Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts Would Lead to Lower Tax Revenues

Since many liberals are calling for new massive tax increases as a part of the debt ceiling deal congress is fighting over right now I figured it might be a good time to review some of the results of the last major attempt at tax reform. The Bush tax cuts that is.

So, what exactly does the data show us about how they performed?

First off we need to understand that the revenues resulting from tax structures are completely dependent on the state of the economy. Of course the opposite is viewed by everybody from across the political spectrum to be true as well. To make things fair I’ll be comparing the best year in terms of (inflation adjusted to 2005 dollars) tax revenues from the pre-Bush tax cuts era and our current era.

Following this rule the best pre-Bush tax cuts year on record for (inflation adjusted) tax revenues was under Clinton in 2000. The best year on record for (inflation adjusted) tax revenues under the Bush tax cuts was 2007.

Now one of the most common standards used by liberals (and even some conservatives) for how well a tax structure is doing is how much money it brings in as a percentage of GDP. In other words many judge a tax structure by how much of the economy it eats up.

This. Is. Absurd.

A tax structure ought to be judged by how many (inflation adjusted) dollars it can bring in. Ideally you could even go a bit further and say the best tax structure brings in the most revenue with the smallest burden on the economy. After all shouldn’t the goal of an efficient tax system be to get the most money with the least affect on the economy?

By either of these standards 2007 bests 2000. In 2007 tax receipts (in 2005 dollars) totaled $2.414 trillion where as 2000 tax receipts (in 2005 dollars) only totaled $2.310 trillion. Additionally in 2007 taxes were only 18.5% of GDP but in 2000 they were 20.6% In other words the best year after the Bush tax cuts was better than the best year before them.

The fact is in 2007, under the Bush tax cuts, we had a larger economy AND greater tax revenue than at any time since at least 1940 which is as far back as the Tax Policy Center keeps score.

We could certainly go around in circles forever debating the pros and cons of theoretical tax systems and I certainly wouldn’t say that our current tax structure, even post Bush tax cuts, is the ideal. However, it is extremely important to take a look at how real world reforms have performed and exactly what that means. This time around the facts clearly show us that a real world conservative supply side tax reform has produced a better, more efficient, and more effective tax system.

UPDATE: For a slightly revised and expanded version of this theory check out my op ed over at Human Events!

Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

On 1 January 2011, the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire and there is fierce debate whether or not to extend them. These tax cuts, despite what the liberals say, are not solely focused on “the rich”. The reduction in tax rates brought us out of the 2001 recession and contributed to the economic growth, starting in 2003. However, due to the media’s amazing work (sarcasm), people really don’t know what the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts actually did. But, that’s why I’m here.

Many people on the Left wrongly blame the current recession on the Bush Tax Cuts. They say our budget problem came from these tax cuts “for the rich”. However, as seen in this chart , the immense deficits we are facing come from excessive amounts of government spending, mainly in entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Meanwhile, instead of reeling in this out of control spending, in the past year, our federal government has increased the budget deficit four times the amount it was in the last fiscal year. Continue reading “Extend the Bush Tax Cuts”

Obama Drops Windfall Profits Tax

In an act that further proves that Obama believes there is such a thing as too much success he decided to drop his famed windfall profits tax proposal.

Now, right now you might be saying “But CP (College Politico), dropping a proposed tax is a good thing and encourages success”. To which I would reply “yes, awesome and intelligent reader, that is true but its not the fact that he dropped the tax proposal which proves he thinks a person or company can be too successful but, rather, its the reasoning behind it.

You see, Obama has decided to drop the tax not because Oil companies have lowered their profit margins but instead because the price of oil has fallen below $80 a barrel.

So, while oil companies are still making the same percent profit they were when oil was at $140
a barrel somehow their profits are no longer considered “windfall”. In other words, oil companies are operating in the exact same fashion they were when Obama called jumped on the “windfall” tax bandwagon but somehow they were taking advantage of us then and now they aren’t.

Right, I think I got it now… oh wait, I’m sorry, I can’t understand it because it is absolutely absurd!

Of course the windfall profits tax was always absurd because the oil industry has one of the smallest profit margins (about 8%) of any industry in the world (I’ve seen reports that Google has up to a 50% profit margin for some of its online advertising but nobody is calling for a Google windfall tax). And it would still be absurd even if the oil industry had the largest profit margin because the industry is not a monopoly but is made up of many competing companies and, so, if people choose to buy from a company with a 50% profit margin instead of the company with a 10% or 5% profit margin how is the company at fault? If customers are willing to pay the price set by the seller then the seller cannot be at fault.

In fact, the only way a seller can get away with price gouging and windfall profiteering is if they are monopolies devoid of competition. And, furthermore, the only way a monopoly can form is if the government either allows it to or, and this is far more likely, actively creates it. So, if Mr. Obama is truly concerned with “windfall” profits he ought to direct us away from our current slide down the socialist slope and back towards a steadfast commitment towards free market capitalism.

UPDATE: Hot Air and Malkin chime in on this issue with quite interesting points