A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:47 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
PJ O'D[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old December 12th, 2012, 08:00 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
Josh Rosenbluth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old December 12th, 2012, 08:29 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
Bret Cahill[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 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  
Old December 12th, 2012, 08:52 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 12th, 2012, 09:05 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe,alt.politics.economics
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 12:27 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 12:32 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 02:13 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 02:50 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe,alt.politics.economics
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:18 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.