2001 tax cut Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate decreased from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%. In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "
marriage penalty" reduced. Since the cuts got implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire after the 2010 tax year. Facing opposition in Congress for an initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut (over ten years), Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent government funds had to be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the threat of recession, Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan said tax cuts could work but must be offset with spending cuts. Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Ultimately, five Senate Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans in approving a $1.35 trillion tax cut program — one of the largest in U.S. history.
2003 cuts and later The
United States Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) on May 23, 2003, and
President George W. Bush signed it into law five days later. Nearly all of the cuts (individual rates, capital gains, dividends, estate tax) were to expire after 2010. Among other provisions, the act accelerated certain tax changes passed in the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, increased the exemption amount for the individual
Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of
income from
dividends and
capital gains. JGTRRA continued on the precedent established by the 2001 EGTRRA, while increasing tax reductions on investment income from
dividends and
capital gains. JGTRRA accelerated the gradual rate reduction and increase in credits passed in EGTRRA. The maximum tax rate decreases originally scheduled to be phased into effect in 2006 under EGTRRA were retroactively enacted to apply to the 2003 tax year. Also, the child tax credit increased to what would have been the 2010 level, and "
marriage penalty" relief accelerated to 2009 levels. In addition, the threshold at which the
alternative minimum tax applies was also increased. JGTRRA increased both the percentage rate at which items are
depreciated and the amount a taxpayer may choose to expense under
Section 179, allowing them to deduct the full cost of the item from their income without having to depreciate the amount. In addition, the
capital gains tax decreased from rates of 8%, 10%, and 20% to 5% and 15%. Capital gains taxes for those currently paying 5% (in this instance, those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled for elimination in 2008. However, capital gains taxes remain at the regular income tax rate for property held less than one year. Certain categories, such as collectibles, remained taxed at existing rates, with a 28% cap. In addition, taxes on "
qualified dividends" reduced to the capital gains levels. "
Qualified dividends" includes most income from non-foreign corporations,
real estate investment trusts, and
credit union and
bank "dividends" nominally
interest.
CBO scoring The non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the
Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury: • The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002-2011 decade, excluding interest. • The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the Bush tax cuts would add approximately $3.0 trillion to the debt over the 2010-2019 decade if fully extended at all income levels, including interest. • The CBO estimated in January 2009 that extending the Bush tax cuts at all income levels over the 2011-2019 period would increase the annual deficit by an average of 1.7% GDP, reaching 2.0% GDP in 2018 and 2019.
Economists, including the
Treasury Secretary at the time
Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten
Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the 2003 tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably (see
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts). Some argued the effects of the tax cuts have been as promised as revenues actually increased (although income tax revenues fell), the recession of 2001 ended relatively quickly, and economic growth was positive. The tax cuts had been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council. The Bush administration had claimed, based on the concept of the
Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Through the end of 2008, total federal tax revenues relative to GDP had yet to regain their 2000 peak although it was increasingly between 2004 and 2007. When asked whether the Bush tax cuts had generated more revenue,
Arthur Laffer stated that he did not know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September 11 attacks and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense." Critics indicate that the tax revenues would have been considerably higher if the tax cuts had not been made. Income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. The
Tax Policy Center reported that the various tax cuts under the Bush administration were "extraordinarily expensive" to the Treasury:
Impact on inequality Federal income taxes (distinct from payroll taxes) are paid overwhelmingly by the highest income taxpayers. For example, in 2014, the top 1% of income earners paid 45.7% of federal income taxes; the bottom 80% of earners paid 15%. Therefore, policies that reduce income tax rates, such as the Bush tax cuts, dis-proportionally benefit the rich, as they pay the lion's share of the taxes. During President Bush's terms,
income inequality grew, a trend since 1980. CBO reported that the share of after-tax income received by the top 1% rose from 12.3% in 2001 to a peak of 16.7% in 2007, before ending at 14.1% in 2008. Comparing 2001 and 2008, the lowest and highest
quintiles of the income distribution had a larger share of the after-tax income, while the middle three quintiles had a lower share. Further, income inequality can be measured both before-tax and after-tax, so the Bush tax cuts primarily impacted the latter measurements. President Bush did not take deliberate steps to address pre-tax inequality, which involves policies such as raising the minimum wage, strengthening collective bargaining power (unions), limiting executive pay, and protectionism. CBO reported that the top 1% paid an average total federal tax rate of 32.5% in 2000, 30.1% in 2004, and 28.2% in 2008. The top 1% paid an average federal income tax rate of 24.5% in 2000 and 20.4% in 2008. Economists
Peter Orszag and
William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government
redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This would suggest that the Bush tax cut policy was highly regressive, but some writers, notably at the Koch-funded
Tax Foundation, argue that the concept of a
progressive tax should be detached from its traditional association with income redistribution, noting that since the share of income of the most wealthy rose so much during the period, their share of the total tax burden went up even as their tax rates went down. Between 2003 and 2004, following the 2003 tax cuts, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2% in 2003 to 14.0% in 2004. (This followed the period from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined the most for the top 1%.) At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3%,. In this way, they claim, the tax system actually became more progressive between 2000 and 2004. ==Defense spending==