Continued from August 2010 Thread

[SiriuslyLong]

OK i will look back at that boring article once again when i have some time.
It feels an awful like homework.

You did it again you rascal LOL. But at least this time you come up with a new one labeling this contrarian piece "boring".

This data suggests that Bush's "failed policy" seemed to actually work. You say the Bush tax cuts ran us into this recession, and here this guy says they worked toward collecting more tax revenue.

I used to golf with this guy. We'd see three balls on the green and one off. The saying was, "someone is going to be awfully disappointed" lol.

So, who will be disappointed - Havakasha or Bill Frezza??

Now let's extend this little ideolgy to religion - lot's of people are going to be awfully disappointed lol. OK, let's not.

[Havakasha]

Definitelty Bill Frezza will lose. He sounds like an ideologue. Tell me more about him and his background.

[SiriuslyLong]

Definitelty Bill Frezza will lose. He sounds like an ideologue. Tell me more about him and his background.

Stop it with the diversion tactic lol. Address the article. Maybe if you can address this, John can address your two questions?? You partisans BOTH play the same game.

[Havakasha]

The big difference is that i will eventually address the question.
John will NEVER cause he knows i have him pinned down if he does.
Classic John. He makes stock predictions based on political ideology and
thats a HUGE mistake.

Stop putting us on the same level. john is clearly a nutjob no matter what you say.
Afterall its perfectly clear he intimidates you. So scary. lol.

[SiriuslyLong]

Afterall its perfectly clear he intimidates you. So scary. lol.

LOL - good one Lloyd!! Way off base.

Anyway, I trust that this author can add, and his addition is correct. So how did Bush collect more income tax dollars than Clinton?

[Havakasha]

Damn was that hard hitting S&L. I love how you took on Laffer and in essence John. "laffer didnt have the last laugh". How about Laffer was completely wrong! I didnt know it would be so hard for YOU to say it. LOL.

I will start lookiing for an answer to your question. Can i ask you a favor as well and see if you can find anyone else who concurs with this article.I just dont want to spend a lot of time looking into something if its an outlier. Thanks.

P.S.Thanks for trying to get John to come to the politics thread and to stop hijacking the stock thread.

[SiriuslyLong]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=203

I think I found the answer.

[Havakasha]

Did you read this because it directly responds to the Tax Foundation chart?
It says your chart contains some mathematical errors.
It also goes on to say that it doesnt take into account some inflation adjustments.
I think its an example of why you have to go to different sources when discussing
statistics. They are easily manipulated to say what you want them to say.
Is this the chart that Bill Frezza relies on?

And now i would like you to tell my why the myths (in my other thread) about the
Bush tax cuts are incorrect.
Thanks.



The column of statistics on
Bush is on the right. Clinton is on the left.


Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

by Gerald Prante and Alicia Hansen

Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

This message shows that income taxes under George Bush are lower than income taxes under Bill Clinton, and it relies on Tax Foundation data to make this comparison. The author used a Tax Foundation chart showing the federal individual income tax rates and brackets from 1913 to the present to calculate the income taxes paid by hypothetical married and single taxpayers at various income levels under 1999 tax law and 2008 tax law.

While the basic message of the comparison is correct (federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum), the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

The table below presents the correct amount of tax paid by each of the hypothetical taxpayers in the comparison. Note that this comparison does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the taxpayers in these examples take the standard deduction and do not have children.

(Click here if you're having trouble viewing the table.)

Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Clinton Bush Tax Cuts
Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50
*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax

[SiriuslyLong]

Well, here's my answer for Frezza's observation, and it is mostly mathematical. One, as you identified, there has to be some correction for inflation. Two, if you look at the link I posted, tax receipts typically grow with time. In fact, you can plot a regression line and try to predict tax receipts based strictly as a function of time (although the correlation coefficient will not be that good). So although Bush did in fact collect more receipts, that number can be compared to what he "should" have generated. I'm sure some economist has developed a statistically significant model for tax receipts one could use for the basis of comparison.

Lastly, if you look at the link I posted, his biggest tax collection years just so happen to coincide with...................................... the bubble (2006 - 2008). Maybe people were getting fatter and happier and paying more taxes on a false premise? I don't know if that is a plausible variable or not. One can also say that those years were indeed prosperous? But that prosperity really took a $hit.