Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...I am still trying to understand a core issue that you stated above (and in other threads)
Can you point to any data or any evdience that "rich" people are using tax avoidance strategies less now than pre-2001? or, if the rates revert to the previous level in 2010 as envisioned in the law, that they will pay less than they did when those rates were in effect pre-2001?
IMO, your argument on this issue is baseless unless you have something factual to suggest otherwise.
|
Before I put any additional effort into your question, I need to ask you a question to see if we are even in the same ballpark.
Do you think federal tax policy impacts the behavior of tax payers, if so how?
-----Added 24/7/2008 at 10 : 52 : 15-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
nope...I didnt find that compelling at all.
You and ace are gonna have to do better than that with data or factual evidence that those in the top bracket are using "tax avoidance strategies" less now than pre-2001....or conversely, that they would ulitize such stratgies more than at present, if/when the rates are rolled back in 2010 as currently required by law.
-----Added 23/7/2008 at 05 : 23 : 28-----
I guess you guys dont accept the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation cited in the fact check above: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines. My position remains that a tax cut focused on the middle class and working poor rather than the top wage earners would not only cost less but would also benefit far more people.
If you buy into the supply side argument, then we will obviously continue to disagree. |
DC,
The above is like having some people sit around a table and look into a crystal ball trying to speculate what might have been. I think before doing that look at real data.
The real data says taxes collected are up. The real data shows we were in a recession and may be in one right now, either way GDP growth was slow or negative prior to the tax cuts and now GDP growth is slow or negative. Historically this would indicate taxes collected would go down, they have not. The data also shows "rich" people are paying a higher percentage of taxes collected. You could argue that Bush's tax cuts put us in our current economic status, but no reasonable person is suggesting that.
So, you are correct I do not accept the report that you cite. I know the normal reaction is that if scholarly types in Washington say something we are all supposed to accept it without question, but I am not normal in that way. Heck, the scholarly types in Washington don't even know what our real CPI is.