# Effects of Bush's tax cuts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326 "2005-10-28T15:49:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/1 "2005-10-28T15:49:31Z")
What effect have the Bush tax cuts had so far on the U.S. economy/deficit/goverenment effectiveness/things in general? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/2 "2005-10-28T16:10:11Z")
As a membr of the Middle Class, I will answer your question with a question - What tax cuts? I haven’t noticed any that pertain to me (?) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/3 "2005-10-28T16:25:13Z")
The rich are richer, we’re in more debt, the surplus is gone, and I think our children will spit on our graves for putting him in - twice. I’m glad I don’t have children; they will inherit the disaster Bush has laid up for this country. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/4 "2005-10-28T16:40:58Z")
The tax cuts stimulated the economy, as all tax cuts do. They helped to make the recession one of the mildest on record. They put more money into workers pockets with higher paychecks. Cuts on capital gains allowed record numbers of Americans to buy homes and fueled the housing market. Increases in the limits of retirement contribution amounts help workers save for retirement. Because the cuts weren’t paired with cuts in spending, they have contributed to the deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/5 "2005-10-28T17:00:17Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > They put more money into workers pockets with higher paychecks. This is not what most workers actually say about them, though. Like **SteveG1** , the majority of Americans haven’t seen “more money” as a result of the cuts. According to a [recent study](http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html#_ftn1), > [@](#): > > Only 19% of Americans said in a recent poll that their tax burden had actually been eased by the Bush administration’s economic policies. This is partly because the huge tax-cut deficits meant cuts in federal funding to states, which were offset in many cases by state and local tax increases: > [@](#): > > Between 2000 and 2003, the United States saw a federal-to-state tax shift of historic proportions: the share of the total tax burden borne at the state and local level jumped 15%. This is the largest such shift in the tax burden since the period 1947-1950. This shift is making the tax system more regressive. In 2002, Americans in the bottom 20% of households paid 11.4% of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1% paid only 5.2% of their income in state and local taxes — less than half the rate of the poorest fifth. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/6 "2005-10-28T17:06:50Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The tax cuts stimulated the economy, as all tax cuts do. They helped to make the recession one of the mildest on record. But the cuts were widely acknowledged as not effective as a quick stimulis. Other methods would have had a much larger stimulis role. > [@](#): > > They put more money into workers pockets with higher paychecks. The average worker’s take home pay was hardly effected, and any gains have been wiped out by medical and fuel increases. > [@](#): > > Cuts on capital gains allowed record numbers of Americans to buy homes and fueled the housing market. You are mistaking low interest rates for tax cuts. The fed was responsible for that. And there were no capital gains reductions for first time home buyers that drove the record number of home buyers. CG taxes effect wealthy or established home buyers, that’s not what drove the market here. > [@](#): > > Because the cuts weren’t paired with cuts in spending, they have contributed to the deficit. Mushroomed the defecit. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/7 "2005-10-28T17:12:23Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The rich are richer, we’re in more debt, the surplus is gone, and I think our children will spit on our graves for putting him in - twice. I’m glad I don’t have children; they will inherit the disaster Bush has laid up for this country. Kin y’all stop your harping on the “surplus?” It’s not like there was ever that much of it anyway. The total surplus over the 4 years we had one, was only about 2/3 of the deficit of Clinton’s first years. I will agree that Bush’s profligate spending (even tho’ Congress is complicit) is troublesome. But it’s hardly gonna be the “disaster” you make it out to be. IBush’s spending ain’t terribly different than the SOP for our gov’t. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/8 "2005-10-28T17:32:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This is not what most workers actually say about them, though. Like **SteveG1** , the majority of Americans haven’t seen “more money” as a result of the cuts. According to a [recent study](http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html#_ftn1), Most American’s can’t locate North Korea on a map. That doesn’t mean North Korea isn’t there. The left has done so much work at complaining about how the tax cuts only affect the rich, it doesn’t surprise me that many people believe that. However, it’s not true. Peoples taxes were cut across the board. They are lower now. > [@](#): > > This is partly because the huge tax-cut deficits meant cuts in federal funding to states, which were offset in many cases by state and local tax increases: This isn’t Bush’s fault. He’s at the federal level. He cut federal taxes. Good for him. People at the state and local levels should be cutting taxes also, but we can’t blame Bush for them not doing this. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/9 "2005-10-28T17:32:50Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Bush’s spending ain’t terribly different than the SOP for our gov’t. Actually, spending increases under Bush are significantly larger than we’ve seen in the recent past. I can dig up the OMB numbers if you don’t believe it. IIRC, spending increases under Bush have been in the 6-7% range, while they were in the 3% range under Clinton. Bush is a big spender, no ifs ands or buts about it. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/10 "2005-10-28T17:35:01Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The tax cuts stimulated the economy, as all tax cuts do. They helped to make the recession one of the mildest on record. > > They put more money into workers pockets with higher paychecks. Cuts on capital gains allowed record numbers of Americans to buy homes and fueled the housing market. Increases in the limits of retirement contribution amounts help workers save for retirement. > > Because the cuts weren’t paired with cuts in spending, they have contributed to the deficit. What recession??? I kept hearing glurge about how everything was going great and there was NO recession. When did the story change? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/11 "2005-10-28T17:36:07Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > IBush’s spending ain’t terribly different than the SOP for our gov’t. I don’t think this is really true, over the long run (of course, it depends on how you define “terribly”). The current percentage of on-budget deficit spending (i.e., the percentage of non-SS federal spending billed to the future) is higher than it has been since the record-deficit years of Reagan and Bush I: > [@](#): > > Shares of Non-Social Security Federal Spending Paid for by Borrowing > (fiscal years) > > 1977 15% > 1978 15% > 1979 10% > 1980 15% > 1981 14% > 1982 20% > 1983 31% > 1984 27% > 1985 29% > 1986 29% > 1987 21% > 1988 23% > 1989 22% > 1990 27% > 1991 30% > 1992 30% > 1993 26% > 1994 22% > 1995 18% > 1996 14% > 1997 8% > 1998 2% > 1999 0% > 2000 –6% > 2001 –2% > 2002 23% > 2003p 32% > [@UncleBeer](#): > > I will agree that Bush’s profligate spending (even tho’ Congress is complicit) is troublesome. This “complicit” Congress, of course, is the Congress that Bush [worked very hard to get](http://www.gannettonline.com/gns/election/elecanalysis-2.html): > [@](#): > > The barnstorming president tipped the scales in his party’s favor. > > George W. Bush, whose coattails were questioned in the days leading up to the elections of 2002, energized enough voters to carry the Republicans back into the majority of the Senate. Bush did it in a fashion that has marked his presidency, with a message repeated over and over again, even if it’s sometimes delivered imperfectly, and a persistent belief that his direction is the right one for the country. > > His message: Give me a Congress I can work with. Well, he got one. And he’s been working with them all the way to $8 trillion in debt. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/12 "2005-10-28T17:38:15Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > But the cuts were widely acknowledged as not effective as a quick stimulis. Other methods would have had a much larger stimulis role. Not true. Any economist that isn’t a partisan hack would aknowledge that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. > [@](#): > > The average worker’s take home pay was hardly effected, and any gains have been wiped out by medical and fuel increases. Heck, I guess you are right. We should cut taxes some more! > [@](#): > > You are mistaking low interest rates for tax cuts. The fed was responsible for that. And there were no capital gains reductions for first time home buyers that drove the record number of home buyers. CG taxes effect wealthy or established home buyers, that’s not what drove the market here. I’m not mistaking anything. Under the republicans, you can now sell your house and not pay capital gains under $500K if you’ve lived in it for two of the past five years. This has been huge for the housing market. It frees people up to move and sell without being penalized by taxes. I’ve personally built three condo’s since Bush has been in office because of these laws. If you think that CG taxes don’t effect “driving the market” then your just flat out wrong. > [@](#): > > Mushroomed the defecit. Nope. Bush’s cuts contributed to the deficit, but they’re hardly the largest thing in play. The overall effect of the economy has a much larger role. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/13 "2005-10-28T17:48:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Most American’s can’t locate North Korea on a map. That doesn’t mean North Korea isn’t there. The left has done so much work at complaining about how the tax cuts only affect the rich, it doesn’t surprise me that many people believe that. However, it’s not true. Peoples taxes were cut across the board. They are lower now. By all means, provide us a cite for how much money ended up in the hands of the middle and lower classes. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/14 "2005-10-28T17:49:45Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Not true. Any economist that isn’t a partisan hack would aknowledge that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Really ? Clinton raises taxes on the rich, the economy improves. Taxes on the rich were much higher in the 50’s; the economy was strong. Every time the Republicans can, they cut taxes, and the economy gets worse - especially for normal people. Do you have _any_ evidence that cutting taxes helps the economy ? As far as _I_ can tell, taxing the rich boosts the economy, cutting taxes screws it. Why would letting money be sent to offshore accounts or sit in a bank account help the economy ? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/15 "2005-10-28T17:51:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > By all means, provide us a cite for how much money ended up in the hands of the middle and lower classes. Yes, please do. Also, some of us do know where North Korea is. We also know where many other countries are. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/16 "2005-10-28T17:53:15Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Most American’s can’t locate North Korea on a map. That doesn’t mean North Korea isn’t there. The left has done so much work at complaining about how the tax cuts only affect the rich, it doesn’t surprise me that many people believe that. However, it’s not true. Peoples taxes were cut across the board. They are lower now. Sure, I’m not denying that the official marginal tax rates for all taxpayers have been lowered from what they were when Bush took office. (Lowering the official tax rates is kind of the definition of “tax cut”, actually.) But what the OP asked was not “Did Bush cut taxes?” (which wouldn’t make much of a debate), but rather “What have been the **effects** of Bush’s tax cuts?” And if the vast majority of Americans haven’t even detected a perceptible decrease in their tax burden, it means that your claim that the cuts put “more money in their pockets” isn’t true to any significant extent. Or are you suggesting that that feckless, geography-impaired 80% of the US population has simply failed to notice their hefty surge in after-tax income? “Huh, I seem to have a lot more money than I used to, but my masters in the liberal media tell me I don’t, so that’s what I’ll say on the poll questionnaire!” Uh-huh. Right. > [@Debaser](#): > > This isn’t Bush’s fault. He’s at the federal level. He cut federal taxes. But for the average non-wealthy person, he cut them by such a small amount that it was swallowed up in the increased tax costs of paying for state services due to decreased federal funding. As a consequence, they didn’t really have the “effect” of putting significantly “more money in workers’ pockets”. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/17 "2005-10-28T18:01:50Z")
> [@treis](#): > > By all means, provide us a cite for how much money ended up in the hands of the middle and lower classes. [CNN archive article re: tax cuts](http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/) > [@](#): > > The law, the first major tax cut in 20 years, cuts income tax rates across the board, reducing the lowest rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, and the highest rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Taxes were cut for everyone. They were cut most for the poor, but everyone got cuts. The rich got a larger dollar amount of cuts, of course, because they pay a much larger amount of taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/18 "2005-10-28T18:08:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, I’m not denying that the official marginal tax rates for all taxpayers have been lowered from what they were when Bush took office. (Lowering the official tax rates is kind of the definition of “tax cut”, actually.) Maybe you aren’t, but other people do seem to be. > [@](#): > > Or are you suggesting that that feckless, geography-impaired 80% of the US population has simply failed to notice their hefty surge in after-tax income? “Huh, I seem to have a lot more money than I used to, but my masters in the liberal media tell me I don’t, so that’s what I’ll say on the poll questionnaire!” Uh-huh. Right. It’s not that far fetched at all. People routinely poll on things very different from what the actual reality is. Why depend on a poll of what people think their tax rate is? Why not just look at the actual rate? > [@](#): > > Once all cuts are fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 will save $1,825 per year, according to a Senate Finance Committee staff estimate. People are paying less in federal taxes now. That’s true whether 80% of people believe it or not. > [@](#): > > But for the average non-wealthy person, he cut them by such a small amount that it was swallowed up in the increased tax costs of paying for state services due to decreased federal funding. As a consequence, they didn’t really have the “effect” of putting significantly “more money in workers’ pockets”. Are you saying Bush’s tax cut was small? I thought it was always referred to as “massive” and “huge”. 😉 I’d certainly agree that he could have and should have cut taxes more across the board, though! Like I said before, Bush doesn’t control state and local spending. It’s not fair to pu this on him. I also doubt that increases here have an effect that can offset the federal cuts. Here in MA (where I work) and NH (where I live) there haven’t been any increases in tax rates that I can recall. We’re still paying the same 5.3% income tax that we were before. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/19 "2005-10-28T18:14:42Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > They were cut most for the poor, but everyone got cuts. You’re ignoring the gradual elimination of the estate tax, a move which benefits _only_ the wealthy. Or cuts in capital gains taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Or proposed elimination of tax on dividends, which would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. It appears to me that the Republicans are trying to shift the tax burden of the nation from the wealthy to the middle class. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326/20 "2005-10-28T18:20:21Z")
Like I said, I didn’t notice any reduction. > [@http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/](#): > > “Democrats want tax relief that goes to every taxpayer,” Gephardt said. “This bill does not do that.” The minority leader said the middle class will not benefit enough from the tax cut and the wealthy will reap unfairly high benefits. That seems to agree with my observations. > [@http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/](#): > > New Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, has said Congress will eventually be forced to revisit the tax cut, which he argues is too large, too generous to the rich and too expensive" > [@http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/](#): > > Some of the law’s provisions are delayed several years, but eventually the measure will double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduce the tax penalty on married couples and fully repeal the tax on estates. So if the cuts are delayed for several years, who is seeing them now, and how? > [@http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/27/tax.cut/index.html](#): > > Tax experts said the new bill gives families with children the largest tax breaks. At the same, they said, it makes more taxpayers subject to an additional tax designed originally to keep the very wealthy from avoiding their fair share of the tax bill. …Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told the Post such maneuvers amounted to “cynical chicanery,” and Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota told CNN the bill represented “a whole new level of accounting gimmickry.”… But tax experts said the cuts would not be a substantial help for most taxpayers without children under 17 years old. So the tax cuts will cause more people to pay more tax in reality, while still giving the very rich a way out? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/effects-of-bushs-tax-cuts/328326.md?page=2)