If Sanders gets elected. And if this is accurate. And if he succeeds in implementing this plan...

 

I'm screwed.

If Sanders gets elected. And if this is accurate. And if he succeeds in implementing this plan...

 

I'm screwed.

 

You have nothing to worry about. Sanders has zero chance of being elected. His plan has less than zero chance of being passed by any congress...even one with a D majority...

You have nothing to worry about. Sanders has zero chance of being elected. His plan has less than zero chance of being passed by any congress...even one with a D majority...

Today you're correct. Long term I don't know. This country gets more liberal each year. One day were gonna look up and those that wanted these policies the most will be the loudest voices among the complaints. Scary thing is that the Republican Party is too stupid at the top to prevent it. The GOP cannot afford to lose this election but sure enough that's what they're going to ensure that they do. Today Bernie is too radical. 8 years from now these ideas may come from another and will be looked at as practical.

You have nothing to worry about. Sanders has zero chance of being elected. His plan has less than zero chance of being passed by any congress...even one with a D majority...

 

 

I wouldn't say zero chance. If something derails Hillary's campaign, like maybe being sent to the pokey and if Trump or Cruz is the GOP nominee, then Bernie will be your next Commander in Chief. Not likely but not impossible.

I wouldn't say zero chance. If something derails Hillary's campaign, like maybe being sent to the pokey and if Trump or Cruz is the GOP nominee, then Bernie will be your next Commander in Chief. Not likely but not impossible.

 

Crazy for someone like me to say, but I'd much rather Hillary not be indicted than that scenario play out.

Crazy for someone like me to say, but I'd much rather Hillary not be indicted than that scenario play out.

 

I've been telling people all along that bern scares me as much as or more than hillary.

 

They're both terrifying and horrible for our country.

Can someone post a quick list of countries that are currently a socialist

society?

 

10 most socialist countries in the world.

 

China

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Canada

Sweden

Norway

Ireland

New Zealand

Belgium

I save 2500.00 with Trump. Bernie will cost me 5500.00. Well, that's a no-brainer. Bernie can go to hell.

I wouldn't say zero chance. If something derails Hillary's campaign, like maybe being sent to the pokey and if Trump or Cruz is the GOP nominee, then Bernie will be your next Commander in Chief. Not likely but not impossible.

 

Don't think so. If HRC goes down, the D's will get someone else to run against Bernie and will make sure he/she wins (Superdelegates). Biden or Warren will be the nominee if HRC goes down IMO. How funny would it be if BOTH conventions went the contested route...must see TV if that happens...

We don't have a tax problem that needs more of hard working families money. What we have is a corrupt, drunken, bloated spending problem. Let the gooberment find a way to earn the money that they constantly send out to other countries. The money pried out of American families paychecks should stay in America. I'm working for me and mine, and helping the occasional neighbor, not the world.

Economist Thomas Sowell explains what really happened under the Bush tax cuts in his article from Dec. 4, 2012.

 

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

 

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

 

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction. This has happened as recently as the Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

 

The bottom line is that Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

 

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

 

You can read the full article here Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts | The Columbus Dispatch

If Sanders gets elected. And if this is accurate. And if he succeeds in implementing this plan...

 

I'm screwed.

 

Same here, I would likely lose my business as I would not be able to pass on the extra tax expense to most of my customers as they too would likely not be able to afford the extra increase. I doubt we have much to worry about though because I can't see Bernie winning.

Bernie's in the same boat as Trump, DOA. Both in being elected and if somehow elected, getting their policies passed.

Economist Thomas Sowell explains what really happened under the Bush tax cuts in his article from Dec. 4, 2012.

 

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

 

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

 

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction. This has happened as recently as the Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

 

The bottom line is that Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

 

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

 

You can read the full article here Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts | The Columbus Dispatch

 

This was interesting to read and to examine the facts more closely. And since I made nearly the opposite point earlier in this thread I thought I’d better respond. I think Sowell is being a bit vague to make a specious point. I’ll add some specifics to his argument then explain why I think his point is specious.

 

The argument from supply-side adherents who claim that “tax cuts pay for themselves” is something along the lines of this: “If you cut taxes it will spur economic growth and this economic growth will be such that the government will take in more money than it otherwise would have even with a smaller rate of taxation.” The logic is intuitive. A fisherman with a smaller net in fertile waters will take in more fish than a fisherman with a larger net in sparser waters. But, the supply-siders argue that the smaller net will lead to more fertile waters. That’s the real question.

