Arthur Laffer Praises Clinton -rips rebate

Obfuscate

Obfuscate

Powered By: Capitalism
"Clinton was a great president... Clinton cut the capital gains rate dramatically, welfare reform, cut spending as a % of GDP..."


"The stimius makes no sense..it's a net zero"

On Kudlow now
 
Yes even their hero laffer thinks so .

He has even said before that using the laffer curve as the republicans do to justify all tax cuts is silly.
 
Desh said:
Yes even their hero laffer thinks so .

He has even said before that using the laffer curve as the republicans do to justify all tax cuts is silly.
Click to expand...

Reagan's tax cuts paid for themselves. However, 40% is clearly below the marginal rate. You can still cut taxes after they're below about 50%, you just can't still have your cake and eat it too.
 
Watermark said:
US, not even the most adamant liberal in the world would say that decreasing taxation from 70% to 40% didn't pay for itself. Because it did. That's a clear plain fact.
Click to expand...



That's hilarious. Even the people that designed the Reagan tax cuts will tell you that the Reagan tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and that they were never designed to pay for themselves. They were simply a means to promote economic growth and to instill incentives in the economy for growth. They were well aware that revenues would decline as a result of the tax cuts:

As the staff economist for Representative Jack Kemp, a Republican of New York, I helped devise the tax plan he co-sponsored with Senator William Roth, a Delaware Republican. Kemp-Roth was intended to bring down the top statutory federal income tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent and the bottom rate to 10 percent from 14 percent. We modeled this proposal on the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut of 1964, which lowered the top rate to 70 percent from 91 percent and the bottom rate to 14 percent from 20 percent.

We believed that our tax plan would stimulate the economy to such a degree that the federal government would not lose $1 of revenue for every $1 of tax cut. Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results. Thus, contrary to common belief, neither Jack Kemp nor William Roth nor Ronald Reagan ever said that there would be no revenue loss associated with an across-the-board cut in tax rates. We just thought it wouldn’t lose as much revenue as predicted by the standard revenue forecasting models, which were based on Keynesian principles.

Furthermore, our belief that we might get back a third of the revenue loss was always a long-run proposition. Even the most rabid supply-sider knew we would lose $1 of revenue for $1 of tax cut in the short term, because it took time for incentives to work and for people to change their behavior. When President Reagan proposed a version of Kemp-Roth in 1981, every revenue estimate produced by the Treasury showed large revenue losses from its enactment, based on standard models. The independent Congressional Budget Office produced figures that were almost identical.
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
That's hilarious. Even the people that designed the Reagan tax cuts will tell you that the Reagan tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and that they were never designed to pay for themselves. They were simply a means to promote economic growth and to instill incentives in the economy for growth. They were well aware that revenues would decline as a result of the tax cuts:
Click to expand...

That's hilarious, because revenue didn't go down.
 
For you dupes that think we can be a service nation and ship manufacturing over seas--Clinton is the #1 factor why our economy is busting.

The guy screws fat ugly chicks--and you live your lives through him vicariously.

I swear this site is mostly a commie social group.
 
minority its to bad your stuck in the 70's.
You should have mixed up your education instead of doing advanced buggywhips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top