Reagan, Poppy, and Clinton were smarter than the Chimp.
They knew that if you cut taxes on the TMR and on investments, you had to raise revenue in other areas and restrict the growth in spending where possible. This is simple arithmetic.
The US is insolvent !
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Reagan, Poppy, and Clinton were smarter than the Chimp.
They knew that if you cut taxes on the TMR and on investments, you had to raise revenue in other areas and restrict the growth in spending where possible. This is simple arithmetic.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Prissy, you are starting to annoy me, I have repeated myself three times here, and you aren't listening. What you continue to post, is an irrelevant argument based on overall growth rate in two different economies. This does nothing to prove your point, only to bolster the point I have made about increasing revenues by lowering the TMR. Even in the most disastrous economic conditions we've probably ever known, the revenues were increased by 13% according to your own numbers, following a 3.6% decrease in the TMR.
-Reagan cut the TMR in 1981: From 1981 to 1984, revenue growth was anemic.
Regan cut taxes from 1981 to 1984, and produced the longest peacetime prosperity of our history. Revenues certainly DID increase, by a whopping 30% according to the link you provided. Furthermore, if you look at just the revenues from TMR taxpayers, it increased substantially more than the 30% overall rate.
You continue to want to try and look at the TMR through the prism of the total economy of the time, and the overall tax revenue rate of that time, which fluctuate differently depending on what else is done and what is going on in the world at that time. I continue to press you for the actual number of tax dollars paid by TMR taxpayers before and after a cut or raise in the rate, because this is what we are arguing, not the total tax revenue, and not a comarison of rates during two differing economies.
Raising the TMR always produces less revenue, because you are increasing a tax on something that is not a necessity. You can increase the tax rate on the middle class, and produce more revenues, because middle class people require an income, it's a necessity. It simply doesn't work the same way for the wealthy, because they have other means to produce or maintain wealth, without earning a taxable income.
-Clinton raise the TMR in 1993, and revenue growth skyrocketed from 1994 to 2000.
Now hang on... Reagan decreased it, and produced 30% increase in total revenues... over the same period of time Clinton increased it, and showed a 21% increase in revenues, yet Reagan's growth was "anemic" while Clinton's "skyrocketed"? How does that work? I think someone has been into the holiday koolaid!
Go find the dollar amount of taxes paid by TMR taxpayers under Reagan, and TMR taxpayers under Clinton, before and after the increase/decrease. Not ALL taxpayers, just those paying the TMR... since THAT is what is being argued here. I've seen the actual numbers before, I just don't feel like going and looking them up, but they are a part of public record, and you can find them fairly quickly. I promise you, the revenues from that group (TMR) increase with a cut in the rate every time. In all but one instance, (Clinton), when the rate was raised, it produced less revenue from that particular tax group. With Clinton, it was considered to be a draw, it neither produced more or less, but as I recall, it was 20 million less or something, it was too close to even, to consider it a true "loss" in revenue.... but remember, this was in the midst of that wonderful and great, booming Clinton economy! Much more money in revenues should have been made, (and would have been made, had he not increased the rate!)
Not only that... but Clinton understood this basic economic principle, like you apparently don't.... that is why he only raised it .6% and not 3% or 4%. Yes, Clinton understood history of economics, and he was a smarter pinhead than you, while you sucked up his rhetoric about 'feeling your pain' and 'help for working-class families' with the largest tax increase in history, the rich only paid an extra .6% on earned income, because Clinton knew it would certainly produce a loss in revenue from that tax group, if he raised it any higher. His tax plan offset this anticipated loss in revenue, by increasing some business-related tax, and personal taxes for the middle class. Like I said, most economists would read your posts and laugh out loud at your utter economic ignorance. Even the people who disagree with free-market economics, understand you can't raise the TMR substantially, without producing far less revenue.
In summary, we need the actual dollar amount paid in Federal Income Tax for the Top Marginal Rate in 1990 and 1994, and we need this for 2001 and 2005. These are the numbers needed to determine, if raising or cutting the TMR was effective at producing more or less revenue in taxes. Nothing else can be considered, there are too many other intangible factors involved. Comparing the overall revenue growth rate percentage, doesn't effect this argument in the least, and has nothing to do with the gain or loss of revenue from top marginal taxpayers. Until you can provide the information I have suggested, you can't "prove your point" here, and I don't care how many liberals pat you on the back and rub your balls for your 'brilliance' and ability to post links.
