Quantcast

Yo, Deficit Cry Babies...

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
.....you've been...





pwn3d!

:p:p:p:p:p


Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions
Early Surge Lowers Deficit Projections
Washington Post | May 5 | Jonathan Weisman

After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers -- the tide of government red ink appears to be receding.

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.



Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived. Indeed, after a four-year absence, the Treasury Department announced yesterday it is considering reissuing its 30-year Treasury bond to help finance long-term government debt, jolting the bond markets and pushing down the price of existing 30-year securities.

But in the short term, many forecasters said the budget deficit appears to have crested.

"I think it has turned the corner," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency. "My guess is 2004 will have been the worst year."

For that fiscal year, the government recorded a $412 billion deficit, the largest ever in nominal dollar terms, although not as large as some of the deficits of the 1980s when measured against the size of the economy. The 2004 mark was up from 2003's $378 billion deficit, which topped 2002's $158 billion deficit.

In January, Bush administration officials projected that the streak would continue, with a deficit of $427 billion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. But that estimate was widely regarded as inflated and many forecasters believed the total would be more like $400 billion.

April, however, turned out to be a far better month than anticipated. Taxpayers were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich but that is increasingly pinching the middle class. The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, "it's still a high number," said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. "It needs to come down."

One factor should help in the short term: Seven months into the fiscal year, Congress is only now passing the $82 billion emergency war spending bill for fiscal 2005, which means that much of the money will be spent in 2006. That should reduce the 2005 deficit while bringing down war costs next year. Wyss said the deficit should continue to fall in 2006 and 2007.

"A month ago, I would have told you the budget numbers were on track for $400 billion. To get an adjustment this quickly would suggest a huge surprise," said Edward F. McKelvey, an economist and federal budget analyst at Goldman Sachs & Co.

Few economists say the U.S. government is out of the woods. One of the reasons for the turnaround, the alternative minimum tax, should be reduced or eliminated before it starts impinging on economic growth, Bethune said.

Also, by next year, costs from the new prescription drug benefit should start rolling in. By the end of the decade, pressure from the retiring baby boom generation will start pushing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs up significantly.

Treasury officials have long resisted reissuing 30-year bonds, in part, because "nobody wanted to admit the deficits were permanent," said Wyss, the Standard & Poor's economist.

Treasury officials disputed that notion during a meeting with reporters yesterday.

"The deficit has nothing to do with it," said Timothy S. Bitsberger, assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets. "In fact, we think the deficits are coming down."

Wall Street wasn't buying it. "If you weren't borrowing this much, you wouldn't be doing it," Wyss said. "No question."

After four years of rising budget surpluses, the Treasury announced in October 2001 that it would no longer issue the 30-year bond. The decision was intended to lower the cost of government borrowing, since bonds that mature in more than 10 years, known as long bonds, typically offer higher interest rates to attract buyers willing to accept the added risk of such long maturation periods.

With a 2001 forecast of surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over 10 years, Treasury officials figured they could focus on reducing debt, not adding to it. And eliminating the 30-year bond would push buyers to the 10-year Treasury bond. Since 30-year mortgages are closely tied to the 10-year bond, the added demand for that bond would drive down mortgage rates and help the economy.

But forecasted surpluses turned into huge, forecasted deficits. Since President Bush entered office, the total federal debt -- including debt to the public and debt owed the Social Security system -- has risen from $5.7 trillion to $7.8 trillion. Long-term interest rates should begin rising in the near term, so the government should lock in interest rates on 30-year bonds soon, Wyss said, before the cost of federal borrowing begins to rise.

Moreover, aging populations around the world have forced governments -- especially in Europe -- to shore up pension funds by requiring that they invest in long bonds. Washington is considering similar changes for its private pension systems. That has sent demand for long bonds skyrocketing, said Neal M. Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse First Boston LLC.

Bush's proposal to convert part of Social Security to individual investment accounts would also add considerable demand for 30-year bonds if it were to pass, Soss said. A decision on whether to issue 30-year bonds will be announced Aug. 3, Bitsberger said.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,518
20,326
Sleazattle
I wouldn't exactly call an adjustment from 425 to 375 ownage. Possibly the biggest thing threatening the economy right now is the weakening dollar, caused by the budget and trade deficit.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,518
20,326
Sleazattle
Westy said:
I wouldn't exactly call an adjustment from 425 to 375 ownage. Possibly the biggest thing threatening the economy right now is the weakening dollar, caused by the budget and trade deficit.

