http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56227-2003Apr29.html God knows we'll barely survive 2 more years of this lunatic. "By Memorial Day, Republicans hope to have pushed through Congress a tax-cut bill with a price tag of between $350 billion and $550 billion through 2013. " "The government had to borrow a record $111 billion in the January-March quarter to cover the shortfall between expenses and tax revenue. It expects to borrow another $79 billion in the current quarter. " Can someone please explain to our Idiot-in-Chief that this isn't Monopoly money?
I would like to put it on the record that i don't support this tax cut. And it kinda is Monoploly money;nothing backs those dollars except the gov'ts assurance. I kinda wish they pust the same assurance behind monoply money
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Good old Republican "borrow-and-spend" fiscal irresponsibility.
Well, these tax cuts will lead to job growth, and economic growth, and revenue growth. If our tax rate were zero, the government would have an infinite amount of money.
Congratulations! We have finally convinced you to think like a Republican. One Republican in particular, at least. >>In June 1932, Hoover raised the income tax rate from 24 percent to 48 percent. "We cannot maintain public confidence nor stability of the federal government without undertaking some temporary tax increases," he rationalized.<<
Between Reagn, Bush I, and Bush II I'm seeing a trend that is changing the definition of "fiscal conservative". But then the definition of smaller, less intrusive government is changing too.
Now Dave, don't be crazy. Clearly the optimal tax rate would be .00001%. That would fully maximize the US economy and thus increase tax returns.
First off supply-siders believe that when you cut income taxes, revenue goes up which has been shown many times. The Laffer curve claims that there is an optimal tax rate that will maximize revenue. Whether that rate is 15%, 20% or 25% is debatable. However, anyone who says supply-siders believe that rate is around 0% is lying. Also, many states including mine(NJ) are facing deficits as high or higher than the federal deficit despite raising taxes.
This is so stupid it boggles the mind. The problem with the laughable curve is that it only works at very, very high tax rates. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty.
When Reagan cut taxes in 1985 rates weren't very high and revenue increased substantially in the next few years.
I don't think anyone in the White House or Congress really beleives that supply-side nonsense anymore. However, it is a very convenient fiction that more than adequately covers the true agenda, to wit: Cut taxes and thus revenues to the point where cutting federal programs -- thus making the federal government smaller, except for the Military and National Security Apparats of course -- in the face of rampaging deficits and revnue shortfall looks like "fiscal responsibility" and "tough choices" instead of willful eviceration. Oh, and let's not forget the "downsizing" strategy of shifting the burdens for programs with small but vocal consituencies to the states under the rubric of "local control is better." A good example of this tactic, gleaned from today's headlines is the new Amtrak reform plan being put forward by the Administration. Then, as the budget crisis worsens, the feds simply cut the grant money to states.
Sure revenue increased - oil was cheap and the economy was increasing. It increased even more in the late Clinton era, and there wasn't any tax cut then. If you graph tax rates since WWII with GNP growth, you won't find much of a correlation.
And I'm sure that had nothing to do with the loopholes that were closed in that same omnibus tax plan. (I'm assuming you're actually talking about the tax reform of 1986.) In all seriousness, I'd like to see some real study of this. I mean, you can't say, we cut income tax rates and gvt. revenue grew, full stop. Because maybe income tax receipts went down, but payroll taxes were increased and made up for it. Or maybe rates were lowered but loopholes were closed. Or maybe revenues went up, but after you adjust for inflation and population growth, it went down.
Yeah, you should check out tax rates during the 50's and 60's. Both the rates on the rich and economic growth were sky friggin' high.
Another reason for the revenue increases is that after 1982, Reagan repeatedly raised taxes. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Finally, spejic steps in to stop the insanity. BTW - the 1986 tax reform was bipartisan with Dan Rostenkowski (convicted felon) being most responsible for it actually happening. BTW2 - the 86 reform took top tax rates down from 50% to 28% and eliminated capital gains preference. As usual, Reeps like Elder Statesman have a warped and selective view of economic history during the Reagan years. GWB's tax policy can be summed up as follows: "Let's grab a handful off the top before we lose Congress and/or the Oval Office." It's a straight-out money grab while the gettin's good. There's nothing strategic about it and it has nothing to do with economic beliefs or principles of small versus big government.
This is exactly what happened in 1983. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ms04_taylor/reagan041601.html
Re: Re: Bush's Voodoo economics hey matt i thought you did? what changed your mind? did i convince you months ago?
Since when has W done anything to make the government smaller? Carter & Clinton did more to make the government smaller than W has. (Carter did away with the Civil Aeronautics Board and Clinton pulled the plug on the ICC.) George Bush is Jimmy Carter with better-looking daughters. And why should Southwest Airlines employees and shareholders pay taxes to subsidize Amtrak?
I never mentioned the tax cuts in 1981 because I'm aware of the tax increases that followed were much larger. However, the 1986 tax reform act brought down taxes quite heavily as you wrote. I'm not sure how much was supposedly offset by closing loopholes. We also had large marginal rate cuts in 1961 and 1918 which both led to increased revenue. I am aware there are multiple factors that can increase or decrease revenue besides just marginal rate cuts/increased. However, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that cutting taxes by one dollar will decrease revenue by one dollar.
> There were tax cuts passed in 1997 Yes and they were extremely back-loaded. The child credits and education incentives didn't really start until the 1999 tax year and the reducting in AMT didn't hit until 2000. Meanwhile, new taxes (especially on airports) started right away in 1998. In the last 3 years of Clinton's reign, this was only about a $20 billion tax cut. There is no way you are going to convince anyone that the difference in efficiency between the government spending that money and the private sector spending that tiny amount of money is what created the late Clinton boom.
Here is a chart showing the sizes of changes in tax policy. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1959&sequence=8
Re: Re: Re: Bush's Voodoo economics I was undecided for a while. But i just can't allow such a tax in war time.Let's see if that first tax cut did anything before we cut any further.