 

What Sowell points to does not show this happening. The immediate effect of the Bush tax cuts, using a smaller net, so to speak, was that the government caught fewer fish. In 2001, when the cuts were signed, the government took in $1991B. When the rates went into effect over the course of 2002-3, the government took in $1853B and $1782B and then $1880B in 2004. In 2001, the government netted a surplus of 128.2B, in 2002 in netted a deficit of $157.8B, then a deficit of $377.6B in 2003, then a deficit of $412.7B in 2004. In short, the immediate effect of the tax cuts was less revenue and expanding deficits, precisely the opposite of Sowell's conclusion. Over the same course of time period GDP increased by an average of 5.5% a year, so these outcomes can’t be attributed to flat growth. There were more fish, the government switched to a smaller net, and the government caught fewer of them.

 

Now, Sowell would likely retort that in 2005 the government began to take in more money than pre-tax cut levels, taking in $2154B. See? Victory! The smaller net worked. But, this is where I find his point specious. The government almost always takes in more money each year due to economic growth. Unless GDP growth completely flat-lined, his claim that tax receipts would eventually increase would be true under almost any circumstance, whether taxes were cut or not, whether a Republican or Democrat was president, or whether the Yankees won the World Series. The first chart below demonstrates the steady increase of receipts by year going back to 1977. The second compares receipts to GDP growth. There you can see a mild correlation between the two (GDP goes up, receipts go slightly up).

 

 

 

This leads me to two points. First, if receipts increased at the same rate between 2001-2005 as they did between 1997-2001, receipts would have been $2513B in 2005 instead of $2154B (receipts would have been $2371B in 2004 instead of $1880.1B, and so forth). Second, there are two big drop-offs in how much revenue the government took in on the charts. The first corresponds with the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The second is the financial crisis of 2008/9. The Bush tax cuts’ effect on revenue is comparable to the global financial disaster. Instead of swelling the government’s purse as predicted, the tax cuts stalled revenue for years before economic growth was such that it caught up to pre-2000 revenue growth.

 

Of course, you might be saying “But, Habib, there was a recession in 2001 too. Maybe that’s why revenue grew so slowly in its wake.” That’s a fair point. I’ve copied the above chart and indicated all recessions over the span of years covered. First, as you can see, besides the 2008 recession, which was the most severe by magnitudes above the others, revenue was only vaguely impacted. Second, the recession of 2001 was the mildest of all of the recessions covered. Why wouldn’t the other recessions have shown such drastic falls and slow recoveries in receipts? It stands to reason that the resulting revenue stall and expanded deficits were caused by the tax cuts, not the recession.

 

 

I’ll also make one more point about the effect of taxes on economic growth. Sowell implies in his article that Obama’s proposed increase of the marginal rate for the highest bracket won’t work. In fact, if supply-side adherents are correct about the relationship between tax rates and growth, then shouldn’t that be borne out when taxes are increased as well? In other words, when taxes go up, shouldn’t economic growth slow and receipts decline? We have the benefit of hindsight since Sowell’s article was printed, so what is the verdict on raising the top marginal rate? I’ve copied the chart above on GDP and receipts and indicated the point of Obama’s tax increase. I think you will see that there is no discernible shift in GDP growth, yet there is a discernible increase in government receipts. The government used a bigger net and caught more fish.

 

 

So, my conclusion from this rudimentary analysis is that the Bush tax cuts did not lead to the explosion of government revenue and surpluses predicted, but instead stalled receipts and expanded deficits for about five years before the economy grew enough to begin increasing receipts again.

Holy chart toppers, Batman! I mean Habib. That's some serious analysis.

 

Tell me about the two points that Sowell made. 1) that tax revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts. One would expect some lag as the effect on the economy would not be immediate. But Sowell claims the two sources he cited indicate revenues went up. Is it really because, as you say, the economy would grow any way without the tax cuts and so revenues would eventually be higher than the pre-tax cut years?

 

2) the Budget Deficit declined year after year following the tax cuts. This is in contradiction to the claim by others that the deficit increased, in this case the claim was made by President Obama.

 

Sowell cites two very different sources for his information, "Economic Report of the President" and "Investor's Business Daily." He says this deficit reduction continued until the mortgage crisis caused an increase in the budget deficit.

 

So, is Sowell correct in saying that the Budget Deficit reduced after the Bush tax cuts? If so, would Obama be wrong about the Budget Deficit increasing due to the Bush tax cuts. They both can't be right. They may both be wrong. Or one may be right, unless there is some other way to understand what they are saying.

 

Lastly, Sowell concludes that one result of the tax cuts is that "the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut. The Bush tax cuts are usually characterized as having the opposite result.

 

Sorry, if your previous response answers these specifics. I will confess to being dense regarding economic theory but I do want you to know I am not being deliberately obtuse. The reason I quoted an expert in my first post is because I am fully cognizant of my "deficit" in this area.