Covert stated... http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1955760&highlight=tax+cuts#post1955760 Actually in the real world tax cuts don't pay for themselves, WILL THE TAX CUTS ULTIMATELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES? And it was Volcker killing inflation that reduced the cost of capital that lead to the boom times to follow, not tax cutting. lets compare that with reality.... http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/ ... The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. Thatâs correct â a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called âtax break for the wealthy.â The key question here is what did the wealthy contribute to this impressive increase in tax revenues? Letâs examine four income groups based on their adjusted gross income: the top 0.1% of earners representing about 129,000 tax returns in 2003 and 141,000 tax returns in 2007; the top 1% of earners representing 1,286,000 returns in 2003 and 1,411,000 returns in 2007; the top 25-50% of earners representing 32,152,000 returns in 2003 and 35,268,000 returns in 2007; and finally the bottom 50% of earners representing 64,305,000 returns in 2003 and 70,535,000 returns in 2007. Table 2 shows the total income tax and percent of total Federal tax revenues paid by each income group in 2003 and in 2007. As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.) The top 1% of earners paid an increase of $58 per day, the top 25-50% of earners paid an extra $1 per day, and the bottom 50% paid an increase of 14 cents per day. So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes?
Jem, For a good read on how clueless Covertibility is, just click this link: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/searc...by=lastpost&sortorder=descending&pagenumber=6 That's the search results for all his wisdom in 2003 and 2004 on the "no housing bubble" crap.