Redstate

Democrats in congress are seeking tax relief for lower and middle income class. It's difficult to portray them as villains in this aspect.
They are seeking to keep middle class Americans from paying a tax originally targeted the wealthy.

link

The effective tax rate (including income taxes and Social Security) for the middle quintile (avg income ~50K) is 15%. Effective tax rate for the next quintile (avg income ~75K) is 18%.

You might still consider this to be too high, but it is hardly the Oh my god, half their income! that you claim.

Maybe, instead of assuming that people are too stupid to understand how taxes work, you could consider that possibility that they do understand it and a significant portion of them are actually comfortable with the level of taxation.

How can that be right when Social Security alone is 15%? I'm no tax guru, by any means. But I'm telling you that I write some whopping checks to the U.S. treasury, and I'm not rich. I pay 28% of my income in taxes and 15% more for Social Security--that's 43%. I try to set aside half of every check I receive for tax purposes. Writing those checks is painful to me, and I guarantee people who currently pay their taxes primarily through relatively painless withholding would find writing the checks every quarter to be a painful experience as well.

I'll grant you that the standard deductions reduce my family's overall effective tax rate (not by as much as you cited), but it would still cause shock to a great many taxpayers to actually have to write those checks to the treasury like I and other self-employed people do. Perhaps "riot in the streets" is an overstatement, but I guarantee there would be more people vocally opposed to our current level of taxation.

This would become even more true if Democrats in Congress succeed in increasing our taxes to the level Rep. Hensarling describes. And I don't know about you, but I intend to continue earning more and more money each year. Which means I'm going to keep moving up those tax brackets and writing bigger and bigger checks to the government. And my "effective tax rate" will get bigger and bigger as well. As someone who is working hard to become one of the people paying 97% of all income taxes, I'm not a big proponent of soaking the rich. ;-)

I'm quoting from this CBO paper...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/12-29-FedTaxRates.pdf

It appears as though the answer to your question is that "income" includes a bunch of things that you don't pay Social Security taxes on: capital gains, insurance benefits, employer contributions to 401k. But, even if you were to remove these sources and look at salary exclusively, making the rate comparable to yours, I can't imagine it pushing the tax rate up by more than a few percent.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that you actually cut a check to the IRS for 43% of your income. That puts your tax rate significantly above that paid by even the top 1%. If you really are paying that much, you should get a better accountant.

As to those poor, poor rich people paying a huge percentage of federal taxes... There is a reason for it. They make a huge percentage of total income.

In any event, I do agree with you that, to some extent, self-employed people get screwed by our current tax structure. I think there are things (like incorporating) that you can do to get around it, but it is still unfair. But this is not a problem that most wage-earners in this country face, so their opinions of income taxes are not going to be colored as yours are.

You agree that self-employed people get screwed, but you say it as if those employed by others are not in reality paying the same amount. You have proved the main point I was trying to make in my original comment: Because of the withholding system and employers' "matching contributions," you do not believe you are paying as much to the government as you are. If your employer were not required to match your SS/Medicare contributions, they could pay you that amount in salary. In your employer's eyes, you cost them that much to employ. But a chunk of it goes to the government, not into your pocket. You are in reality paying as much as I am (assuming you're in a similar tax bracket). We are all getting screwed, and the Dems want to screw us more!

You also helped make my point by admitting that most taxpayers do not perceive themselves to be getting screwed (perhaps because they are anaesthetized by the withholding system?), and so their opinions of income taxes are not as "colored" as mine. That's why I said if the government abolishes the withholding system and matching contributions by employers, and people have to write those checks themselves like the self-employed do, their perceptions would become just as "colored" as mine are and they would far more likely to rebel.

I have already admitted that my effective tax rate is lower than 43%, after deductions and such. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but the checks I write are big--bigger than the 15%-18% cited by that CBO paper you linked.

Regardless, I reiterate: You are paying just as much as I am. You just never see it.

Most people are not paying as much as you are. Not if you are paying 43% anyway. Or even if you are paying 25%.

According to the CBO, the average middle-class person is paying 15-18% in total in federal taxes. This includes Social Security taxes and the matching employer contribution.

You might think this is too high but, considering that people in some other countries pay significantly more, it is hardly going to to cause a "rebellion". Getting rid of the withholding system isn't going to change this.