The other problem facing the economy is energy costs, but since oil is an import the weakening dollar is a big contributor to increased cost at the pump. Check oil price dollar vs. euro
 

BillT

Monkey
How is a revised budget deficit estimate of a $375 billion from $425 billion being owned when we were in a surplus situation a couple of years ago? That's like being happy you got a D- instead of a F on an exam.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
BillT said:
How is a revised budget deficit estimate of a $375 billion from $425 billion being owned when we were in a surplus situation a couple of years ago? That's like being happy you got a D- instead of a F on an exam.

Its no use Bill, N8 doesnt understand Economics or the accounting practices behind any of the #'s. He just cuts and pastes headlines. :rolleyes:
 

Discostu

Monkey
Nov 15, 2003
524
0
BillT said:
How is a revised budget deficit estimate of a $375 billion from $425 billion being owned when we were in a surplus situation a couple of years ago? That's like being happy you got a D- instead of a F on an exam.
HA! A 375 billion deficit is still an F in my books. Its like getting a 25% on an exam instead of a 20%. This administration has a long way to go before they are passing in fiscal responsibility.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,518
20,326
Sleazattle
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Its no use Bill, N8 doesnt understand Economics or the accounting practices behind any of the #'s. He just cuts and pastes headlines. :rolleyes:

I think Neight should run his side business like Shrub runs the country and see how things work out.
 

BillT

Monkey
N8 said:
The Sky is Falling!

The Sky is Falling!

The Sky is.. oh.
If you took the time to read and comprehend article, you would have realized the sky is still falling, but just not quite as fast as originally predicted. Also, the article doesn't even attempt to predict when a budget surplus might occur which, to use your phrasing, would be the indication that the sky is finally not falling.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
BillT said:
If you took the time to read and comprehend article, you would have realized the sky is still falling, but just not quite as fast as originally predicted. Also, the article doesn't even attempt to predict when a budget surplus might occur which, to use your phrasing, would be the indication that the sky is finally not falling.

Correction: The sky WAS falling but now it has stopped and started unfalling.
 

BillT

Monkey
N8 said:
Correction: The sky WAS falling but now it has stopped and started unfalling.
Nope...the sky is still falling but at a rate of $375 billion/year as opposed to $425 billion a year...still falling but the pace has slowed marginally. Using your wording, the sky won't be unfalling until we are in a surplus situation.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
It's a proven fact that lower taxes increases revenue.
Kennedy proved it.
Reagan proved it.
...and now Bush is proving it.

The thing is that the effect takes about 4-6 years to show itself. Clinton rode the wave of what Bush and Reagan did before him. Bush v2 has had to correct for the effect of the Clinton administrations goofups. Before the end of the Bush term if not the year after we will most likely have a surplus again.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Damn True said:
It's a proven fact that lower taxes increases revenue.
Kennedy proved it.
Reagan proved it.
...and now Bush is proving it.

The thing is that the effect takes about 4-6 years to show itself. Clinton rode the wave of what Bush and Reagan did before him. Bush v2 has had to correct for the effect of the Clinton administrations goofups. Before the end of the Bush term if not the year after we will most likely have a surplus again.
proof. I can prove that by bouncing a ball the sun will come up tomorrow. see, I bounced the ball and the sun came up. QED.

it may be true, but I have yet to see one actual "study" that proves this. Claiming that cutting taxes will produce higher revenue 6 years later has not been "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. Except of course the imagination of such economists such as Sean Hannity... :monkey:
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,147
796
Lima, Peru, Peru
Damn True said:
It's a proven fact that lower taxes increases revenue.
Kennedy proved it.
Reagan proved it.
...and now Bush is proving it.

The thing is that the effect takes about 4-6 years to show itself. Clinton rode the wave of what Bush and Reagan did before him. Bush v2 has had to correct for the effect of the Clinton administrations goofups. Before the end of the Bush term if not the year after we will most likely have a surplus again.

your "proven fact" is not necesarily true on every point of function... thus rendering your generalization invalid... while its effective is proportional to the tax rate, there is a point in which it stops making sense.... decreasing the burden of taxes from 15% of the GNP to say 10% of the GNP does NOT necesarilly increases overall revenue...

your 2nd argument, doesnt comply with the "falsability" principle... thus not a valid argument.
because if something good happens 6 years after.. then "it was because of the previous tax cut".. and if something bad happens, then is "fault of the non-republican in charge"...
 