You've got all this time to go look for things and post them, so go do it! Prove your damn point! Post a link to the amount of dollars paid in taxes by the TMR taxpayers, and let's see who is right and who is wrong here.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Gee... it seems to me like, someone here is only capable of posting one-line slams on Dixie, and nothing of substantive debate on the topic, for post after post, in some pathetic attempt to get Dixie's attention or piss him off or something?
I have two words for you... rubber and glue.
uscitizen
Villified User
Awww did you tear your rubber ? You know you really are not supposed to reuse them anyway.
My one lines say far more than your one pagers
Large volumes does not make up for piss poor quality Dix.
maineman
Banned
Dixie sez:
"You've got all this time to go look for things and post them, so go do it! Prove your damn point! Post a link to the amount of dollars paid in taxes by the TMR taxpayers, and let's see who is right and who is wrong here."
It would seem to me that Cypress has been the one posting all of the facts.... it would seem to me that Dixie needs to be the one to go look something up for a change and quit expecting the rest of us to just accept his bullshit as the gospel truth. Quit bloviating on for paragraph after paragraph and just post the link to the numbers that prove your case....
and it would seem to me that your arguments that attempt to minimize the relevance of Cypress's points by claiming that it makes no sense to compare two different economies are a double edged sword. If comparing Reagan and Clinton makes no sense, then comparing Reagan and Dubya makes no more sense... if indeed the results of raising and lowering marginal tax rates are dependent upon the overall economic conditions in place when the rates are changed, then so be it...
"You've got all this time to go look for things and post them, so go do it! Prove your damn point! Post a link to the amount of dollars paid in taxes by the TMR taxpayers, and let's see who is right and who is wrong here."
It would seem to me that Cypress has been the one posting all of the facts.... it would seem to me that Dixie needs to be the one to go look something up for a change and quit expecting the rest of us to just accept his bullshit as the gospel truth. Quit bloviating on for paragraph after paragraph and just post the link to the numbers that prove your case....
and it would seem to me that your arguments that attempt to minimize the relevance of Cypress's points by claiming that it makes no sense to compare two different economies are a double edged sword. If comparing Reagan and Clinton makes no sense, then comparing Reagan and Dubya makes no more sense... if indeed the results of raising and lowering marginal tax rates are dependent upon the overall economic conditions in place when the rates are changed, then so be it...
DIXIE: “Not only that... but Clinton understood this basic economic principle, like you apparently don't.... that is why he only raised it 0.6% and not 3% or 4%. Yes, Clinton understood history of economics, and he was a smarter pinhead than you”
Dixie, your posts are so mistake-laden, and full of false assertions, that you simply aren’t credible. Clinton didn‘t raise the TMR by 0.6%. Or even 3 or 4%. He raised it over 8%, from 31% to 39.6%:
CNN/Money Magazine: “In 1990, with the federal government deep in the red, Reagan's successor George Bush acquiesced to a tax bill that included effectively raising the top tax rate to 31%. Bill Clinton and Congress upped that to 39.6% in 1993.
http://money.cnn.com/blogs/curiouscapitalist/2006/10/tax-cuts-and-their-consequences.html
BTW, I’m still waiting on that credible link from you that shows total federal revenue dropped in Clinton’s first or second year in office. Another one of your wildly fabricated factoids?
You make so many mistakes and false assertions, that your posts have no credibility.
I’ve never said tax cuts can’t have simulative affects - If they are responsibly structured and implemented, and any potential revenue shortfall resulting from them are offset by other revenue-enhancing measures - like Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush did. Which bush hasn’t done. Your trying to divert the argument away from your false assertions about how Bush’s tax cuts create “insane” revenue growth, and “solve” a revenue shortfall. Both assertions have been repeatedly shown to be false, based on Bush's own data from the White House Budget office.
Dixie, your posts are so mistake-laden, and full of false assertions, that you simply aren’t credible. Clinton didn‘t raise the TMR by 0.6%. Or even 3 or 4%. He raised it over 8%, from 31% to 39.6%:
CNN/Money Magazine: “In 1990, with the federal government deep in the red, Reagan's successor George Bush acquiesced to a tax bill that included effectively raising the top tax rate to 31%. Bill Clinton and Congress upped that to 39.6% in 1993.
http://money.cnn.com/blogs/curiouscapitalist/2006/10/tax-cuts-and-their-consequences.html
BTW, I’m still waiting on that credible link from you that shows total federal revenue dropped in Clinton’s first or second year in office. Another one of your wildly fabricated factoids?
You make so many mistakes and false assertions, that your posts have no credibility.