You also helped make my point by admitting that most taxpayers do not perceive themselves to be getting screwed.

I admitted nothing of the sort. You are the one that keeps claiming that people are to stupid to understand how federal tax withholding works. My contention is that people do understand how tax withholding works, but accept it because they are satisfied with the amount of taxes they pay.

considering that people in some other countries pay significantly more

If you trot that out you need to compare total tax burdens. Other countries are not organized the same way as the United States, so comparing our Federal burden is completely meaningless.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

which is that if you and everyone in the country had to write checks every 3 months (as those of us who are self-employed do) for the full amount of taxes you owe, there would be rebellion.

If every employer paid their employees the additional 7.65% match, which the government currently takes, and those employees then had to turn around and write a check to the government for that amount plus their own 7.65% matching social security contribution plus the amount of federal tax that is currently being withheld, the outrage would be enormous.

Either your representation of what the CBO report says is flawed or the report is standard government-speak, since middle-class people pay a minimum of 15.3% in social security with their employer's match. How then can they claim the average middle-class taxpayer pays 15-18%? Their definition of middle-class appears to be so narrow as to only include those who owe 0-3% in federal income taxes.

How then can they claim the average middle-class taxpayer pays 15-18%?

A lot of unearned income apparently. All this goes to show is how inequitable the system is, not that the burden is so low that everything is just groovy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Good point, Right Again. The document beecubed is citing is after all a publication of the Congressional Budget Office, and Congress is the entity that's taxing us. Gee, might Congress have a vested interest in keeping taxpayers from realizing how much they actually pay? I'm not claiming that the document is all a big lie--just that it is purposefully misleading.

Seriously, I just linked to a paper produced by a non-partisan government agency and, apparently because there is some kind of giant conspiracy, you are going to ignore it?

I give up, I guess. If we can't even agree on basic facts, we can't have a meaningful discussion as to whether those facts are good or bad.

Basic Fact: Social Security/Medicare ALONE is 15%, even if your employer pays half of that on your behalf--YOU'RE STILL PAYING IT! Forget the CBO paper for a second and just start with that basic fact. That 15% is just a starting point--your actual income tax is IN ADDITION TO THAT. I've got a CPA backing me up here, as well as my personal experience as a taxpayer who has been both self-employed and employed by others. I feel pretty confident about my understanding of reality (vs. a government document).

If you can't grasp that, then I give up, too.

Again, the point I started out with (and repeatedly got distracted from) is that if people had to write the checks themselves instead of having their taxes, etc. withheld or paid on their behalf by employers--for WHATEVER PERCENTAGE YOU BELIEVE IS REAL--they would be far less sanguine about how much they pay. The withholding system is what I'm mainly attacking today. The rates were a side issue.

By "middle class" I was strictly referring to people in the 3rd and 4th quintiles, which would be income of about $50K-125K per year.

Because of the way that CBO calculates "income" (they include capital gains, employer-provided insurance, employer-provided 401k funds, etc), there is some portion of a typical wage earners income that is not hit by taxes. It is my understanding that, depending on how a self-employed person structures their income, they might not be able to take advantage of some of these sources of "income" tax-free.

If you actually open and read the document, this is all explained.

Considering that:

A) The federal government consumes about 20% of GDP in taxes.
B) "The rich" have an effective tax rate over 20%.
C) "The rich" pay a significant portion of total tax revenue.

I fail to see why it is so unbelievable that the rest of us pay around 15%.

Let me ask this: How much do you think the average middle-class person pays, in total (income and Social Security taxes), to the federal government every year?

Forgive this dumb question, but how can I change fonts in the text I am posting? (I see you bolded and italicized some words). Thanks.

Oh, and by the way--Let's say that you really did have to pay just 18% total on about $100,000 of salary. Are you saying that it wouldn't cause you to take a very deep breath to have to write a single whopping check for $18,000 to the government? Or even four checks of $4,500 each quarter? It wouldn't cause you to think a little bit harder about what the government is doing with your money than if you never saw that money in the first place and in fact got a few hundred back in April? I'm just saying that if people had to write those checks to the government instead of having it quietly siphoned off their checks in smallish increments every two weeks, they'd pay more attention to exactly how much of their income the government is spending. And this is nothing compared to what our tax rates are going to be when the Boomers retire.

Sadly, it would actually be an improvement for me if I could just pay 15-18% of what I earn and be done with it.

or you would know that your figures don't reflect reality.

