; (2) Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation; (3) Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and (4) After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation."
Source: The Heritage Foundation
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
That may be true but 1) I doubt it would have happened if it was during a reelection year or at anytime not during his last year. And 2) It was badly needed. Companies even like General Electric would have went bankrupt if the bailout hadn't happened. It would have been extremely bad. I wish Bush had put more restrictions in place and more conditions on what they had to use the money for. Why that didn't happen (with regards to Geithner) still troubles me as it does probably you too.
There is no doubt that the banks had a gun to our head, the problem is that we gave them injections with no strings attached, they become BIGGER by buying out other banks with OUR money. We should have had the Glass-Steagall act reintroduced and further had these banks cut down to size.

In essence we bought the gun from them and then gave them a bigger one for next time.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
There is no doubt that the banks had a gun to our head, the problem is that we gave them injections with no strings attached, they become BIGGER by buying out other banks with OUR money. We should have had the Glass-Steagall act reintroduced and further had these banks cut down to size.

In essence we bought the gun from them and then gave them a bigger one for next time.
I can't see anything to disagree with her. It worried me greatly why Obama let this happen. :( I know he's a good guy in general but why he did this is beyond me.
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
5,313
154
CA
Perhaps you would be good enough to show us how the Bush tax cuts cost Americans anything? The article did not dwell on that point... The Bush tax cuts indeed addressed and relieved the recession of 2000/2001 and prompted a drop in unemployment to its 8% average in 2002 onward... To refresh, tax cuts reduce the amount of money Americans pay to the IRS to fund government. So the "cost" of a tax cut is actually a net benefit to taxpayers!
Prior to Bush coming into office, the US was running a surplus and the economy was doing well. There was nothing apparent that warranted these tax cuts. Since no budget cuts were made to accommodate the tax cuts, the net effect was as if we were spending money anyway.

Indeed, if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, economists project that specifically, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits would be, beginning, in 2011:

"For example, (1) Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average; (2) Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation; (3) Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and (4) After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation."
Source: The Heritage Foundation
Your article is from 2006, which means, among other things, it preates the recession that began last year and makes it rather irrelevant to the current economic condition.
 

splitpea

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2009
984
225
Among the starlings
I can't see anything to disagree with her. It worried me greatly why Obama let this happen. :( I know he's a good guy in general but why he did this is beyond me.
Most of this happened before Obama took office; plus, the president doesn't have the power to block a corporate merger. Look to the congresscritters who wrote the original stimulus bill, which was passed while Bush was in office, and contained no stipulations regarding this; and the people at the treasury and SEC who didn't blink an eye.

And some would argue that the mergers prevented some of the banks from failing and thereby prevented the economy from failing. I can't comment on the validity of that argument, but I agree that it's a shame that the fallout has been the creation of more banks which are even more "too big to fail" -- without any provision for splitting them back up... or for any sort of corporate darwinisn to eliminate shoddily-managed corporations and dissolve their leadership altogether.
 

VenusianSky

macrumors 65816
Aug 28, 2008
1,283
46
I don't get the point. Why do people compare issues of this administration with how matters were handled by a previous administration? Do what is best for the present time. That is why we have elections every four years. Mistakes from the past don't necessarily justify a decision in the present.
 

sysiphus

macrumors 6502a
May 7, 2006
815
1
I don't get the point. Why do people compare issues of this administration with how matters were handled by a previous administration? Do what is best for the present time. That is why we have elections every four years. Mistakes from the past don't necessarily justify a decision in the present.
Thank you. I'm getting really sick of this thought process to excuse for current mistakes/problems.
 

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
and worth every penny. Those who make more money generally have more at the end. Most people never advance in class simply because they are too stupid to be wealthier.

Bush's fault was not reigning in the Republican majority from spending. The tax cuts did generate growth but government spending increased beyond reason. Then we have the dope up there now who wants to compound it with higher taxes and even higher spending.

Vote D or R and we all lose.

If you tax it then it cannot be used to hire someone. Dividing wealth does not increase it.
 

Iscariot

macrumors 68030
Aug 16, 2007
2,624
3
Toronteazy
Arguing that the Bush tax cuts would have had significant impact on lessening the absurd cost of the health care "proposal" is, for wont of another term, flat out stupid. Do you suppose that without that tax cut the Bush administration would have simply sat on the money and allowed it to accrue to be used for future administrations? I am certainly not defending the Bush administration's wanton disregard for the lower class and their tax cuts for the rich scheme, but it wouldn't have paid for a Democratic healthcare proposal.
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
5,313
154
CA
Arguing that the Bush tax cuts would have had significant impact on lessening the absurd cost of the health care "proposal" is, for wont of another term, flat out stupid. Do you suppose that without that tax cut the Bush administration would have simply sat on the money and allowed it to accrue to be used for future administrations? I am certainly not defending the Bush administration's wanton disregard for the lower class and their tax cuts for the rich scheme, but it wouldn't have paid for a Democratic healthcare proposal.
I don't think that's the intent of the article. I think that the idea is to point out the absurdity of objecting something that caters to human rights on the grounds of cost when we gave tax cuts to the rich, who didn't need them, at a valuation of 2.5 times the cost of the health care proposal.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
I don't think that's the intent of the article. I think that the idea is to point out the absurdity of objecting something that caters to human rights on the grounds of cost when we gave tax cuts to the rich, who didn't need them, at a valuation of 2.5 times the cost of the health care proposal.
I don't consider myself rich at all but I received tax cuts under the Bush Administration; most of my neighbors did too and none of us are among the "rich" that Democrats seem to demonize. Matter of fact most Americans received either tax cuts and/or tax rebates sometime during the Bush Administration, that helped keep productivity high and unemployment low (in the 7% range) for the period 2001-2008 and helped overcome the recession of 2000-2001. Want to know who didn't receive tax cuts during this period? Those that didn't pay taxes! Further, one of the reasons that upper strata of wage earners profit from tax cuts is that they often work harder to succeed and pay the lion's share of taxes in this nation, while many in the lower brackets don't pay any at all. Tax cuts also prompt companies to invest in new jobs via investment and expansion (as we saw in 2000-2008). President Reagan also used tax cuts to overcome the Carter economic disaster that regrettably we are seeing resurface today... Lastly, trying to compare the extreme cost of the health care proposal that Democrats are forcing Americans to pay, to the tax revenue that the former administration returned to its rightful owners seems a stretch best undone, in my humble opinion.

If you could explain the attempt at some moral equivalency between returning taxpayer earnings through a tax cut with taking earnings from selected taxpayers to pay others health care bills that might prove interesting.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
My dad was making about 30k a year working 50+ hours a week as a elementary school teacher and we received about 18 dollars in the rebate program. That's it.

We're among the ones that needed the money the most (though we paid, after regular rebates about nothing in taxes) but received nothing.
 

MyDesktopBroke

macrumors 6502
Jun 2, 2007
396
0
Can some one give me information about Obama's tax cuts? I remember hearing about them last May, but nothing since.

I would have thought that it would be used as a major talking point for the administration, but they haven't said anything about it for months. Did the tax cut take effect? Who did they cut taxes for?


I also remember hearing that Reagan's taxes were higher than Obama's, although I'm not sure how the current economic climate would affect how they impact the economy.