Yes but in this analogy of yours raising revenue is done by increasing GDP not raising tax rates. If leftists weren't so dumb I wouldn't have to point that out to you.
Raising GDP alone raises more revenue? Really... Mike Rosenâs contention that reducing tax rates results in increased revenue is easily proven to be wrong. First, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes, revenues did not soar, they declined, resulting in big deficits and a tripling of the national debt. Ditto under George W. Bush when tax cuts resulted in lower revenue and doubling of the debt. Conversely, Bill Clinton raised taxes, revenue increased, the budget was balanced and we started paying down the debt. Second, if lower tax rates really resulted in increased revenue, conservatives like Mr. Rosen would demand that rates be cut further because their goal is lower revenues, not higher. No, believing that cutting tax rates results in higher revenue is only slightly less daft than believing the Earth is flat. Allan Brayley, Broomfield This letter was published in the Dec. 4 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
Some idiot's letter to a publication making erroneous claims proves nothing. Some facts. Revenues soared under Reagan. Spending, mandated by a democrat congress, soared higher. Reagan agreed to tax hikes to be offset by spending cuts. Surprise, the cuts never were enacted. We're not making that mistake again. There was a balanced budget during the Clinton administration largely because the 1994 Conbtract With America republican House insisted on spending cuts. This lead to the infamous governmetn shutdown. Clinton fought the cuts, cynically used the episode for political purposes, and now shamelessly claims credit as the architect of the balanced budget. The credit should go to Gingrich.
Clinton also (1) raised income tax rates, and (2) was the fortuitous beneficiary of catching the top in the phony "dot.com" bubble and the capital gains tax it generated.
Perhaps you and mike need to learn that raising GDP and lowering tax rates are not the same thing. :eek: Unfortunately gubbermint is much more adept at lowering GDP than relatively straight forward taxation of it's victims.
Big spending cuts are getting no traction because both sides know that they will slow our recovery. Think of government as a customer if you don't follow that. If you need more convincing, google the reports from Goldman Sachs and Moody's. The way out of our difficulty is to keep spending flat (take opportunities to cut waste, of course), continue working with business to advance the export initiative, keep this economy's growth going, and raise taxes gradually, gently as that growth occurs. A balanced budget will surely follow. After that, build a big surplus for the next downturn and do not let the republicans squander it. I know some of you are arguing taxes are too high, that they are a drag on the economy, but I think that's just a party mantra. Historically, they've rarely been lower. Business cash reserves have hardly been higher.
Oh Gee... "we might get frustrated"? How about, "we're headed for bankruptcy (not just the government, but also nearly all US citizens).. likely followed by dictatorial rule/enslavement" if we don't get this spending under control. And you're saying, "wouldn't want frustration, now would we?" Not hysterical, and even a $500B cut wouldn't impress. If enacted, that still leaves a $1 Trillion deficit for the next fiscal year alone. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GET HYSTERICAL.... BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THESE BIG-GOVERNMENT ASSHOLES!!!
Any of you ever wonder why Odumbo has run such extraordinarily large deficits and proposes such outrageous budget spending? (The TRUTH about this issue is the key to America's future.. and it ain't pretty... even if neither of my hypotheses are correct.)
how can you say historically they've rarely been lower? you realize we have progressive rates and we have inflation? a person making 100000 which is just about min income to have a family in so col pays... about 10% to ca. pays probably a net 18 to 20 % to the fed. pays 9 percent sales tax probably pays 5 to percent of is income to property taxes pays large gas taxes airplane taxes filing fees for his care and every time he transacts business with the state. any one who does not consider that a larger tax burden should check a box on themselves and contribute more themselves. we also have to buy books for school pay money to the pta, so we can have a gym or music teacher. The list goes on and on.