How do I know? I'm a self-employed CPA who just finished tax season.

Self-employed individuals pay both halves of their social security and medicare taxes. That amounts to 15.3% of every dollar of profit. None of that may be offset by exemptions or itemized deductions.

In my case, I'm in the 15.3% bracket for FICA/Medicare, the 7% bracket for State income tax and the 25% bracket for Federal income tax. My effective tax rate is 15.3% for FICA/Medicare, 6.6% for State and 12.9% for Federal. That totals to an effective tax rate of 34.8%. That's not 1/2, but it is over 1/3, and for every additional dollar I make it is at least 47.3%

Rubylens is absolutely correct in his assertion that if everyone had to write a check for the amount of taxes that are currently being withheld there would be riots in the streets.

Yes, I understand how self-employment works with regards to Social Security taxes. The CBO paper I pulled my numbers from takes this into consideration. If, as a self-employed person, your effective federal tax rate is 28%, than I'm sorry for you but your experience doesn't accurately reflect the experience of most people making the same kind of money you are (I'm assuming that, based on your Social Security tax rate, you aren't past the $97,500 cutoff).

while we are talking about apples.

You can't eliminate from this discussion the 15.3% social security/medicare rate we are all paying. By doing so, you significantly understate the taxes we are actually paying on our income.

Look at Ruby's post #7 for an excellent response to the apples we are discussing.

We are talking about the "effective federal tax rate" which is "income tax + Social Security tax" which is (essentially) all the money we pay to the federal government each year.

Considering how frequently conservatives love to discuss the "federal income tax" as though it represented all the taxes paid to the federal government ("20% of the people pay 85% of income taxes!!!"), I would hope that this would be a well understood concept.

According the the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/12-29-FedTaxRates.pdf), the average middle-class person pays about 15-18% of their income to the federal government. This value represents everything paid to the federal government.

There is no apples to oranges comparison going on here. You and rubylens keep claiming that your tax rates are astronomically high. I have no idea whether that is the case, but if it is, it is not typical of the average middle-class taxpayer.

Since the tax code is extremely unfair as it is written now, many people pay a heck of a lot more than that in federal taxes, as a percentage of their income. Someone making 77k paying an effective income tax rate of 6.8%? And half the people paying less than that? I'd sure like to see those returns. A single person with no kids pays an effective tax rate of 15% or so on the same income, with all the usual deductions. It's even worse if they don't own a house.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Keep in mind that the CBO paper looks at households. So that is a household making 77K and paying a 7% income tax rate. Which is going to be significantly different than the rate a single person would pay.

Since we are talking about single people, there is no difference. A single person is a household.

No single person household, unless he is also a tax cheat, pays anywhere near 7% on 77k. It is possible a single parent with a few kids or carries a huge mortgage could pay less than that. The system is completely unfair in its burden... so even if you don't think very many would freak out about writing a check to the government every quarter, Bob would certainly freak out about the $20,000 check he has to write on the very same income that Sue is only paying in $5,000 on.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

See my post #12 where I state my "effective tax rate."

Again, the point isn't the amount, or the rate, or what CBO says, or what you interpret them to say...

The point is: If everyone had to write a check every 3 months for every dollar of theirs which the federal government now receives, we would all be screaming.

Thank you again for continuing to reinforce the main point. Writing those checks would wake many taxpayers up in a hurry.

I disagree.

You guys seem to be operating under the idea that we pay some huge percentage of our income to the federal government. That just isn't the case.

You never answered my scenario above. Let's say you're completely right and a household bringing in about $100,000 really does pay just 18% total in federal taxes--not a huge percentage according to you. Let's say that household is yours. Would you pause for even a moment when writing an $18,000 check to the government? Or even 4 checks for $4,500 each quarter? Are you really that excited about giving up that much of your money, or are you oblivious to it because your taxes are siphoned off your paycheck every two weeks without you particularly noticing? Might a normal middle-class wage earner hyperventilate just a little having to write that check every three months? That's more than many of us pay for our home mortgages! I maintain that most middle-class families would find the experience of writing those checks every three months to be unpleasant at best, rage-inducing at worst. You are being intellectually dishonest if you contend that this is not so.