I’ve never said tax cuts can’t have simulative affects - If they are responsibly structured and implemented, and any potential revenue shortfall resulting from them are offset by other revenue-enhancing measures - like Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush did. Which bush hasn’t done. Your trying to divert the argument away from your false assertions about how Bush’s tax cuts create “insane” revenue growth, and “solve” a revenue shortfall. Both assertions have been repeatedly shown to be false, based on Bush's own data from the White House Budget office.
just with normal growth, the tax revenues increase..... 13% growth of revenues in 5 years is not stellar and is just bately par....in fact, revenues were reduced drastically after bush's first two tax cuts.....economists were baffled....
google it, if you want to know the truth....
google it, if you want to know the truth....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie, your posts are so mistake-laden, and full of false assertions, that you simply aren’t credible. Clinton didn‘t raise the TMR by 0.6%. Or even 3 or 4%. He raised it over 8%, from 31% to 39.6%:
Well I'll be damned if you aren't right... Clinton was a bigger pinhead than I thought! Thanks for clearing that up! (See how easily I admitted I was wrong?) I will re-phrase the question... why didn't Clinton raise it back to 50% or 70% as it was before Reagan?
This still doesn't prove your point about raising the TMR. Sorry!
BTW, I’m still waiting on that credible link from you that shows total federal revenue dropped in Clinton’s first or second year in office. Another one of your wildly fabricated factoids?
Well, I've never said that revenues dropped in Clinton's first or second year. I have repeatedly said, revenues from the TMR taxpayer drop, every time they've been raised. I challenge you to prove otherwise, because you simply can't. I may have dropped the ball on the percentages and when they were lowered or raised, I might get a year date wrong, or be a little off on the timeline of things, but this doesn't prove your point. It proves you will go out of your way to distract from the debate at hand, and try to claim victory on a technicality, which means I have made my point and won the debate already. In other words, a 'desperation move' on your part, to nit-pick like that. Reagan cut the TMR to 28% and produced ENORMOUS economic growth! Pappy raised it and Clinton raised it, and stagnated economic growth both times. In neither case, did they generate more revenue from the TMR taxpayer.
Here is something I found, from Pete DuPont, the former governor of Delaware...
Over four decades, income tax rate reductions have helped grow the economy. President Kennedy's tax cuts, proposed before his death and enacted in 1964, lowered the top marginal rate to 70% from 91%, and real economic growth jumped by more than 40%. Reagan's rate reduction to 28% raised real economic growth by one-third, and income tax receipts went up an average of 7% a year. President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered the rate to 35% from Mr. Clinton's 39.6% and created the economic growth that has increased tax revenues each year--by 5.5% in 2004 and 14.5%--the largest in a quarter century--in 2005.
Static calculations say that when income tax rates are cut by 10%, federal tax receipts will decline by 10%. But that is erroneous thinking, for when income taxes are cut some individuals decide to work more and some companies to invest more, so tax revenues increase. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein calculates that income tax rate reductions give back one-third of their projected revenue loss to the government. But it can be even more dramatic: When the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts were enacted in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office's static analysis estimated that tax revenues would decline by $27 billion over the subsequent two years. In fact, the tax rate reductions increased governmental tax revenues by $26 billion. So static scoring put the CBO $53 billion in error.
Since America's economic thinking changed in 1981, the economy has grown, recessions are far less frequent, job opportunities are increasing, inflation has not been a problem, and individual income tax burdens have declined. President Reagan's economic morning in America has lasted a while, and we must make sure it lasts a great deal longer.
Here is what I have from the IRS...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data comes from calendar year 2004, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation.
The IRS reports increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the adjusted gross income (AGI) of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 32.5 percent for the top 1 percent and 6.0 percent for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2004, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 7 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 10.6 percent.
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue in 2003 and 2004 compared to previous years.
It has the numbers we need, to determine if raising or lowering the taxes on TMR wage earners, produces more or less revenue. One thing you must understand is, a TMR wage earner's definition has constantly changed.
In 1980, when Reagan took office, the Top 1% reported Adjusted Gross Income of $137 billion. Following the Reagan tax cuts, when Reagan left office in 1988, this amount had grown to $473 billion. Revenues from the Top 1% grew from $47 billion, to $113 billion during this time.
AGI continued to grow to $483 billion, before Bush 41 raised the TMR, and decreased AGI to $456 billion in '91, producing about a $1 billion shortfall in TMR revenues that year, over the previous year. The first drop since 1982.
