Tax cut dont increase revenue
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It is all relative to the individual situation. In general, tax cuts will increase revenue and stimulate the economy... in the SHORT run. But they are not sustainable in the long run without corresponding spending cuts.
It also depends on the start and end points to the cuts. IF you are talking about the cuts Kennedy and Reagan did of slashing top rates from the idiotic 70-90% ranges, then they most certainly had positive economic results. If however, you are talking about cutting rates from 38% to 35% then the long term results are minimal at best in the short term and negative in the long term.
It is all relative to the individual situation. In general, tax cuts will increase revenue and stimulate the economy... in the SHORT run. But they are not sustainable in the long run without corresponding spending cuts.
Bush said in 2000 we could easily afford the tax cuts, increase spending, and reduce debt all at once.
when Al Gore called that "fuzzy math", he was roundly laughed off by bush voters.
evince
Truthmatters
Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"
But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.
Note that Laffer gives Clinton the credit for the surpluses my little right leaning friends.
But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.
Note that Laffer gives Clinton the credit for the surpluses my little right leaning friends.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Sometimes tax cuts will increase revenue. Other times not. It's not as simple as they think it is. Somewhere around 40%-50% you actually do start losing revenue, and then you have to come to reality, and stop pretending that you can have your cake and eat it too.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I mean - the tax cuts from 70% to 38% on the rich were more succesful than anyone could have ever dreamed. Beyond that? You're not getting increased revenue. All you can claim is that you're giving people more money to play around with, which is good for libertarians, not so good at convincing the average person.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer
Oh man I posted this on the con site and they are cracking me up by calling laffer a liberal whos rewriting history.
Oh man I posted this on the con site and they are cracking me up by calling laffer a liberal whos rewriting history.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Guess where Laffer actually got the idea for the curve? Keynes.
cawacko
Well-known member
Are you a fan of Laffer? Many on the left tried to say the Laffer Curve was discredited during the '80's because of Reagan when it fact it just as Chapdog (i belive?) described, the optimal tax rate which maximizes revenues.
problem with most dems is that they are trying to make case for tax increases.. but what choice will they pick from to do with the increase of taxes?
1) call it a surpluses and divvy out for special interest / programs
2) pay down debt.
you know they will argue about it.
1) call it a surpluses and divvy out for special interest / programs
2) pay down debt.
you know they will argue about it.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
An actual version of what the Laffer curve should look like.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Don't kid yourself. There will be little argument from either party. They will spend it. They have forgotten how to pay down the debt.
and thus my philosophy that less tax is better. cause basically they squander it regardless.
evince
Truthmatters
Cawack, The man himselfs says it does ot work. Some cons still try to say it does.
Are you one?
Oh BTW he also gives Clinton credit for the surpluses.