CBO: Obama Stimulus Package Added 3.3 Million Jobs

[Wonkish1]

I think you misunderstand two points. First, you referred to "subsidies" in the tax code, such as expansion of the EITC and Child Care Credit. You clearly (to me at least) implicated such cases where the Treasury sends someone a "tax refund" when they were too poor to pay income taxes in the first place---i.e. a subsidy. The Payroll Tax Credit was an actual tax cut on taxes that would've actually been otherwise paid--i.e. a genuine tax cut rather than a subsidy disguised as a "tax credit".  Whether it was facilitated by reducing the amount initially paid like the proposed continued payroll tax cut currently before Congress, or by a credit towards payroll taxes already paid, is meaningless. The end result was working taxpayers paid less to the federal government than they would have otherwise, not a camouflaged transfer payment like (part of) the expanded EITC and Child Care Credit were. Your fixation on the term "credit" for the payroll tax "cut" is simply your being misled by semantics.

Secondly, I understood your argument about increased debt mitigating the effect of combined tax cuts and spending increases the first time you posted it. My point here is the fallicy in your blind ironclad assumption that for stimulus purposes "$100 tax cut is worth $100 debt because it creates economic stimulus" but conversely "$100 of increased government spending isn't worth ANYWHERE near $100, or any non-negligible amount, of additional debt because all such spending is wasteful and carries no tangible economic stimulus effect" yadda-yadda-yadda.

What this argument has utterly ignored for 30 years is $100 of tax cuts creates just as much debt as $100 of federal spending (even <gasp> defense spending). Due to conservatives inability to appreciate increased debt ameliorates the benefits of tax cuts just as much as additional spending, we've acquired massive debt from across the board tax cuts with little tangible economic growth to show for it, particularly for the middle class.

My point was to challenge this delusion you, like many right wingers, hold so dearly. So I admit upon your further explanation, you don't repudiate 30 years of trickle down economics, but rather just neatly apply an imaginary and indefensible double standard for the stimulus value of tax cuts vs. an identical amount in government spending. A double standard which holds not merely the free market is generally more efficient than public efforts (as 99% of liberals also believe), but that public spending is always and entirely useless in stimulating the economy compared to an equivalent amount of tax cuts.

All tax credits are subsidies in the tax code because they are direct cash for the full amount of the credit(since most are netted is beside the point).

Tax deductions are different horse altogether. But I explicitly said tax credits so as to not be any ambiguity. As are marginal tax rate reductions.


Well I don't believe the government is an efficient vehicle that's why. Now your welcome to disagree with that, but that is why I can see the debt out mitigate government spending and not out mitigate tax reductions. But the argument we're going to end up in with the course of your argument is whether or not government spending or taxes are more efficient and which ones are being mitigated completely by new debt vs. only partially.


Actually since the CBO has consistently overestimated the 'cost' of tax reductions and underestimated the cost of government spending than I'm quite content saying that tax reductions don't cost the same debt outcomes according to the CBO mistakes that spending increases do. You want to dispute this?


It is you that is holding onto a delusion here my friend. Government spending has never produced the jobs that the CBO(let alone liberal think tanks) have claimed it would. And government spending doesn't equal tax cuts.

Once again, you miss the point. The relative GENERAL efficiency of the private sector vs. the public is not at issue outside the feverish imaginations of the far right. The issue whether there is a somewhat/nothing or never/occasional black and white dichotomy.

Right wingers have consistently underestimated the cost of tax cuts--to a degree the CBO couldn't manage in decades if they consciously tried. You don't want to dispute this.

No actually they haven't. Its the Dems(and static estimates) that consistently way, way, way overestimate the cost of the tax cuts. History has shown that over and over and over again.

And efficiency and behavior change is the core of the issue. And the core reason why static estimates are always way, way, way off.

[Wonkish1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe Badger. It would be an interesting issue to research.

In any event, it depends in part on the type of tax cut. For example, a cut in the capital gains tax, causes more gains to be recognized. If you don't recognize a gain, you get no revenue at all no matter what the rate. If it is high enough, you just borrow against the appreciated assets if need be, and then the gain goes away when you die due to your heirs getting a stepped up basis. Thus, my heirs will sell my real estate, not I. It is literally a lifetime investment.

On the other hand, to suggest supply side will substantially mitigate the revenue loss if the marginal income tax rate goes from say 35% to 39% is almost facially ludicrous. It may slightly degrade economic efficiency to some extent, but the offset from a tax revenue standpoint is probably de minimus.

This analysis is spot on and is practically exactly what I've been saying about particular tax cuts in the Bush package(for example). Any notion that the reduction in capital gains taxes and the creation of qualified dividends weren't at least somewhat close to revenue neutral is laughable. Other tax cuts not so much.

But all tax cuts have at least *some* behavior change towards engaging in more of the taxable event that mitigates against the static projections. The degree of which completely depends on the tax cut.