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.
Until you read my posts completely, I'm not sure there's much value in me taking the time to respond to you. I've already answered your first question. Look through the revenue charts the last 80 years. That is one way I feel confident saying tax revenues would have grown under Gore. Another way would be to acknowledge the fact that Gore did not plan on reducing nearly as much revenue through tax cuts as Bush. And as one who believes in common sense and empirical data, I don't fall for the fanciful claim that 3-1=6, and thus tax cuts pay for themselves1!!!!1!!!
Perhapse Gore's revenues would be higher, perhapse.. I'm not arguing with that, they are facts not in evidence. I asked why you feel the following is true
Quote:
What I am saying is, had the Gore tax plan gone into effect in 2001 and not the Bush plan, we would have much more revenue than we currently do.
Its one thing to say that Gores revenues would be higher then Clintons, its totally different to say that Gores revenues would be higher then Bush's, which is what you stated. You base this comment on what?
Perhapse Gore's revenues would be higher, perhapse.. I'm not arguing with that, they are facts not in evidence. I asked why you feel the following is true
Its one thing to say that Gores revenues would be higher then Clintons, its totally different to say that Gores revenues would be higher then Bush's, which is what you stated. You base this comment on what?
I've said what I can say without taking the time to pull some data for you. You'll have to wait until I have some free time for the rest.
Disclaimer: I am not a socialist. Far from it. I am very much for a free market. The corporatism is not only warping our economy, it's corrupting our government.
Actually you have just seen what a free market, that is unregulated capitalism, does to an economy. Now if you were talking about free enterprise--regulated markets--it would be a much different scenario right now.
Well revenue went up with the tax cut.. which leaves me scratching my head..
where did it go?
Revenue's always higher than it was before, except during recessions, because of inflation + population and economic growth. Bush's tax cuts didn't make revenues go down (they almost never do) but you won't find many respected economists who won't acknowledge that they slowed the growth considerably and contributed to the deficit. Revenue is almost always at an "ALL TIME HIGH," as you put it, if it ever isn't then either there's a big problem somewhere or the US population is shrinking rapidly.
I'll be around.. these questions will be debated for years to come, from people who are much more educated then the both of us.
This isn't meant as a cop out, but this is one of the first articles I came up with, and it does a very good job explaining the nonsense behind the Laffer curve thinking. This provides some of the numbers.
So, due to the fact that the Gore plan was to cost 500 billion, targetted mainly at low and middle income payers (most Americans would have had a larger tax cut under Gore) and Bush's plan which is estimated to have cost over 1 trillion - upwards of 3.7 trillion if extended through 2017, the math solves itself.
Further, the economic recovery we've experienced over the past few years was partially due to the shortsighted interest rates and mortgage policies encouraged by Greenspan. It allowed for increased consumer credit to buoy spending for a while. But now that house of cards is falling, and if we enter a recession with Bush's backloaded tax cuts, you will see revenues fall quickly over the next few years.
The link that you provided for "some of the numbers" was from a group whose goal is to increase socialistic programs, hardly unbiased. As a matter of fact, they tried to use a chart showing the increase in revenues in the 90's to prove that the tax increase in the early 90's raised revenue. This chart is more indicative, since it uses revenues as a percentage of GDP.
The link that you provided for "some of the numbers" was from a group whose goal is to increase socialistic programs, hardly unbiased. As a matter of fact, they tried to use a chart showing the increase in revenues in the 90's to prove that the tax increase in the early 90's raised revenue. This chart is more indicative, since it uses revenues as a percentage of GDP.
And what those GDP differences mean in constant dollars shown here -
Tax cuts pay for themselves, but it takes 6 years just to grow ourselves back to the constant dollar revenue amount we had in 2000. There isn't another period in the past 46 years where it took that long to grow our revenue stream.
Tax cuts pay for themselves, but it takes 6 years just to grow ourselves back to the constant dollar revenue amount we had in 2000. There isn't another period in the past 46 years where it took that long to grow our revenue stream.
Interesting chart because it looks like, if it wasnt for the war, we'd have hundreds of billions a year in surpluses, vs hundreds of billions in the hole..
The link that you provided for "some of the numbers" was from a group whose goal is to increase socialistic programs, hardly unbiased. As a matter of fact, they tried to use a chart showing the increase in revenues in the 90's to prove that the tax increase in the early 90's raised revenue. This chart is more indicative, since it uses revenues as a percentage of GDP.
Shame your chart stops in 2000, the year bush was elected..
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.
