If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once: · Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. · Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%. · Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%. · Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. The problem is that the government is spending too much money. MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth. FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 1:47*pm, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. The claim is tax cuts without spending cuts will increase deficits because revenue will be greater without the tax cut than it would have been with the tax cut. Thus, you can't just look at whether revenue (eventually) goes up after a tax cut. Eventually, revenue goes up no matter what we do. It's revenue with versus without tax cuts that matters. Thus, your data below (even where true) does not support the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. *Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. After Reagan and Bush revenues fell for many years before eventually recovering. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
Baron Montesquieu wrote that freedom and taxation are correlative. This explains the high tax Clinton economic boom. higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom There is no free lunch on liberty. Freedom ain't free. Taxes are the price of liberty. Bret Cahill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 2:29*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom Even though the highest marginal rates were higher in those years a myriad of deductions from gross income were allowable which are now disallowed creating a lower taxable income and effective rate of tax paid. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 2:52Â*pm, ПеаБраин wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:29Â*pm, Bret Cahill wrote: higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom .. Even though the highest marginal rates were higher in those years a myriad of deductions from gross income were allowable which are now disallowed creating a lower taxable income and effective rate of tax paid. Tax Principles Monday, 03 December 2012 06:05 The Washington Post told readers: "both sides agree that as a principle, keeping tax rates low while eliminating deductions is better than increasing tax rates." Precisely the trend in US tax reform policy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 11:47*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. *Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. *The problem has not been taxes. *The problem has been runaway spending. *Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once: · * * *Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. · * * *Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.. · * * *Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.. · * * *Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. *The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. *The problem is that the government is spending too much money. MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. *This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth. FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. *The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997. There are several different things that can cause nominal government revenues to go up. Inflation and population growth are two examples. Government revenues have to be measured relative to GDP before they mean anything. Tax revenues for the years 2000 through 2011, as a percentage of GDP, are as follows. Note that we never have got back to the 20.6% level during Clinton's last year in office. 2000, 20.6 2001, 19.5 2002, 17.6 2003, 16.2 2004, 16.1 2005, 17.3 2006, 18.2 2007, 18.5 2008, 17.6 2009, 15.1 2010, 15.1 2011, 15.4 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200 According to the following website, the cost of the Bush tax cuts so far is $2.8 trillion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...FtbG_blog.html According to a report by the CBPP, "By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1]" http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 11:47*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. *Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. *The problem has not been taxes. *The problem has been runaway spending. *Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once: · * * *Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. · * * *Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.. · * * *Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.. · * * *Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. *The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. *The problem is that the government is spending too much money. MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. *This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth. FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. *The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997. "Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue By Chad Stone June 29, 2012 Chad Stone is chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. There's an old joke that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. Well, not quite. A panel of prominent economists recently came to a decisive conclusion: Despite a widely held notion to the contrary in powerful circles, tax cuts cost revenue. First, let's be clear that we're not talking about a biased group of economists. The IGM economic experts panel, run by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues, and it includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel is surveyed regularly, each time on a different topic. When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain. The economists were asked a second question, about whether cutting income taxes right now would lead to higher gross domestic product in five years. Here, 43 percent agreed it would, 48 percent were uncertain, and 9 percent disagreed (on a confidence-weighted basis). So, putting these results together with those I reported last week on economic stimulus from the same panel, we can conclude that there is widespread agreement among expert economists that, in a weak economy, a stimulus package of both tax cuts and more spending will increase growth and reduce unemployment, that there is much less agreement about whether tax cuts alone will do so, and there is very strong agreement that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. None of this suggests that economists are united in their policy recommendations. On the stimulus, for example, three fifths of the IGM panel (when responses were weighted by each expert's confidence) thought the overall benefits of the stimulus would turn out to be worth the costs, but a quarter was uncertain. On taxes, nearly half were uncertain that rate cuts would raise GDP. [See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.] The panel was not asked about specific tax and spending measures. However, in its analysis of policies to boost economic growth and