We got to debating tax policy in one of the other threads, and I did a little research. My peliminary conclusion is they both stink. The first paper I read was on the Economic Effects of Making the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Permanent. It was ugly with huge projected deficites going out past 2014. So then I decided to look into what Kerry had planed. Kerry's Plan was obviously different, but when you factor in his domestic spending the results are effectively the same when it comes to the budget deficite. With this being a central issue for all of us Rep and Dem I thought this would be of interest to all.<br><br>[color:red] Excert from the report on Kerry's plan:</font color=red><br>[color:blue]<br>Fiscal Responsibility <br>The Kerry plan would reduce tax revenues compared with current law by about $602 billion over ten years, including $361 billion to make the middle class tax cuts permanent for taxpayers with incomes under $200,000, $71 billion for the college opportunity tax credit, and $177 billion for the health insurance tax incentives. All told, Treasury estimated that the President’s budget proposals would reduce revenues by $1,240 billion, of which about $990 billion is attributable to making most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. (We estimate that those provisions alone would reduce revenues by about $1.2 trillion; the Treasury assumes that lower tax rates lead to higher taxable income, which reduces their cost.) However, Kerry also proposes new spending programs aimed at expanding health insurance coverage that Kenneth Thorpe estimates would cost $653 billion over the 10-year budget period. Thus, on balance, these elements of the two plans would add roughly the same amount to the federal debt over the decade. <br><br>Estimates for both proposals assume the individual alternative minimum tax relief is extended only through 2005, an unreasonable assumption. In addition, the cost of extending certain perennially expiring tax provisions is excluded. As a result, the revenue baseline is artificially inflated. That means that future deficits could well be significantly larger than implied by official projections, even before accounting for the additional tax cuts and spending increases. </font color=blue><br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex

But you can't really go by the campaign promises made. Bush did a complete 180 from his campaign pledges.<br><br>So we have to compare what Bush has done to what Kerry will likely do. Kerry will have a republican led congress. Fortunately this will dull any tax cuts. He won't make them. He also won't be allowed to do any of the largesse he espouses. Congress won't let him. So we then get a situation which the debt actually might get pared down again. A democrat in the WH and a Republican congress.<br><br>But if we get four more years of Bush cutting taxes and voting for every single program the porkified Republican Congress can think of we are talking huge debts. China and the EU will own us.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

I think you also have to add that Kerry straightforwardly says that his economic plans are contingent on what the economy is actually doing. I guess that would make him the object of more flip flop accusations. I just wish Bush had so practical a perspective on things.<br><br>

Honestly I don't think Bush will be able to make the tax cuts perminent. Even if he does win I think it will be so close that he won't have a firm mandate, and the Senate isn't going to roll over for everything. Plus like YOYO said alot depends on what the economy is doing. Even the reports I linked made predictions on what they thought the economy would do, but they were carfull to qualify the statements. Honestly I think it will be a wash either way.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex

A wash either way? You gotta be kidding me. Bush as lame duck without a vice president to elect and a Republican Congress will make those tax breaks permanent and then some. He has nothing to lose but his rich friends. Every Senator will quake in fear if they vote against making them permanent because the right wing machine will pummel them.<br>The good news, if you can call it that, because he will no longer be running for anything he will start slashing everything. He will continue to gouge the states so that they will be strapped to pay for those frivolous things like cops, street cleaners, teachers and fire fighters.<br><br>Just my opinion but I think we get a ballooning deficit and a debt which will grow and grow as the distribution of wealth continues to divide.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

To restate what you've just said but in respect to everything the administration does after November...they will have nothing to lose. No more elections for Bush/Cheney ever again. I fully expect the pushing of the God-based agenda, tax cuts and environmental softening to hit new highs at the beginning of the year. <br><br>One thing for sure is, the world is watching. Some may disagree with the reasons and many just don't care what other countries (France is often singled out) think of the U.S. But there is little doubt that if the U.S. public re-elects this administration it will be seen as an approval of the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, etc.<br><br><br><br><br>

There are a number of issues tangential to both Bush and Kerry's tax policy that the report does not take into account. For example, the Bush Administration has been starving the IRS's enforcement authority while simultaneously tax off-shoring has been quietly reducing the US tax revenue. Kerry has already talked about going after "Benedict Arnold corporations." Rhetoric aside, just by enforcing the tax laws we have, Kerry could dramatically improve tax revenues.<br><br>At least one thing is for sure, Bush has no plans for tax enforcement.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

Read this link http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225 for some interesting insights into the "off shoring" of jobs.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex

With apologies to Sen. Everett Dirksen (a Republican I admired a great deal, by the way): a few jobs here, and a few jobs there, and soon you're talking major un- and under-employment.<br><br>

I agree, but the reasons companies outsource is because of cheaper labor, and to be closer to foreign markets. The increase in taxes will not offset the gains they make because of cheaper labor, and is unlikely to have any impact on offshoring jobs. Plus if they loose revenue on the international market by not offshoring jobs, then they will lay people off, which in itself will have a negative impact on the economy. Like it or not we live in a world with a global economy. If busness can't compete on the global level they will fold.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex