Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

[fintstone]

I guess this proves the Gipper...and GW were right about taxes after all.

The poor liberals just cannot catch a break. The best thing they have going for them next election will be Cindy Sheehan's diet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 9, 2006
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.

Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves that their tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues.

"The tax relief we delivered has helped unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and kept our economy the envy of the world," President Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.

"The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan."

One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth.

The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Over the past decade, tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections.

Nevertheless, the short-term change has been striking. At the beginning of the year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that this year's deficit would be $371 billion and the White House Office of Management and Budget put the figure at $423 billion.

Corporate tax payments are expected to exceed $300 billion, up from $131 billion three years ago. The other big increase is an extraordinary jump in individual taxes that were not withheld from paychecks, usually a reflection of taxes on investment income and executive bonuses.

The jump in receipts is providing Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress with a new opportunity to assert that tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are working and that Congress should make them permanent.

Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political fund-raising group, said: "The supply-siders were absolutely right. All the major sources of revenue have grown, especially in areas where we said they would."

But budget analysts, supporters and critics of Mr. Bush alike, cautioned that this year's windfall would do little to improve the government's long-term budget woes.

Government spending under Mr. Bush continued to climb rapidly this year, more than twice as fast as the economy. Spending on the war in Iraq has accelerated, to about $120 billion this year.

Far more ominously, the nation's oldest baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security benefits in just two years. Conservatives and liberals alike predict a huge escalation in costs of Social Security and Medicare over the next several decades.

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush.

Despite almost five years of economic growth, individual income taxes — the biggest component of federal tax revenues — have yet to reach the levels of 2000. Even with surging payments for investment profits and business income, individual tax payments in 2005 were only $972 billion — below the $1 trillion reached in 2000, even without adjusting for inflation.

Over all, individual and corporate taxes have lagged well behind the economy's growth over the past five years. Government spending, by contrast, mushroomed far faster than the economy.

And federal debt has ballooned to $8.3 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion when Mr. Bush took office. Republicans are trying to raise the authorized debt ceiling to $9.6 trillion.

War costs for Iraq and Afghanistan have totaled more than $300 billion since 2003, and the Bush administration has not included any war costs in its budget estimates beyond next year.

Domestic discretionary programs, like education and space exploration, have slowed their growth after climbing rapidly in Mr. Bush's first term. But entitlement programs, particularly Medicaid and Medicare, are climbing rapidly as a result of rising medical prices and Mr. Bush's prescription drug program.

Outlays for Medicare have climbed 15 percent this year and are expected to hit $300 billion. About half of that increase results from the new prescription drug program, which is expected to cost nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"Even if spending is not going up as fast as it was before, it's not coming down," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates budget discipline.

Despite a public outcry this year over pork-barrel spending sought by individual lawmakers for local projects, Mr. Bixby said, the main causes of higher spending stem from the war in Iraq and entitlement programs.

Both supporters and critics of Mr. Bush cautioned against attributing much long-term significance to the recent fiscal improvement, in part because tax revenues have become more volatile.

In the late 1990's, revenues exceeded predictions by more than $100 billion a year. After the recession of 2001, revenues plunged about $100 billion below what could be explained by slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

One reason for the increased volatility may be that, contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year. Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets.

"These people have incomes that fluctuate much more rapidly, so when the economy is doing well and the stock market is doing well, tax revenues will be up," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization. "Rapidly fluctuating tax revenues will continue to be the norm for years to come."

Compared with the size of the economy, tax revenues are still below historical norms and far below what the administration predicted as recently as 2003.

Tax receipts amounted to about 17.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in 2005, far below the level five years ago and still slightly below the average of 18 percent since World War II. Spending, by contrast, is running at about 20 percent of gross domestic product .

"Spending has not been restrained," Mr. Riedl said. "One hundred percent of the reduced deficit is because taxpayers are sending more money to Washington."

[nostatic]

did you even read the article?

[fintstone]

Do you mean the parts about increased spending?

[Mulhollanddose]

Surprising my ass, it is expected and common knowledge (except amongst the lying left) that marginal tax cuts increase revenues...Like everything else, the truth is the opposite of their false theorems, eg., "the greedy rich will hold tight to their money if given a tax cut"...bull*****.

[speeder]

But budget analysts, supporters and critics of Mr. Bush alike, cautioned that this year's windfall would do little to improve the government's long-term budget woes.