employment in a weak economy, the Congressional Budget Office shows that different tax and spending policies vary in how well they promote growth and employment per dollar of budgetary cost. In general, policies that put money in the pockets of people who will spend it, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps or tax cuts for low- and moderate-income households, are much more cost-effective than tax cuts for high-income taxpayers or for reducing businesses' income taxes. Government purchases of goods and services are highly effective once the spending gets into the economy. The financial crisis and Great Recession have prompted many debates within the economics profession, and economists' policy advice is influenced by their views on the proper size and role of government and how important issues of fairness and inequality should be in designing policies. But, as the IGM surveys make clear, politicians who argue that spending increases always have to be offset but that tax cuts never do are arguing a position that flies in the face of the best economic thinking." http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ost-revenue--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 6:27*pm, mg wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:47*am, "PJ O'D" wrote: Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. *Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. *The problem has not been taxes. *The problem has been runaway spending. *Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once: · * * *Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. · * * *Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%. · * * *Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%. · * * *Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. *The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. *The problem is that the government is spending too much money. MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. *This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth. FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. *The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997. There are several different things that can cause nominal government revenues to go up. Inflation and population growth are two examples. Government revenues have to be measured relative to GDP before they mean anything. Tax revenues for the years 2000 through 2011, as a percentage of GDP, are as follows. Note that we never have got back to the 20.6% level during Clinton's last year in office. 2000, 20.6 2001, 19.5 2002, 17.6 2003, 16.2 2004, 16.1 2005, 17.3 2006, 18.2 2007, 18.5 2008, 17.6 2009, 15.1 2010, 15.1 2011, 15.4http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 According to the following website, the cost of the Bush tax cuts so far is $2.8 trillion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...evisiting-the-... According to a report by the CBPP, "By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1]"http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849 According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. this means revenue was 2.0 tril in 2000 and 2.3 tril in 2008. Since the exchecquer pays for stuff in dollars and not in % of gdp was he better off with the 2.0 tri under Clinton or the 2.3 tril under Bush? Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? You just might need a course in remedial arithmetic |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom
. Even though the highest marginal rates were higher in those years a myriad of deductions from gross income were allowable which are now disallowed creating a lower taxable income and effective rate of tax paid. Tax Principles Monday, 03 December 2012 06:05 The Washington Post is right wing. There is little money in eliminating tax deductions because most were eliminated years ago. Anyway you dodged the issue: There is no free lunch on liberty. Freedom ain't free. Taxes are the price of liberty. Baron Montesquieu wrote that freedom and taxation are correlative. This explains the high tax Clinton economic boom. higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom Bret Cahill |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 6:13Â*pm, ПеаБраин wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:27Â*pm, mg wrote: On Dec 12, 11:47Â*am, "PJ O'D" wrote: Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits. FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Â*Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. Â*The problem has not been taxes. Â*The problem has been runaway spending. Â*Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once: · Â* Â* Â*Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. · Â* Â* Â*Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%. · Â* Â* Â*Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%. · Â* Â* Â*Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. Â*The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. Â*The problem is that the government is spending too much money. MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. Â*This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth. FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. Â*The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997. There are several different things that can cause nominal government revenues to go up. Inflation and population growth are two examples. Government revenues have to be measured relative to GDP before they mean anything. Tax revenues for the years 2000 through 2011, as a percentage of GDP, are as follows. Note that we never have got back to the 20.6% level during Clinton's last year in office. 2000, 20.6 2001, 19.5 2002, 17.6 2003, 16.2 2004, 16.1 2005, 17.3 2006, 18.2 2007, 18.5 2008, 17.6 2009, 15.1 2010, 15.1 2011, 15.4http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 According to the following website, the cost of the Bush tax cuts so far is $2.8 trillion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...evisiting-the-... According to a report by the CBPP, "By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1]"http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849 According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. this means revenue was 2.0 tril in 2000 and 2.3 tril in 2008. Since the exchecquer pays for stuff in dollars and not in % of gdp was he better off with the 2.0 tri under Clinton Â*or the 2.3 tril under Bush? Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? You just might need a course in remedial arithmetic Those are not my figures. Those figures are from the Tax Policy Center. The same figures are also available from the Census Bureau and probably a whole lot of other places. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200 http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0469.pdf There's no way that my arithmetic can be wrong because I didn't do any. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CNBC 10/16/12: "Merkel Urges Tax Cuts to Boost German Economy" Wiesagt Mann 'trickle down' auf Deutsch? | PJ O'D | Europe | 3 | October 18th, 2012 05:40 PM |
Drug pusher myths | Jonnog | Europe | 3 | November 20th, 2006 10:25 PM |