BillT

Monkey
I always love how everything good that occurs during one administration's reign is directly due to their actions and decisions but everything bad that occurs is due to poor decisions from the previous administration that are now just starting to show their effects.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
dante said:
proof. I can prove that by bouncing a ball the sun will come up tomorrow. see, I bounced the ball and the sun came up. QED.

it may be true, but I have yet to see one actual "study" that proves this. Claiming that cutting taxes will produce higher revenue 6 years later has not been "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. Except of course the imagination of such economists such as Sean Hannity... :monkey:
No actually it is true. I dont recall the book (read it in a macro-econ class over 15 years ago) but the author got a nobel prize for it, but it clearly proved in no uncertain terms that lowering taxes will increase revenue. The tax plan's instituted by Kennedy, Reagan and the Bush's were based upon those principles.

There is a cross section in the curve that will provide the highest average revenue. If the govt taxes above it or below it revenue will decrease. It is a very difficult balance to achieve, and it can be thrown off kilter, but it does work.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
BillT said:
I always love how everything good that occurs during one administration's reign is directly due to their actions and decisions but everything bad that occurs is due to poor decisions from the previous administration that are now just starting to show their effects.
With economics on this scale that is exactly the case.
If the Fed changes rates today the effect on the economy will not be realized for years. The same is true of taxation.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,451
7,819
Damn True said:
No actually it is true. I dont recall the book (read it in a macro-econ class over 15 years ago) but the author got a nobel prize for it, but it clearly proved in no uncertain terms that lowering taxes will increase revenue. The tax plan's instituted by Kennedy, Reagan and the Bush's were based upon those principles.

There is a cross section in the curve that will provide the highest average revenue. If the govt taxes above it or below it revenue will decrease. It is a very difficult balance to achieve, and it can be thrown off kilter, but it does work.
ok, which one of these dudes wrote the book?

http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/economics.html
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
I know the left would love to credit Clinton for the economic situation during his term but you simply cant. Any move he made even on the first day of his presidency would not have had full impact until the last 2/3 - 1/2 of his second term.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,518
20,326
Sleazattle
Lowering taxes will reduce the burden on the economy and allow it to grow but but by creating huge deficits in doing so place many hidden burdens on the economy, such as inflation and a weak dollar.

Funny thing is back in the Clinton days the Republicans wanted to make a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget fearing Clinton spending. Now the same frothers are spending even more and poo pooing a deficit as no big deal. Unfortunately they only got a 5 year balanced budget deal passed.
 

BillT

Monkey
Damn True said:
With economics on this scale that is exactly the case.
If the Fed changes rates today the effect on the economy will not be realized for years. The same is true of taxation.
I understand that with things of this magnitude that it takes time (how much time, I'm not sure on) for effects to be shown - I was commenting more on how the policiticians spin things. Lets just imagine that we swung back into a surplus and the NASDAQ got up to around 4000 or so like it was 5 years ago, do you think anyone in the Bush administration would be patting the Clinton administration on the back for all their good work?
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
BillT said:
I understand that with things of this magnitude that it takes time (how much time, I'm not sure on) for effects to be shown - I was commenting more on how the policiticians spin things. Lets just imagine that we swung back into a surplus and the NASDAQ got up to around 4000 or so like it was 5 years ago, do you think anyone in the Bush administration would be patting the Clinton administration on the back for all their good work?
If your hypothetical situation took place the current admin might be able to make the point that the moves they made in 2000 made it happen, but they would need strong evidence to back it up.

And you are absolutely right. Both sides tend to take credit for or lay blame for whats going on now based on what happend yesterday. The truth is you have to much further back to find the causation.
 

BillT

Monkey
Part of the point that I'm getting at - even by most standards, the Bush adminstration is now getting to the point (and will definitely be there towards the end of his term) where they are going to have to start taking responsibility good or bad on how the economy is doing and stop passing blame to the Clinton administration. I'm not a big Bush supporter at all, but that certainly doesn't mean I want him or his administration to screw up the economy just so I can say 'Ha ha' as that would be cutting off my nose (and poking out an eye) to spite my face.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
BillT said:
Part of the point that I'm getting at - even by most standards, the Bush adminstration is now getting to the point (and will definitely be there towards the end of his term) where they are going to have to start taking responsibility good or bad on how the economy is doing and stop passing blame to the Clinton administration. I'm not a big Bush supporter at all, but that certainly doesn't mean I want him or his administration to screw up the economy just so I can say 'Ha ha' as that would be cutting off my nose (and poking out an eye) to spite my face.