Government spending under Mr. Bush continued to climb rapidly this year, more than twice as fast as the economy. Spending on the war in Iraq has accelerated, to about $120 billion this year.

Far more ominously, the nation's oldest baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security benefits in just two years. Conservatives and liberals alike predict a huge escalation in costs of Social Security and Medicare over the next several decades.

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush.

Despite almost five years of economic growth, individual income taxes — the biggest component of federal tax revenues — have yet to reach the levels of 2000. Even with surging payments for investment profits and business income, individual tax payments in 2005 were only $972 billion — below the $1 trillion reached in 2000, even without adjusting for inflation.

Over all, individual and corporate taxes have lagged well behind the economy's growth over the past five years. Government spending, by contrast, mushroomed far faster than the economy.

And federal debt has ballooned to $8.3 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion when Mr. Bush took office. Republicans are trying to raise the authorized debt ceiling to $9.6 trillion.

Well I guess it's a good thing that monkey is in charge after all.

Not.

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by nostatic
did you even read the article?

As above.

So, the good news is that we are 3% less f*cked?

Wow. Bust out the bubbly.

Dolt.

[fintstone]

The 9/11, the 2 wars, and the Katrina would have all happened if we had less revenue. The tax cut and the increased revenues make them a bit easier to tolerate. The tax cuts clearly caused the economy to rebound without the corresponding loss of revenue predicted by liberals.

As far as the Social Security woes....the President tried to reform Social Security...but the liberal campaign against it scared the old folks so badly that there was not enough support for reform...Liberals will live to regret that decision too.

[Mulhollanddose]

I am sure the left, and those who buy their divisionist/class-warfarist lies, would be contently silent if we were in a full-blown recession but we were paying down the debt...Surely they would be hailing the great debt reducer in chief, despite a collapsing economy.

Naturally the left's hypocritical consistency would also apply to another terror attack. Surely the left would rush to the microphones, of the frothing left media, and hail Bush for protecting the civil rights of the poor oppressed Muslims.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by HardDrive
As above.

So, the good news is that we are 3% less f*cked?

Wow. Bust out the bubbly.

Dolt.

Better than the 100% f*cked we would be if we had elected a liberal.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
I am sure the left, and those who buy their divisionist/class-warfarist lies, would be contently silent if we were in a full-blown recession but we were paying down the debt...Surely they would be hailing the great debt reducer in chief, despite a collapsing economy.

Naturally the left's hypocritical consistency would also apply to another terror attack. Surely the left would rush to the microphones, of the frothing left media, and hail Bush for protecting the civil rights of the poor oppressed Muslims.
...

Liberals can always create a dark lining behind every silver cloud.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fintstone
Liberals can always create a dark lining behind every silver cloud.

Pull out their little labias and piss in every fresh bowl of Cheerios.

[fintstone]

And I would have thought that the fact that the "rich" are paying most of the taxes and a lrge portion of this increase would have been enough to make them happy...

a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year. Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets.

[HardDrive]

O-kayyyyyyy.......

I can see there is some kind of neocon circle jerk going on here. We'll all just back out of the room slowly and let you boys be boys.....

[nota]

voodoo is still the truth
daddy bush knew best

300+ billion in the red is not a balanced budjet
CLINTON HAD A SURPLUS

[munro86]

You've put a rod in your back Mul

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by HardDrive
As above.

So, the good news is that we are 3% less f*cked?

Wow. Bust out the bubbly.

Dolt.

Just because your mirror is busted is no need to get your panties in a knot!

Moving in the right direction in a time is a good step. Had we done nothing liberals like you would have been jumping up and down even more.

Working on a liberal platform for the 2008 elections yet? Got a candidate? Thought not so get to work and leave us alone!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Want to guarantee a balanced budget for all time? Tax the churches.

[lendaddy]

The simple point that reduced tax rates (once again) increased receipts to the treasury is all that Fint was pointing out. Whether or not spending outpaced or kept pace with these increases isn't what he was getting at obviously (nor is it relevant to the discussion).

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Want to guarantee a balanced budget for all time? Tax the churches.

Based on what, simple receipts?

I can see property tax, but you'll never get corp tax as they don't have any profits to tax(or could easily make it that way).

[turbo6bar]

It appears a majority of the tax revenue gain was from corporate taxes. Were corporate tax rates lowered?