Extend that $100,000 at 18% one step further: How would you feel about writing a check for $1,500 to the government EVERY MONTH? Again, you said that's not a very high tax rate and wouldn't upset most middle class taxpayers because they fully understand the withholding system and accept what they pay as fair. Do you really think most middle class families would be perfectly happy to write a check for $1,500 or more to the federal government every month? Again, that's more than many of us regular middle-class folks pay on our home mortgages or rent.

Thanks for supporting my arguments, Right Again. Beecubed isn't getting it, though, proving that the government is indeed fooling people into believing they are paying less than they really are. Sigh. We tried.

We pay federal income taxes, FICA, state income taxes, state sales taxes, federal and state excise taxes, state property taxes, and a whole slew of other taxes and fees. You don't think that adds up? What does a single tax rate have to do with whether the overall tax burden is too heavy?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

My wife and I just paid enough to support another family in pretty good style. For starters, I'd like somebody to come over and do some of that work that "Americans won't do." House needs cleaning and as the snow melts in the yard it turns into dog crap and garbage. I'm supporting people, I'd like to get some work out of it.

In Vino Veritas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR200507...
and

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

There is obviously a difference between anecdotal observations and serious, professional analysis with a fuller set of data points, variables, etc. to assess degrees of correlation and likelihood of causality. You apparently draw general conclusions based on selective, anecdotal observations, but economists engage in serious analysis, and all the economists who agree with you on policy (i.e., favoring the Bush tax cuts) disagree with you on this point. Heck, a liberal could point to the correlation between Clinton's tax INCREASES and increased economic growth (and rising revenues), but that one observation wouldn't be grounds for concluding that, as a rule, tax increases, other things equal, are stimulative.

Unless you have access to a parallel universe you can conduct experiments in (and please tell me if you do), all anybody has to work from is historical results. Historical results that are not clean and are affected by hundreds of thousands of variables that can't be isolated. Where we are exactly on the curve is pretty much *unknowable* by anybody.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

is you can't just cite singular instances to show causality. The general trends in history in respect to taxes is what's important, not just what happened one time after Bush's tax cuts. You can always find a point in history to defend any argument; that doesn't mean its definitive.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

But the fact is the economy and federal revenues behaved EXACTLY as predicted before the tax cuts were enacted. The prediction was that federal revenues would drop right after the tax cuts, followed by increased economic activity leading to increased revenues. The results matched the predictions.

That's a far cry from the predictions that people opposed to the tax cuts made. Thier predictions were for massive deficts and revenue reductions on an ongoing basis.

Which side was right?

I'll take it a step further. When the Dems manage to get thier wished for tax increase, we will see an initial increase in revenues followed by a recession and drop a few years later.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

First, please point me to an ECONOMIST who claimed either before the Bush tax cuts or since that these tax cuts were likely to (or have) caused higher revenues THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OTHERWISE. (Forgive the CAPS -- I don't know how to vary fonts in postings -- please advise if you know). If there is such an economist, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but without a doubt the consensus among even supply-sider economists who favored the Bush tax cuts, and who now favor making them permanent, is the opposite of your contention (i.e., they say that such tax cuts are most likely to lead to lower revenues than would otherwise be received). Heck, even Bush's own economic advisors disagree with you, as do Bernanke and Greenspan. As for economist's predictions prior to the Bush tax cut, in the 1999 op-ed by Martin Feldstein in the WSJ cited in the comment above, "Bush's Tax Plan Makes Sense" (12/6/99), Feldstien says "I estimate that such favorable feedback effects would offset about one-third of the traditionally estimated revenue loss from cutting the top tax rate to 33% from 39.6% as Mr. Bush proposes." So Feldstein predicts that this rate cut would result in 67% LESS revenue than would be received without the cut.

Second, to say that revenues have increased since the tax cuts is not the same as saying that they are higher than they would have otherwise been. There are many drivers of trends in GDP and the tax base other than tax rates (economic cycles, government spending levels, etc.), so we cannot automatically assume causality between a particular tax cut and a subsequent increase in revenues (on occasions when it occurs), and we cannot equate such an increase in revenues with higher revenues than what would have otherwise been recieved. That's where serious analysis by economists comes in, looking at a larger set of data points and considering all key variables that could account for changes in revenues.

