The “record tax receipts” you were asking about were achieved in FY 2000. For the most recently completed fiscal year, personal income tax receipts were lower by 20 percent! Corporate taxes were off by 9 percent! And that year was the best since the high water mark in 2000. Sorry.

The only thing that keeps tax receipts from being way down is an increase in social insurance taxes (up 12 percent since 2000). And we know who pays those, don’t we?

So let’s turn the question back to you: Explain the “record tax receipts”.

Counting our chickenhawks before they’re hatched, are we? Since when do we get count partial year estimates as ‘records?’

Maybe we should just induct Willie Parker into the NFL Hall of Fame because he’s had two good games.

JD, you were caught lying. Time to suck it up and take it like a man.

Another liberal tax lie that is repeated so often libs think it is a fact.

Here is the truth:

The top 1% of income tax payers pay 34% of all income tax.

The top 5% of income tax payers pay 54% of all income tax.

The bottom 50% of tax payers pay a whopping 3.5% of all income tax.

But 54% isn t enough for the top 5% to pay for your socialist eutopia, is it? You redistributionists are quite cavalier with OTHER people s money.

And, jadegold, your condescending attitude is tiresome. Revenues rose then, and are rising now. Trouble is, spending seems to increase at rates equal to or greater than the growth in revenue. Maybe if they actually did start “cutting” some programs, some of your whining might have a point.

Flanagan strikes again!!

How about a chart matching revenue with spending? Then we can start talking about “records”.

This points up yet another problem with the rightwing: they will rely on two blowhards who barely made it through High School for economic advice and analysis.

Yet, wingers like JD can’t be troubled to do a little fact-checking before asserting something that’s easily demonstrated false.

OTOH, you’ve got to stop posting those “liberal media” links- I mean, come on, the Congressional Budget Office? Socialists if I ever saw them.

Another liberal tax lie that is repeated so often libs think it is a fact.

Here is the truth:

The top 1% of income tax payers pay 34% of all income tax.

The top 5% of income tax payers pay 54% of all income tax.

The bottom 50% of tax payers pay a whopping 3.5% of all income tax.

But 54% isn’t enough for the top 5% to pay for your socialist eutopia, is it? You redistributionists are quite cavalier with OTHER people’s money.

Link here: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Is it possible that Rush and Hannity are lying? And JD just repeated their lie, because they believe everything they say uncritically?

Isn’t it interesting that the two greatest peace-time expansions of the economy happened after the 83 and 93 tax hikes?

I think we just caught JD…fibbing.

Explain the records tax receipts then.

Ummmm…the CBO doesn’t think there are “record tax receipts.”

CBO Historical Budget Data

Go to Table 3. Look at the years 2001-2004. No records there–it looks like tax revenues have declined.

This has been explained to you several times, JD. You really are uninterested in the answer.

Here’s what Greg Mankiw (look him up–he’s a conservative economist and former member of AWOL George’s admin) said on the issue:

“An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would raise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan’s proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to caues tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea “voodoo economics.” Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s…. Congress passes the cut in tax rates… but the tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise… tax revenue fell… government began a long period of deficit spending… largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than the actually are… when the economics profession appears in disarray, you should ask whether the disagreement is real or manufactured… [by] some snake-oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure…”