Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So all those countries with big welfare states and fiscal discipline -Norway, Germany, Austria, etc- where do they get their money from? I mean, their taxes are higher than the US ones, and their governments borrow far less, yet they seem to spend more on their citizens.
If they don't get more money from their higher taxes, where does the money come from?
The fact people still link the prosperity of the Clinton era being due to an increase in taxes, not the oil found in the North Sea and Alaska, is profoundly stupid.
At the end of the day it's about oil...it drives every economy around the world.
The fact people still link the prosperity of the Clinton era being due to an increase in taxes, not the oil found in the North Sea and Alaska, is profoundly stupid...
Stupid is clinging onto the idea that slightly higher taxes are a disincentive, considering that they didn't stop rapid growth in the Clinton years.
I love these ignorant threads because they identify the stupid people. Even Laffer says the so called "Laffer maximum" is in the 60%-70% range where everything below the Laffer maximum an increase in tax rates does result in increased revenue. It is only above the Laffer maximum that you have a decrease in revenue.
You wing nuts don't even know your own propaganda.
Stupid is clinging onto the idea that slightly higher taxes are a disincentive, considering that they didn't stop rapid growth in the Clinton years.
The fact that is lost on you is that they don't affect growth....'at all'... By you recognizing this, you recognize the need for cuts during times when prices are negatively affected.
how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."
Your baseless assertion has been discredited many times. This recent post comes to mind, which clearly shows that tax-cuts reduce revenue and tax-increases raise revenue, but I don't expect the right-wing to be influenced by facts: http://www.city-data.com/forum/27188240-post289.html
\
Gee-
From your own numbers it looks like revenues are actually a little higher after tax cuts.
Keep in mind that tax cuts are usually initiated in order to "stimulate the economy" in times of downturns. In economic downturns, one would expect lower federal revenues. It appears, from your own data, that the tax cuts do the trick!
Despite an economic downturn, the average Bush federal revenues were higher than the Clinton era revenues. Keep in mind that this was, and is, in a time of very low inflation, such that the numbers would not be influenced very much by inflation.
It appears as though tax cuts work! Thanks for the information.
The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction.
This has happened as recently as the George W. Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration.
Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down, as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false.
What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.
So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.
That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government “stimulus” has done under either Bush or Obama.
Yet there is no need to assume that Barack Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums.
His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.
The fact that is lost on you is that they don't affect growth....'at all'... By you recognizing this, you recognize the need for cuts during times when prices are negatively affected.
Allow me to provide you with a bit of reality check: You don't cut during times of deflation. You cut during inflation.
Back to revenue... let us look into an evidence of tax increase and/or closing tax loop holes (which amount to an increase in taxes), reducing revenue. Got any?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
