Paul Ryan and GOP fiscal hypocrisy

It doesn't matter how many times I post this. You will never click the link and will keep demanding proof. Here for the second time in this thread are the CBO numbers which show the bottom two quintiles have negative effective tax rates (they get more refunded than they pay in). The middle quintile has an effective tax rate of 3%. Given those facts is it really so hard to grok that 50% of American pay no federal income taxes?

Link

The Republicans are not trying to change the tax rates for anyone. They are simply pointing out the fact that the individuals who the Democrats want to tax already pay more than their fair share. I'm no fan of Republicans, but they are right on this issue.

Again... we are all too heavily taxed. My effective rate is less than 5% of my income for Federal Income Taxes, and I am still taxed to Bolivia.

 

The Republicans created our current tax rates with the GWB tax cuts. These cuts didn't exist prior to that, thus it was created by the Republicans. Don't you remember? GWB and the "fiscal conservatives" Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Mitch McConnell passed out tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 while we were in debt by over 10 trillion dollars because, according to the fiscally conservative math of Republicans, if we gave these tax cuts we would pay off the national debt within 10 years. I realize how ridiculous this sounds but this was the argument made by Republicans for giving these tax cuts. Now, those same Republicans are bitching because there are lower and middle income folks who are not paying enough in taxes......from a tax code that the Republicans put in place. Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Furthermore, the Democrats want to effectively return to the tax code that we had during the nineties. The rich paid 39% versus 35% today and there were much fewer exemptions and tax shelters. I am not advocating sticking it to the rich and only the rich because just taxing the rich will not be enough to make a dent in our budget deficits and, further, the debt. We will have to roll back some of the tax breaks the middle class has like mortgage interest credit, etc. if we are going to get serious about paying down our debt. I am all for re-writing the tax code and simplifying it, especially as it pertains to corporations.

 

35% is a lot

People like me, the middle class, pay zero taxes and you dems want to tax the rich lol..

I pay no income tax that is. I do pay my local property, sales, and all that other shit.. But still..

 

Ummm dude. After falling in 2002, tax collections rose every year until the great recession started. They eclipsed pre-tax cut collections in 2004. The economic stimulus created by the tax cuts grew the economy to a point where the lower rates didn't matter.

What I see is you twisting the Republican position. Notice none of the budgets they have proposed include tax increases for anyone. Thier position is that additional taxes on the wealthy are not necessary, and the wealthy already shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

 

Exactly right. Revenue increased substantially 2003 through 2007.

 

Bull Crap. Not only did the tax cuts not increase revenue but they didn't even do what they were intended for: to stimulate the economy, even temporarily. Real GDP growth peaked in 2004 at 3.6% before fading rapidly for every single year after. By contrast, after the 1982-83 tax increases (yes, I know it's hard to believe that your idol Ronald Reagan raised taxes but he did!) growth was far more robust, growing 7.2% in 1984 and continued to rise at a rate of more than 4% per year for the balance of the 80's. After the 1992-93 tax increases, which most Republicans insisted would throw us into a new recession real GDP growth averaged well over 4% for the rest of the nineties. Real GDP growth averaged just 2.7% for 2001-2009.

Few people talk about this but one of Bush's major justifications for tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus left to him by Clinton. Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign. In this light, the Bush Tax cuts were a smashing success because according to a CBO report, the tax cuts reduced revenue by 2.9 trillion from what they would have been under the Clinton tax code. Couple this with the slow growth (which wasn't supposed to happen because of the tax cuts) which reduced revenue by another 3.5 trillion and suddently we are 6 trillion in the hole. Worse, spending increased by almost another 6 trillion during that time period which essentially made a 6 trillion dollar budget surplus turn into a 6 trillion dollar deficit created by the tax cuts and the results of the tax cuts.

It has become a popular Republican talking point that the tax cuts increased revenue but it just isn't true and is yet another indication of the fuzzy Republican math. In 2010 Mitch McConnell stated, "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts on the economy." The "vibrancy" he is referring to: 2.7% average GDP growth for 2001-2009. Just further proof that saying something over and over again does not make it the truth.

 

where did you go to school?

I ask because here is an equation for you:

You are on a path to sound fiscal discipline. You have enough money coming in to meet your obligations and needs plus pay down your debt. Then one day, you walk into your bosses office and say, "I am taking a pay cut of ten grand per year." (Bush Tax Cuts) At home you tell your wife that you've taken a pay cut but don't worry because you have taken out some new credit cards (China). Next, you start spending money at new heights (Iraq & Afghanistan) and running up your credit cards. Everyone at home starts getting kind of pissed (American people) when they realize that there is no longer enough money coming in to meet the obligations so you take everyone out on a shopping spree (Medicare part D) and buy them new clothes on the credit card so you can quiet the complaining. Your wife, tired of your fuzzy math, leaves you for another man (Obama). In court, you stand up and testify that the man now married to your former wife actually is the one who ran up the credit card and asked for a decreased salary. (current Republican argument)

Sound ridiculous? Good, because so do you when you try to defend it. This is a scaled down version of Bush and Republican economics.

 

That only matters if that 2000 peak some how represented optimal collections. Because the government was taking in too much revenue (surpluses) that would not make sense.

Also the graph you posted is total government revenues, not individual income tax revenues.