Totally hear you. That stance held water in his first term in which economic conditions WERE casued by stuff done during the Clinton admin. We will see over the next couple of years if what Bush did works well or not. In either case I hope they own up to it.
 

SkaredShtles

Michael Bolton
Sep 21, 2003
65,861
12,845
In a van.... down by the river
reflux said:
It's a good thing we're taking advantage of this HUGE deficit reduction by repealing the estate tax... Thoughts?
Estate taxes are asinine. That goddam money has already been taxed to $hit. Why do they think they should be able to grab yet *another* piece of it?

Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. :mad:

-S.S.-
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,147
796
Lima, Peru, Peru
i pay a 0.15% tax on EVERY money transfer over 500 bucks...
sucks balls!!!!!!

if i pay for something that is 1000 bucks.. on top of sales taxes, and all others, i gotta pay an extra 0.15% just for moving the money..
every time i exchange dollars or euros into soles, bang! 0.15%... if i buy a TV, bang!! 0.15%....

and at the end of the year, the IRS equivalent computes everything i bought and matches it with my declared income.. if there is a difference.. i get audited..

plus i have to file my taxes EVERY MONTH!!!!!! and report to the gvmt every person to whom i´ve bought or sold more than 2000 bucks a year (i have to collect their IDs and give them to the gvmt).... plus if i take out more than 10k of the bank, i have to sign a crapload of papers, give a copy of my ID, phone number, adress, etc, etc.....

taxes and gvmt intromission suck total major balls...

i think we need a revolution... i shall raise an army in managua...
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,518
20,326
Sleazattle
SkaredShtles said:
Estate taxes are asinine. That goddam money has already been taxed to $hit. Why do they think they should be able to grab yet *another* piece of it?

Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. :mad:

-S.S.-
Estate taxes will only qualify for estates valued over 3.5 million. It would only effect a very small part of the population and anyone with half a brain can plan ahead and get around the rules anyway. That is of course unless you own any single piece of property valued over 3.5 million, then I say let them rape the estate.
 

BillT

Monkey
Westy said:
Estate taxes will only qualify for estates valued over 3.5 million. It would only effect a very small part of the population and anyone with half a brain can plan ahead and get around the rules anyway. That is of course unless you own any single piece of property valued over 3.5 million, then I say let them rape the estate.
I can understand both sides of the arguement...regardless of how much you have, it would suck to have to pay taxes again just for a transfer of wealth, but on the other hand, estate taxes only kick in at I believe $1.5 million in '05 and will be $3.5 million in '09 and as the laws are written right now, there is no estate tax in '10 so those with rich parents that are in the brink of death that year, you may want to consider 'accidentally' pushing them down the stairs.

I think the people that really suffer with the estate taxes are small business owners that build up a succesful business and want to leave it to their kids.

Estate planning isn't super difficult, but the problem is convincing people to start giving up their wealth to their heirs while they are living - a married couple can give a combined $22k a year away per person (so if you are your parents only heir, but have a wife and 2 kids they can give $22k to you, $22k to your wife, and $22k to each of your kids each year and not face any estate/gift tax issues).
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I'm pretty sure Damn True is talking about the Laffer curve.

I'm also pretty sure that he doesn't understand what he is talking about...
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
SkaredShtles said:
Estate taxes are asinine. That goddam money has already been taxed to $hit. Why do they think they should be able to grab yet *another* piece of it?
Kinda, but not really. When assets pass through an estate, the capital gains disappear (step-up basis). How does this sound: the very rich will pay little (or no) capital gains on asset appreciation whereas the rest of us will be paying the going rate.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Silver said:
I'm pretty sure Damn True is talking about the Laffer curve.

I'm also pretty sure that he doesn't understand what he is talking about...

Right you are. And the interesting thing about the Laffer curve is that it doesn't tell you whether raising or lowering taxes will increase revenues, it just tells you that there's an optimum point.

That is, increasing taxes indefinitely will not necessarily increase revenues indefinitely, but we may very well be (and many economists will state it as fact that we are) BELOW the optimum point. And without knowing where on the curve we are, the curve is pretty useless...