While I could maybe agree with the notion that this tax-cut (or any other tax-cut) may aid in increasing short-term(2-3year) budget deficits because of front loading; you can't say that tax-cuts are a "cost" or directly create debt, which I hear spewed by every Tom, Dick, and Howard(creative, no? ). Think I'm full of Shiz when I say that Gov't spending is the reason for "debt" instead of "tax-cuts"? Sit down, buckle-up, and please remove all tinfoil hats as I lay things out for you.
Gov't spending in:
Year // Total Outlay (**=projected)
2000 // 1,788,773,000,000
2001 // 1,863,895,000,000
2002 // 2,010,975,000,000
2003 // 2,140,377,000,000**
2004 // 2,229,425,000,000**
2005 // 2,343,399,000,000**
2006 // 2,463,663,000,000**
2007 // 2,576,203,000,000**
2008 // 2,710,517,000,000**
Taken from http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z1.xls
So the "tax-cut" was ~$350 billion over 10 years right? With ~226billion coming in the first two years.
So since we only have the next 6 years estimates we'll use them as it will prove my point just as well.
2008 spending = 2.7trillion**
2002 spending = 2.0trillion
-----------------------------
. . . . . . . = 700billion in spending increases. Which equates to roughly 115 billion in spending increases per year.
Tax Cut break down
350billion - 226billion (first 2 years) = ~124billion/year for the first 2 years
124billion / 8 years= 15.5billion/year for the last 8 years of the tax cut
So lets put this all in perspective.
Spending increase 2003 = 130 billion (-124billion taxcut "cost")
spending increase 2004 = 90 billion (-124billion taxcut "cost")
spending increase 2005 = 110 bilion (-15.5billion taxcut "cost")
.....
....
...
You can fill in the rest.
first 6 years of the tax-cut "cost" = 310 billion
next 6 years projected budget spending increases = 700 billion
Now I ask you, What causes the gov't to "borrow" money?
Hmmm...couldn't be the increase in spending now could it?
The above does not take into consideration the possibility that this "tax-cut" could also increase revenue which would
then start negating it's "cost"
CkG
Gov't spending in:
Year // Total Outlay (**=projected)
2000 // 1,788,773,000,000
2001 // 1,863,895,000,000
2002 // 2,010,975,000,000
2003 // 2,140,377,000,000**
2004 // 2,229,425,000,000**
2005 // 2,343,399,000,000**
2006 // 2,463,663,000,000**
2007 // 2,576,203,000,000**
2008 // 2,710,517,000,000**
Taken from http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z1.xls
So the "tax-cut" was ~$350 billion over 10 years right? With ~226billion coming in the first two years.
So since we only have the next 6 years estimates we'll use them as it will prove my point just as well.
2008 spending = 2.7trillion**
2002 spending = 2.0trillion
-----------------------------
. . . . . . . = 700billion in spending increases. Which equates to roughly 115 billion in spending increases per year.
Tax Cut break down
350billion - 226billion (first 2 years) = ~124billion/year for the first 2 years
124billion / 8 years= 15.5billion/year for the last 8 years of the tax cut
So lets put this all in perspective.
Spending increase 2003 = 130 billion (-124billion taxcut "cost")
spending increase 2004 = 90 billion (-124billion taxcut "cost")
spending increase 2005 = 110 bilion (-15.5billion taxcut "cost")
.....
....
...
You can fill in the rest.
first 6 years of the tax-cut "cost" = 310 billion
next 6 years projected budget spending increases = 700 billion
Now I ask you, What causes the gov't to "borrow" money?
Hmmm...couldn't be the increase in spending now could it?
The above does not take into consideration the possibility that this "tax-cut" could also increase revenue which would
then start negating it's "cost"
CkG