I challenge you: Find and point me to the writing of an ECONOMIST who contends that tax cuts (on labor and/or capital), as a rule, are likely to generate higher revenues than would be received without the cuts, or at least break even ("pay for themselves"), if tax rates prior to those cuts are anywhere near those existing prior to the Bush cuts or today.

that revenues would drop and would stay down. Funny these same people are now claiming that "revenues would have been even higher" had we not enacted the cuts.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. The economists don't know. And the Democrats certainly don't know. None of them can tell us what revenues WOULD have been had the cuts not been enacted. It is possible that federal revenues would have been down now due to a massive recession had the tax cuts not been enacted. But you know, I don't care.

What I care about are:
1. More people are employed than likely would have been otherwise.
2. The economy is in far better shape than it likely would have been otherwise.
3. Federal revenues are higher than they were before the tax cuts.

All of which were predicted benefits of the tax cuts.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Your points #1 and #2 are definitely considerations in choosing and evaluating tax policy, and there are legitimate arguments for tax cuts, but the point I'm making is that the assertion that "tax cuts pay for themselves" or "generate higher revenues" is not one of those legitimate arguments. Yes, economics is an inexact science, to say the least, but it is not legitimate for proponents of particular tax cuts to claim that increased revenues will be a likely result if the consensus among even economists who also FAVOR those tax cuts is the opposite -- i.e., that those tax cuts are much more likely to lead to substantially LOWER tax revenues, not anywhere close to breaking even. Yes, unforeseeable events mean that predictions often prove imprecise, but economists seek to determine causal relationships between policy and results "other things equal", which is important because, when choosing policy, we have to consider the PROBABILITIES of various outcomes that could result. To borrow an example from microeconomics, if a company raises its price of Brand X cereal, the likely effect, other things equal, is a loss of sales and market share (assuming a downward sloping demand curve, meaning that there is an inverse relationship between price and demand for the product). If, following the price increase its sales and market share INCREASE, we would NOT conclude that, as a rule, raising the price of Brand X cerial causes higher sales and market share, but rather we would look to other causal factors first (a new ad campaign, increased distribution in stores, etc.).

at first cause a drop in revenues, but the stimulus to the economy will lead to revenues that are higher than the starting point within a couple of years. This was the prediction made and this is what happened. "Tax cuts generate higher revenues" is a valid claim and is in fact what happened.

My claim is not that the revenues will be higher than they would have been otherwise. Frankly no one knows what the revenue would have been otherwise. The "other things being equal" part of the equation is what usually breaks the models. That's known as static analysis and is always wrong. It can give a suggestion of a possible effect, but because tax policy effects so many other areas of activity "other things being equal" isn't possible.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I have to respectfully correct you on several points (your points in quotes, followed by my responses).

"The claim is that tax cuts will at first cause a drop in revenues, but the stimulus to the economy will lead to revenues that are higher than the starting point within a couple of years."

Incorrect if by "the claim" you are referring to the position of supply-side economists. The concensus among even supply-side economists -- who happen to favor these tax cuts for other reasons -- is that they are very likely to have the effect of LOWER revenues over the short, medium and long-term vs. what revenues would have been without the rate cuts).

"This was the prediction made and this is what happened"

Please cite a statement by ECONOMIST or two making such a prediction. Preferably not one employed by the Bush campaign, but even that would be better than nothing.

"Tax cuts generate higher revenues" is a valid claim and is in fact what happened."

To say that tax generate higher revenues implies causality, meaning that revenues would have been lower if the tax cuts had not taken place, which leads me to...
"My claim is not that the revenues will be higher than they would have been otherwise."

Well, this contradicts the statement that tax cuts "generate" higher revenues. How can you say that tax cuts generate higher revenues, but NOT say that these revenues are higher than they would have been without the tax cuts? If revenues are not necessarily higher than they would have been without the tax cuts, then how can you assert that the tax cuts generated those higher revenues?

"Frankly no one knows what the revenue would have been otherwise. The "other things being equal" part of the equation is what usually breaks the models. That's known as static analysis and is always wrong. It can give a suggestion of a possible effect, but because tax policy effects so many other areas of activity "other things being equal" isn't possible."

