Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

This is the difference between the left and the right. You feel your right. I read the data.

Here is the question.

Show us the tax cuts... and look at the receipts for each of the next 3 years. You will see revenues were up by year 2 and 3.
So were revenues up after Reagan tax cuts? yes or no.

 

That issue is addressed in just about every link I included in my third to last post. Didn't click on any of them, did you?

 

you cant hide the truth...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...les-jfks-advisor-said-tax-cuts-raise-revenue/

Now in point of fact, Heller was right about the 1960s. In the wake of the JFK tax cuts phased in from 1962 to 1965, federal revenues surged at a real rate near 5% per annum. And in point of fact, after the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, receipts never went below the 20-year moving average adjusted for population and the price level. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, they were far above it. As Laffer pointed out at the time, if you throw in booming state and local revenues, the Reagan tax cuts did pay for themselves.

 

The thing is that jem's very existence hinges on the fudge factor of specious arguments.

 

Years 2 and 3, as you call them, followed the Reagan tax increases!

"Reagan followed his 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.[7] In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.[8]

With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code. Ultimately, the combination of base broadening and rate reduction raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue[9]"

 

Talk about a gambit paying off. I swear I expected you to quote this very passage, and in the absence of what preceded it, or what followed:

"...Supply-siders have made the argument retrospectively about the positive revenue effects of tax cuts, but they have been careful about projecting these claims into the future. It is only the cheap historiography of supply-side economics that has insisted that supply-siders fulsomely predicted revenue gains from tax cuts. That this argument has any traction, it must now be understood, is in defiance of a growing body of serious evidence..."

Jem, you habitually look for any shred of corroboration of your snake oil, all manner of context to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

I realize now you are a sadist troll.

you make me read your lefts bullshit over an over til I found the truth.

did you read that ...

after kennedy tax cuts revenues surged 5%
after reagan revenues surged as well.

I am not going to bother proving it for melon.

I am done arguing with sadist trolls.

 

this is cheap bullshit on your part.
We already went over the fact that there was a net tax cut and then revenues went up.

 

Your gambit of proving I was correct this whole time? Nice move Mr. Fisher.

 

Your sophistry is nothing short of breathtaking.

Despite the higher tax rates, the Carter era saw a steady growth in revenues. In contrast, the Reagan era, with its tax cuts, saw permanent reduction in revenues relative to what they would otherwise have been. As Krugman writes, the Reagan tax cuts saw "a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend". Below is the real federal revenue, in 2005 dollars, from 1970 to 1990.



The Clinton and Bush administrations were two two-term administrations, one of which raised taxes, while the other cut them. But the graphics below - of federal revenues and total non-farm payrolls for the respective periods - do not lend support to the claims of supply-siders. In fact, despite the tax cuts, the Bush era federal revenues and employment rate never touched the Clinton period growth trends (despite its tax increases).

http://gulzar05.blogspot.ca/2010/07/do-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html




By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times
June 17, 2011Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.

Republicans also assert that the tax cuts of the George W. Bush years paid for themselves. On July 13, 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that there was no net revenue loss from any of the Bush tax cuts, in defense of an earlier comment by Senator John Kyl that all spending increases must be offset so as not to increase the deficit, but tax cuts need never be offset. Said McConnell:

“There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

This is a view not shared by economists who worked for Bush. For example, Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.” Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, also told the Post, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.” On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:

“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”



A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the actual revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.
In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the CEA during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in taxes on capital at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.
A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Gov. Pawlenty’s view of the Reagan tax cuts or Sen. McConnell’s view of the Bush tax cuts. They didn’t pay for themselves and there is no reason to think that further tax cuts will, either. Republican economist Alan Greenspan confirmed this fact last year on “Meet the Press.” Asked whether he thought that tax cuts pay for themselves, as Republican leaders had said, Greenspan replied, simply, “They do not.”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...y-Tax-Cuts-Dont-Pay-for-Themselves.aspx#page1