"Tax rates were cut under Bush, revenues went up."

[hfojvt]

Just saw McCain saying that in New Hampshire and played on Olbermann. Never mind the slip of the tongue, what he said is flat out wrong - either he is lying or ignorant or misinformed or some combination.

Income tax revenues in billions of current dollars
2000 - 1,004.5
2001 - 994.3
2002 - 858.3
2003 - 793.7
2004 - 809.0
2005 - 927.2
2006 - 1043.9

Rates were cut in 2001 and in May of 2003 and revenues did not go up until 2005 and that was only after they had gone down over $200 billion over 3 years.

McCainites might say 'aha, revenues went up in 2005, and also in 2006'. Well, it is easier to go up after going down. Tax revenues typically go up as the economy grows. The economy has not been good under Bush, but it has still grown. Tax revenues have not. Tax revenues were 10.23% of GDP in 2000, 9.82% in 2001 and down to 6.89% in 2004. If tax revenues had stayed as high as 9% of GDP, they would have looked like this

2002 - 944 (vs 858.3 actual)
2003 - 990.7 (vs. 793.7)
2004 - 1056.7 (vs. 809)
2005 - 1127.6 (vs. 927.2)
2006 - 1192 (vs. 1043.9)

A cummulative deficit of $878.9 billion. Again, McCain was flat wrong - either lying, ignorant or misinformed or some combination thereof. Readers might be just as misinformed, but are not running for President and not standing in front of crowds or going on TV and spreading misinformation.

[Canuckistanian]

1. Revenues DID go up

Revenues for defense contractors, that is.

[DJ13]

2. I believe there was a tax repatriation starting in 05 through 1st half 06

US corporations were encouraged to bring back profits made overseas where they would pay a drastically reduced tax rate.

[hfojvt]

9. that may be true, but I only look at income tax revenues

I am not sure what Bush and the Republicans did to corporate tax rates. Reaganomics is usually about personal income tax cuts which both Bush and Reagan featured and which McCain is trying to protect for people making over $250,000.

[Democrats_win]

3. Don't forget the bottom line: After all was said and done, we are here and it sucks.

It's getting worse: mass layoffs. The wars drag on. Poor Republican leadership led us here.

[Juche]

4. Revenues did go up

At least after 2004. From 2000-2004 there was pretty much no change.

2009 - 2.7 trillion in reciepts

2004 - 1.9 trillion

2001 - about 2.0 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873746.html

That doesn't prove tax cuts increase revenues, but revenues did go up, which is good. W/o the Bush tax cuts the deficit would've been alot smaller. W/o the bush cuts and w/o the war (aka about $400-500 billion a year in spending & lost revenue) the budget would've been balanced (more or less) for the last 8 years.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

However I have read that the reason revenue has gone up is largely due to the fact that the wealthy and corporations are doing so much better than before. ie, taxes for the wealthy & corporations have been cut, but a 25% tax rate on $200 is still worth more money than a 35% tax rate on $100.

SO revenue goes up despite the tax cuts because the Bush economy is making the wealthy extremely wealthy so even with the lower tax rates they are paying more tax revenue. That is my understanding.

[hfojvt]

5. sorry, but that is wrong

you are looking at total revenue there, when the question is about Bush's cuts in the INCOME tax rate. Therefore, income tax revenues are the relevant statistic. That number of 2.7 trillion includes FICA tax receipts. Well, FICA taxes, which are paid primarily by lower and middle income wage earners, were NOT cut in the slightest. But FICA tax revenues went up every year because the labor force keeps getting bigger and because wages go up with inflation. Even the wealthy have not done that well under the Bush economy, despite getting the lion's share of the tax cuts.

[TahitiNut]

6. Adjust for inflation, and divide by population. Nose dive.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

7. Up is down.

[leftofthedial]

8. he's a straight up liar

he lies as easily and as frequently as king george, which I did not think possible