May 8, 2006
CBO Reports Tax Revenue Gusher in 2006
The Congressional Budget Office reports "robust" growth in tax revenues for the first seven months of the 2006 fiscal year (Oct. 1 2005 - April 30, 2006):
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CBO Reports Tax Revenue Gusher in 2006:
» Tax Gusher from The Club for Growth Blog
Thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts, the U.S. Treasury has been getting a lot of money from taxpayers lately. The Congressional Budget Office reports that tax revenue is up, up, up from last year. Income tax revenue is up 10.2%.... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2006 8:54:40 AM
Tracked on May 8, 2006 9:05:31 AM
» http://instapundit.com/archives/030163.php from Instapundit.com
A "TAX REVENUE GUSHER" IN 2006: But wouldn't that mean the economy is doing well? I haven't heard anything about that on the news. . . .... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2006 10:55:03 AM
» Bush's Evil Tax Cuts from The Bernoulli Effect
Tax Cut Blog notices a Congression Budget Office report on the effects of the evil Bush tax cuts (via Instapundit). From the CBO: I'd say that was "robust" growth by anyone's definition, wouldn't you? And don't forget that close to... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2006 12:53:42 PM
» Federal tax revenues up from KirstenMortensen.com
Huh. How bout that. (I agree with the person who wrote, in the comments paraphrasing slightly here now we just have to keep Congress from spending it twice.) Technorati Tags: federal tax revenues ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2006 9:00:47 PM
Now if we can just keep those mo fos in Congress from spending it twice.
Posted by: M. Simon | May 8, 2006 12:07:10 PM
Now if we can just keep the mo fos in Congress from spending it twice.
Posted by: M. Simon | May 8, 2006 12:09:20 PM
Did tax rates change? Is there some sort of huge inflation?
Posted by: Half Sigma | May 8, 2006 12:23:39 PM
I am curious: How does this compare to the 06 predictons from CBO and Joint Tax and WH Budget Office?
Posted by: Craig Landrith | May 8, 2006 12:32:44 PM
An article that states how the economy is much better than people think, and also how those leftists who insist the economy is poor are simply inhibiting their own success in this economy (due to risk aversion, etc.) A great read.
Posted by: Twok | May 8, 2006 1:04:03 PM
Never really understood the CBO's ability to predict future earnings/losses.
Projecting GDP growth @ 2%, and getting an actual 3.5% isn't a 1.5% miss, its understating growth by 75%.
Under Clinton, the CBO seemed wildly optimistic. Under Bush 43, the CBO has consistently understates (by a wide margin) their projection of economic growth-their average miss is off by 40%.
Posted by: archie | May 8, 2006 1:48:59 PM
is this related to the real world or just a factoid? you want to play with statistics? do something useful:
ie, explain how this relates to the fact that exxon-mobil earned $118 last year and reported no tax? who is paying these taxes?
compare and contrast this to per capita spending on armaments vs health and environment service (include such things as nat'l parks, reinvestment in the interstate military highway system, high school graduates, etc), and show me a ratio to national law enforcement vs crime rates. show ratio of serious crime/incarceration for serious crime vs ideological crime (possession)
extrapolate quality of life re: infant mortality as relates to economic growth and heavy-industry off-shoring.
show how this income tax growth can explain (or not) the huge upsurge in economic collapse for people with high hospitalization costs leading to bankruptcy due to insurance caps or other reasons.
compare and contrast quality of life indices of top 15 nations using ratios of govt spending on armaments vs health and welfare expenditures.
explain how the u.s. has the higest infant mortality rate of leading 15 with the highest insurance premiums in the world.
statistics can be fun and they can also lead you to some powerful truths if you remove your ideological blinders and look at the results on the ground.
Posted by: fazzaz31 | May 8, 2006 4:45:07 PM
Is it safe to assume that the defense outlays don't include the "emergency supplemental" bills for Afghanistan and Iraq?
Posted by: David | May 8, 2006 6:17:12 PM
Exxon-Mobile reported $36 billion of after-tax net income in 2005. It incurred $23 billion of federal income tax in 2005. Please see its annual report at this link:
What is your source for the $118 with no tax?
Posted by: Vince | May 8, 2006 10:43:35 PM
In determining the "highest insurance premiums in the world", did you take taxes into consideration? For example, Canada's and Western Europe's "free" health care is funded through higher income taxes than we have here in the US.
Posted by: Vince | May 8, 2006 10:49:09 PM
In regards to infant mortality, please see the following abstract from pubmed.com. It indicates that other countries use different methods for registering births and deaths among infants, and thus, classifying infant deaths. This is particulary true for infants with low birth-weight. These are viewed as "non-viable" in other countries (and are not counted as births or "infant deaths"), whereas the US does not view them this way (they are counted as births and deaths). In summary, it states that "International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution."
Here is the link:
Posted by: Vince | May 8, 2006 11:07:57 PM
I could not find statistics to support or rebut your statement that there is a "huge upsurge in economic collapse for people with high hospitalization costs". Please provide your source.
Posted by: Vince | May 8, 2006 11:12:25 PM
I'm not sure what relevance your points on military vs social spending has on this specific topic - i.e., that reductions in marginal tax rates increase tax receipts.
Please explain your point about ideological blinders. Are you saying that if we, as a country, all had a different ideology, that the tax receipts figures would somehow change?
Posted by: Vince | May 8, 2006 11:16:34 PM
"statistics can be fun and they can also lead you to some powerful truths if you remove your ideological blinders and look at the results on the ground."
Gee yeah, you're right. America is going down the tubes. Time to pack it in and move to Canada right?
Posted by: Infide | May 8, 2006 11:39:34 PM
Oh please.. Exxon-Mobil did not report "no tax". They paid $98.6 BILLION in taxes in 2005, and $86.8 billion in 2004. Consult the 10-K filing:
Income, excise and all other taxes totaled $98.6 billion in 2005, an increase of $11.8 billion or 14 percent from 2004. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was $23.3 billion, $7.4 billion higher than 2004, reflecting higher pre-tax income in 2005. The effective tax rate was 41.4 percent in 2005, compared to 40.3 percent in 2004. During both periods, the Corporation continued to benefit from the favorable resolution of other tax-related issues. Excise and all other taxes and duties of $75.3 billion in 2005 increased $4.4 billion from 2004, reflecting higher prices and foreign exchange effects.
Income, excise and all other taxes totaled $86.8 billion in 2004, an increase of $11.8 billion, or 16 percent, from 2003. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was $15.9 billion, $4.9 billion higher than 2003, reflecting higher pretax income in 2004. The effective tax rate was 40.3 percent in 2004, compared to 36.4 percent in 2003. Excluding the income tax effects in 2003 of the gain on the Ruhrgas AG share transfer and the settlement of a U.S. tax dispute, the effective rate in 2004 was similar to 2003. During both periods, the Corporation continued to benefit from the favorable resolution of other tax-related issues. Excise and all other taxes and duties of $70.9 billion in 2004 increased $6.9 billion from 2003, reflecting higher prices and foreign exchange effects.
Posted by: Spence | May 10, 2006 2:09:37 AM
All wealth is created. The only real capital is earnings. The only real growth is reinvestment of earnings. An income tax takes earnings away, thus reducing the economy's ability to reinvest its earnings, thus reducing what I call 'organic' growth. You can compensate for this temporarily with Keynesian and monetary mischief but the result is 1970s-style stagflation. Thus, low taxes are the only sustainable economic stimulus. In the 1980s and since mid-2004 the Fed was TIGHTENING - yet the economy grew and revenues increased.
Posted by: Patrick Trombly | Sep 21, 2007 7:41:47 PM