What would be a good measurement?
Given that income inequality (and presumably also wealth inequality) has risen very dramatically over the last 25 years, it is important to note that thosw who think this effect of the Bush tax cuts on inequality is a good thing apparently think that inequality has not been increasing fast enough.
Could we please stop reciting this fallacious talking point?
The Bush tax cuts (taking into account capital gains and estate tax cuts) give proportionally more benefit to the wealthy than to the poor and certainly give proportionally more benefit to the wealthy than to the middle class.
Because of the estate tax cuts and the capital gains tax cuts, which benefit primarily the wealthy, it is misleading at best (and rank spin at worst) to refer to the Bush tax cuts as “across the board.”
The working middle class now bears a proportionally larger share of the nation’s tax burden than it did before the cuts.
There isn’t one.
In order to “measure” the effectiveness of tax cuts, you would need to have a control on the experiment. This just isn’t possible.
You could cut taxes and see the economy flourish. So what? Maybe it was going to flourish anyway because of any of a hundred other reasons.
You could cut taxes and see the economy tank. So what? Maybe it was going to tank anyway because of any of another hundred reasons.
Perhaps, I should be more clear, when I say nominal, I mean objective. It looks like I am unclear on the concept. Anyway, used currectly, the poor received a nominal tax break. However, it is true that the rich pay a far higher burden of tax dollars.
Anyway, your comments about proportionality are without context. What percentage does middle America pay of the tax burden in regards to the wealthy (top tier tax bracket, in this case)? Were the marginal rates higher or lower during the Clinton years? Do you advocate that just because the wealthy has the means to pay more means that they should be taxed more, when it is the poor who use more of the public services? Does that sound fair to you? Doesn’t it sound like it’s punishing success? Or, do you think the wealthy are keeping the poor down, so therefore they should have an increased tax burden to subisidize those that they oppress?
GDP. It’s not the most precise and definitely not the most all-encompassing, but it’s the only measure that an overwhelming majority of economists will agree on. And, it’s the standard measure that is taught in schools.
Pretty much by definition it is the wealthy who have gotten the most benefit out of our society. If you put Bill Gates on an island without the benefits of the ordered society that government provides and I could pretty much guarantee his wealth would be down by a factor of several thousand.
And yes, it is also relevant that the marginal utility of money decreases as the amount you have goes up…so from a least pain standpoint it makes sense to have the wealthy paying a larger fraction of their income to taxes than the poor.
Finally, if you look at all taxes, the tax system is flatter than you might imagine. The relatively progressive federal income tax is in large part balanced by the regressive payroll taxes and state sales taxes. (And now, of course, even in the federal income tax, we also have lower taxation rates on certain forms of income…dividends and capital gains…that are disproportionately obtained by the wealthy.)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2005-TFD1-LARGE.jpg
Yeah that appears to be true, taxes appear about 5-10% lower than they were under Clinton. But as far as cutting taxes, I don’t see why that is automatically a good policy. If the gov. cuts funding for education or healthcare people will just pay more privately for these things, negating any possible savings from the tax cut. We are running massive deficits that’ll have to get paid for sooner or later.
On the other hand that doesn’t break down tax rates into economic groups.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=68118
The fourth and fifth income quintiles, which control 73% of income benefited more from the Bush policies than the first, second or third quintile.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=330
mean household incomes per quintile are 10k, 27k, 43k, 69k and 147k respectively. So if the 4th and 5th quintile control 73% of the wealth and they benefited most from the Bush tax cuts, estate tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts then that could explain the tax cuts.