Clinton took office when AGI was $523 billion for the Top 1%, and promptly reduced the AGI of the Top 1% to $520 billion, after his first tax increase in '93. This happens each and every time we raise the TMR. But that isn't even the biggest concern, it's what it causes in the economy, how it effects the rest of the tax base. When rich people ain't making money, no one else is! You can not have economic prosperity, unless wealthy people are making money, it's just not possible, they control and own the means of producing tax revenues from the rest of the base.
Well I'll be damned if you aren't right... Clinton was a bigger pinhead than I thought! Thanks for clearing that up! (See how easily I admitted I was wrong?) I will re-phrase the question... why didn't Clinton raise it back to 50% or 70% as it was before Reagan?
This still doesn't prove your point about raising the TMR. Sorry!
BTW, I’m still waiting on that credible link from you that shows total federal revenue dropped in Clinton’s first or second year in office. Another one of your wildly fabricated factoids?
Well, I've never said that revenues dropped in Clinton's first or second year. I have repeatedly said, revenues from the TMR taxpayer drop, every time they've been raised. I challenge you to prove otherwise, because you simply can't. I may have dropped the ball on the percentages and when they were lowered or raised, I might get a year date wrong, or be a little off on the timeline of things, but this doesn't prove your point. It proves you will go out of your way to distract from the debate at hand, and try to claim victory on a technicality, which means I have made my point and won the debate already. In other words, a 'desperation move' on your part, to nit-pick like that. Reagan cut the TMR to 28% and produced ENORMOUS economic growth! Pappy raised it and Clinton raised it, and stagnated economic growth both times. In neither case, did they generate more revenue from the TMR taxpayer.
Here is something I found, from Pete DuPont, the former governor of Delaware...
Over four decades, income tax rate reductions have helped grow the economy. President Kennedy's tax cuts, proposed before his death and enacted in 1964, lowered the top marginal rate to 70% from 91%, and real economic growth jumped by more than 40%. Reagan's rate reduction to 28% raised real economic growth by one-third, and income tax receipts went up an average of 7% a year. President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered the rate to 35% from Mr. Clinton's 39.6% and created the economic growth that has increased tax revenues each year--by 5.5% in 2004 and 14.5%--the largest in a quarter century--in 2005.
Static calculations say that when income tax rates are cut by 10%, federal tax receipts will decline by 10%. But that is erroneous thinking, for when income taxes are cut some individuals decide to work more and some companies to invest more, so tax revenues increase. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein calculates that income tax rate reductions give back one-third of their projected revenue loss to the government. But it can be even more dramatic: When the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts were enacted in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office's static analysis estimated that tax revenues would decline by $27 billion over the subsequent two years. In fact, the tax rate reductions increased governmental tax revenues by $26 billion. So static scoring put the CBO $53 billion in error.
Since America's economic thinking changed in 1981, the economy has grown, recessions are far less frequent, job opportunities are increasing, inflation has not been a problem, and individual income tax burdens have declined. President Reagan's economic morning in America has lasted a while, and we must make sure it lasts a great deal longer.
Here is what I have from the IRS...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data comes from calendar year 2004, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation.
The IRS reports increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the adjusted gross income (AGI) of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 32.5 percent for the top 1 percent and 6.0 percent for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2004, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 7 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 10.6 percent.
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue in 2003 and 2004 compared to previous years.
It has the numbers we need, to determine if raising or lowering the taxes on TMR wage earners, produces more or less revenue. One thing you must understand is, a TMR wage earner's definition has constantly changed.
In 1980, when Reagan took office, the Top 1% reported Adjusted Gross Income of $137 billion. Following the Reagan tax cuts, when Reagan left office in 1988, this amount had grown to $473 billion. Revenues from the Top 1% grew from $47 billion, to $113 billion during this time.
AGI continued to grow to $483 billion, before Bush 41 raised the TMR, and decreased AGI to $456 billion in '91, producing about a $1 billion shortfall in TMR revenues that year, over the previous year. The first drop since 1982.
Clinton took office when AGI was $523 billion for the Top 1%, and promptly reduced the AGI of the Top 1% to $520 billion, after his first tax increase in '93. This happens each and every time we raise the TMR. But that isn't even the biggest concern, it's what it causes in the economy, how it effects the rest of the tax base. When rich people ain't making money, no one else is! You can not have economic prosperity, unless wealthy people are making money, it's just not possible, they control and own the means of producing tax revenues from the rest of the base.