Taxes: Clinton vs. Bush

[snopes]

Comment: Is this true?

Taxes under Clinton 1999       Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400           Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000         Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250         Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800       Married making 60K - tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000       Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750     Married making 125K - tax $31,250

[UEL]

US National Debt Under Clinton - shrunk by 8.8%

US National Debt Under Bush - projected net growth of 11%

Neither my stats, nor the stats in the OP tell the whole story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

[snopes]

Comment: After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic
debate the other day in Vegas, I literally wanted to puke. For the most
part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his
millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten
or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to
look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said
and the media keeps stating as fact, "Bush is only out for the rich in
this country."

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some
examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both
singles and married couples, so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only
helped the rich.

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are
some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for
both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only
helped the rich. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under CLINTON 1999
Taxes under BUSH 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is
amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is
screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any
democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts
and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't
wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman;
you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what
happened.

[TomToad]

According to here and here, tax revenues have actually increased. Apparently, lower taxes create more incentive for investment, which leads to more income, which leads to a larger tax base.
I would bet that the larger national debt comes from increased spending rather than decreased taxes.

[SoToasty]

Originally Posted by TomToad

Apparently, lower taxes create more incentive for investment, which leads to more income, which leads to a larger tax base.

Since Government spending has risen dramatically, you can't really say whether the increased revenue is from the spending or the lower taxes.

[Towknie]

Those tables are really interesting to look at. In the 60s, they had a 91% tax bracket, and as recently as 1982, a single income of $42,500 would put one in the 50% bracket.

As for the numbers thrown around by the OP, those are marginal tax rates, not effective. They don't take deductions into account, nor do they make mention that the first $21,000 one made in 1999 was at 15%, the next $30,000 was at 28%, etc.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by SoToasty

Since Government spending has risen dramatically, you can't really say whether the increased revenue is from the spending or the lower taxes.

Also, I would venture that the booming economy was behind the increased revenue. With the economy as hot as it was for much of the decade, it's not surprising that companies making more money paid more in taxes.

Now that the economy is about to tank, it'll be interesting to see what happens with those revenues.

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by TomToad

According to here and here, tax revenues have actually increased. Apparently, lower taxes create more incentive for investment, which leads to more income, which leads to a larger tax base.
I would bet that the larger national debt comes from increased spending rather than decreased taxes.

Almost all of the revenue increase has come from corporate taxes, which were not lowered by Bush.

The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the issue and stated that revenues would have been higher without the tax cuts. The issue is summarised well here:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

- Il-Mari

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by TomToad

According to here and here, tax revenues have actually increased. Apparently, lower taxes create more incentive for investment, which leads to more income, which leads to a larger tax base.
I would bet that the larger national debt comes from increased spending rather than decreased taxes.

Like Canuk said, there are many possible explanations.

[voice from Cool Hand Luke]What we have here is a failure to show causation.[/end voice] To say that lower taxes is the cause of higher tax income because of the stimulation to the economy is little more than a wild ass guess. The two may well be correlated but correlation says nothing about causation. Indeed, it could be argued that the robost economy boosted the tax revenue enough to allow lower tax rates. So, the causation may well be the other way around. A strong economy allows lower taxes instead of lower taxes cause a strong economuy.

[zerocool]

Plus the rich aren't rich because of wages they earn, so income taxes are a poor measure of how much the 'rich' are being taxed. Capital gains etc. would be more important for them.

[Tantei Kid]

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought the thing would show people paid more taxes under Bush seeing as how these inboxer things are supposed to be the opposite of what you'd think. Isn't it "common knowledge" that Democrats tax more? But wanting taxes to pay for stuff makes me a godless Communist, so what do I know?

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

I think the gist of these is that the government is receiving more in taxes by using a lower rate. Reaganomics. Lower the tax rate and the money gets spent on consumer goods and investments (rather than the government spending it on missles and bridges), causing jobs to be created which puts more people on the tax rolls reducing unemployment payments and increasing taxable income therefore creating more tax revenues.

Another possible side note - Bush has been criticized for giving tax cuts to his rich buddies and doing nothing for the poor and middle class; these are trying to show that everyone got a cut.

Personally, I wonder which is the egg and which is the chicken. So, let me get this straight. Under Clinton in the 90s, the economy was booming and the tax rates (as shown in the tables in the emails) were higher; under Bush, the economy is in recession and the tax rates are lower. So, does that mean that lower tax rates cause recession?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Dr. Winston O'Boogie

. . . So, does that mean that lower tax rates cause recession?

Well... Lower taxes mean more competition for money, meaning the Federal Reserve Bank has to change rates (higher or lower? I can never get that straight!) to stave off inflation, meaning it's harder for Joe's Bar and Grill to borrow money to expand their dining room, meaning they aren't gonna hire another cook, waiter, and dishwasher...

The ginormous deficit and national debt are anchors on our economy (and a strategic weapon in the hands of Communist China... The deficit is an incredible gift to them!)

Silas

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Tantei Kid

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought the thing would show people paid more taxes under Bush seeing as how these inboxer things are supposed to be the opposite of what you'd think. Isn't it "common knowledge" that Democrats tax more?

It's addressing the peception that (regardless of overall tax revenues) the tax rates were lowered for the well-to-do and raised for the less-well-off during the Bush administration.

- snopes

A conservative could argue that deficits are just a deferred tax, and so that when you balance the staggering Bush deficits with his modest tax cuts, you can blame him for one of the biggest tax increase in history.

Originally Posted by Taken

A conservative could argue that deficits are just a deferred tax, and so that when you balance the staggering Bush deficits with his modest tax cuts, you can blame him for one of the biggest tax increase in history.

That's similar to my thinking on the subject. Okay, we're paying less now, but why in the name of all that is good should be be paying less, considering the deficit and debt are high and getting higher? Doesn't sound very "fiscally responsible" to me.