You are simply incorrect about what static analysis is and also what "other things equal" means. Static analysis simply means that you assume (obviously incorrectly) that the tax base will be the same regardless of changes in tax rates. Yes, static analysis ignores the stimulative effect and therefore overestimates the loss of revenues. No one disagrees with this. It's common sense and Macroeconomics 101. But what even the supply-sider economists agree on is that, unless tax rates prior to the cut were much, much, much higher than they are now or were prior to the Bush cuts, the level of stimulus to the economy and the tax base, and the "feedback effect" it produces in terms of revenues (estimated via dynamic analysis) is not nearly great enough to offset the total loss in revenues predicted by static analysis (i.e., the tax cut paying for itself), or come anywhere near it. As for "other things equal", yes, economists can't predict all the factors that affect the tax base and tax revenues, but they can provide some insight into the direction and rough magnitude of the effect of some aspects of policy such as tax cuts and say that if such a policy is adopted, even if other factors may turn out to have a greater impact on the outcome than the policy in question. So they say "other things equal", meaning aside from other factors or if those other factors are the same under either scenario (with or without this policy), the impact will be such and such.

Rush Limbaugh is not an economist, nor is Hannity, nor Bush nor Cheney (the latter two even disagree with their own economists on this issue, or pretend to). I encourage you to do some Googling on the views on this question of the supply-sider economists mentioned in the initial comment above, all of whom agree with me and disagree with you: Gregory Mankiw, Bruce Bartlett, President Bush’s own Council of Economic Advisors (in its Economic Report of the President, 2003), Henry Paulson, Robert Carroll (Bush’s deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis), Martin Feldstein (“Bush’s Tax Plan Makes Sense” WSJ 12/6/1999), William Beach and Dan Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation (Mitchell has since left Heritage), even Lawrence Kudlow, as well as Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, the CBO (“Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates, 12/1/05) and The Economist magazine.

It seems so far like you choose to disregard the concensus of opinion among economists on the question of net revenues -- even economists who favor tax cuts as much as you do or more -- and instead the conclusion, based on one observation or perhaps a couple of anecdotal observations, that revenues are higher today because of the Bush tax cuts and that tax cuts in general generate higher revenues. Hopefully I can convince you that sound analysis (what economists do) is a better basis for drawing general conclusions than selective anecdotal observations.

I am not saying here that tax cuts in general or the Bush tax cuts specifically are bad policy, just that proponents should stick to the valid rationales and give up the myth that "tax cuts pay for themselves."

revenue than the pre-rate cut revenue after an initial drop.

That is the claim. That is what has happened every time rates have been cut.

There is nothing contradictory in that claim. I (and most other proponents of the tax rate cuts) do NOT claim that revenue is higher than otherwise would have occurred without the cuts. Frankly, no one is able to predict with certainty what the revenues would have been without the tax cuts. To make such a prediction, you have to KNOW what the state of the economy would have been without the cuts. It is possible the economy would have recovered just as well without the stimulus from the cuts, but the trend prior to the cuts was towards recession and it's just as likely that we would have had reduced revenue due to a deep recession. Tell me EXACTLY what revenue would have been without the rate cuts, then tell me I'm wrong. Until then, argue my claim, not the claim you say I'm making.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

FL Recounter -

I do not request earmarks for my district. I invite you - in fact I encourage you to look back on my record in Congress.

Thanks -

Jeb

Ok, Congressman/LA/Press Secretary, you got it. I will review your record and report back to this board.

FLRecounter

In fact, it'll be your next comment.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Ok Congressman/LA/Press Secretary, you are squeaky clean! I retract my accusation and apologize for my knee-jerk reaction. You are only a sophomore though. You still have some time to assimilate to the general buffet on taxpayer dollars. I have seen other idealistic Members do it before.

FLRecounter

...except that, yeah, I've seen other idealistic Members do it before, too.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Thanks for the retraction. I understand your frustration completely. That being said, perhaps it isn't best to be so quick to jump of members of Congress (or people for that matter) who are trying to do the right thing. Again, I understand your frustration - and I know that the Republican Party needs to regain its hold on the fiscal conservative brand - and that is what the members of the Republican Study Committee are trying to do.

Appreciate you posting -

Jeb

P.S. - I'm not a sophomore either - I am in my 3rd term.
And feel free to call me "Congressman" or "Jeb."

"Fair Tax" makes it sound great, but it really doesn't explain what it is. Much as "Fair Trade Coffee" leads you to believe that the coffee was "fair" and had someting to do with "trade" when in fact neither is true.

By the way, 23% seems a bit steep and the "prebate" looks like an openning for corruption and a bureaucratic nightmare. Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.