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.
That's a little too-good-to-be-true supply side misinformation for you... revenues ALWAYS go up, as a result of the expanding economy/population and inflation, unless there's a recession.
Already addressed that in an earlier post. The increases were too much too soon to be explained by population growth and inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger
Nobody's claiming that the Bush tax cuts caused revenues to be lower than in 2000-- instead, they slowed their growth to where they couldn't keep up with the increases in domestic spending (in many cases necessary as a result of a growing population to maintain the same level of service to those who qualify) + the wars.
True, there was a surge in the deficit, but that has also come down. I'm not at all comfortable with that, but why don't we consider cutting spending to also work on that deficit?
Already addressed that in an earlier post. The increases were too much too soon to be explained by population growth and inflation.
According to the NCPA. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that I remember you posting on another thread as a global warming skeptic, someone who discounts the compilation of research by the IPCC as a result of "socialist, anti-capitalist bias," or "the desire of researchers to keep their jobs and get famous," or whatever, in which case it would be very inconsistent of you to take a study on tax cuts by a politically right-wing organization at face value. However, I could be wrong and have mistaken you for someone else.
According to the NCPA. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that I remember you posting on another thread as a global warming skeptic, someone who discounts the compilation of research by the IPCC as a result of "socialist, anti-capitalist bias," or "the desire of researchers to keep their jobs and get famous," or whatever, in which case it would be very inconsistent of you to take a study on tax cuts by a politically right-wing organization at face value. However, I could be wrong and have mistaken you for someone else.
That has not been my point on global warming. I say that there are clearly different viewpoints and that it serves as a distraction so we should simply focus on the fact that the planet and air are clearly dirty.
As for the information I provided, obviously there are others that disagree as to the cause of the increases etc., but the rapid increase suggests more than simply population growth and inflation.
The Democrats, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid etc... Are all eager to send every American a check, amounts ranging from $250 to $800. Why? Why, because they say, that is what it will take to grow the economy! What? Putting more money into peoples pockets so they will go out and spend it. Have they gone off the deep end, have they started down the slippery slope, now that they acknowleged that, how will they ever come back and raise taxes knowing it will have an adverse effect on the economy!
And your alternative would be..... tax cuts for businesses instead?
That has not been my point on global warming. I say that there are clearly different viewpoints and that it serves as a distraction so we should simply focus on the fact that the planet and air are clearly dirty.
As for the information I provided, obviously there are others that disagree as to the cause of the increases etc., but the rapid increase suggests more than simply population growth and inflation.
You might want to look at some less biased sources
"The report clearly indicates tax relief means more economic growth under certain conditions," Carroll said. "If the tax relief is not permanent, they might actually have adverse effects on growth."
"The report clearly indicates tax relief means more economic growth under certain conditions," Carroll said. "If the tax relief is not permanent, they might actually have adverse effects on growth."
Well, yes, you can pick out the one statement that seems to semi-confirm your position while ignoring all the others if you want. You don't think his statement sounds a little qualified? Or that "economic growth" and "revenue growth" are separate phenomena?
This is my problem with any further tax cuts. We need to start paying off our outstanding debt. I really believe this is America's Achilles heel right now.
I don't see us ever paying off this monstrosity of a federal debt. How this will end, I'm not sure. But it won't be good. Perhaps the government will inflate its way out of it like so many third world countries have done. Then they'll reissue new dollars with a 10:1 ratio. Guess what will happen to any currency based assets. Say bye-bye to your pensions and 401Ks. It will be like Enron, except on a national scale. Hard assets such as real estate and especially gold will be good to own. Gold has always retained its relative value, through good times and bad.
Not only does the federal deficit concern me, but what about the trade deficit. I always say, just imagine how many jobs could be created in this country if that money stayed here - mind boggling.
UH, NO, Since when havent republicans been for allowing people to keep more of THEIR money. Listen up , the bottom line is, if you acknowledge that when people have more money to spend they WILL, and it boosts the economy! You are going to have a hard time arguing that, it only works with low or middle income people and not upper income and businesses. Obviously taking the money with one hand and handing a tiny fraction back with the other is ridiculous, and typical Democrat pandering to their ignorant base, whom by some twisted logic think they are getting a gift from some one who cares about them!! As most of us all ready know, if you want to keep the economy booming you make the Bush cuts permanent, you lower the marginal rate across the board!! You give investment incentives to business, and you cut out of control non military spending!! Or if they insist on righting checks back to people, make it about $8000.00 then we can actually do somtheing besides put fuel in our rig!!
Um yes you apparently DID miss Bush's plan for $800 - $1600 checks. How is that better than the Dem plan? They are both pointless, useless, too late and pandering.
Are you seriously defending trickle down economics? Booming economy? I would hardly call the debt driven bubble a booming economy. Budget and trade deficits, devaluation of the dollar, runaway inflation, unemployment rising - the standard of living for the average Joe has dropped significantly in the last 7 years. The only thing that kept things going is credit card debt and home equity loans. But that is over.
In a healthy, booming economy, average Americans have real, discretionary money to spend and a positive savings rate.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy and give a larger basis for taxation. You get more revenue by taking a smaller percentage of a bigger number than by stifling growth with higher taxes and taking a higher percentage of a smaller number.
This is a conditional statement, not a categorical one. The effect depends entirely upon the shape of the curve, and the shape of the curve is most definitely not what Arthur Laffer allegedly once sketched on his napkin. Some studies have suggested that the Laffer effect could come into play at marginal tax rates in the 70% range. Some have said that it has to be higher than that. No one at all believes that it can occur against marginal rates that are comparable to those actually in effect today. The notion of tax cuts that pay for themselves is simply not recognized by anyone. Certainly not by any of these past and present Bush administration officials...
Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.
Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist...
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, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.
Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.
Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
The changes following the cuts were too large to be explained by growth in population and inflation...
That wasn't the point. Population and inflation determine a baseline level of growth in the absence of any other changes. They rule out the claim (often seen) that simply because tax cuts and revenue increases both occurred, the first must have caused the second. It is necessary to turn correlation into causation, and it is the latter effort in which the supply-siders all fall down. The most favorable analyses of the Bushie tax cuts see eventual recovery of less than 30% of the revenue losses relating to rate reductions. The least favorable (those that include the costs of deficit financing of the lost revenue) show a negative recovery over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
"The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn..."
NCPA is a propaganda site. Their goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Saddam's Information Minister could have gotten a job there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Negative investment to over a ten percent increase per year is not explained by population growth and inflation.
Compare and contrast to business investment following the 1993 tax increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Doubling of capital gains in 4 years is also not explained by an increase in population and inflation.
Do you think that cutting interest rates by 5% and a 5,000-point gain in the DJIA could have played any role?
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.
