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.
I've explained this many times. The Bush tax-cuts did not increase revenues. After Bush cut taxes, GDP rose by 12% and federal revenues fell by 12%. Please follow this link: //www.city-data.com/forum/23471200-post99.html for a full description.
Yeah, looks like I'm a real strong supporter of the Bush tax cuts. No criticism from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
That's arguable though, most reputable economists claim that there wasn't enough of a stimulus from Obama - when $15T in wealth disappears it's going to take time to build it back up. Then again, some of the stimulus programs were absolutely horrible.
These same economists warned us years ago that the Bush tax cuts would create an unsustainable debt load if they were not coupled with cuts in government spending, so it might be wise to at least hear them out.
I never said 100% of economists were wrong. What I said was that if 100% of economists are stating that tax cuts never increase revenues then I can prove them wrong and I did. If you think Clinton paid down the debt then you need to take up that issue with the fed, politifact, and factcheck because all the documentation shows that the debt was only reduced when you do not count SS. You can't just look at % of GDP because the GDP was growing during that time period. The actual debt is what matters.
How many republicans support abortion? How about gay rights? How about welfare programs? How about criticizing supply side economics? How about equal access to high quality education?
If you look at the "debt to % of (GDP)" section in the following source, you will see Clinton brought down our national debt (and he physically paid down parts of our debt.)
If you look at the "debt to % of (GDP)" section in the following source, you will see Clinton brought down our national debt (and he physically paid down parts of our debt.)
Kennedy saw revenues increase after he cut taxes. Ireland saw revenue increases after they cut taxes. The UK's revenue declined after they raised taxes from 40% to 50% on millionaires. I have already posted this.
You are reposting a link that I already posted.
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
Kennedy saw revenues increase after he cut taxes. Ireland saw revenue increases after they cut taxes. The UK's revenue declined after they raised taxes from 40% to 50% on millionaires. I have already posted this.
You are reposting a link that I already posted.
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of GW Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of GW Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
Can you post a link to an economics expert, stating Kennedy increased government revenues by lowering taxes ??
Are you operating under the misguided notion that I support the Bush tax cuts? That article is specifically and directly addressing the Bush tax cuts.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
[LEFT]
Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
[/LEFT]
Are you operating under the misguided notion that I support the Bush tax cuts? That article is specifically and directly addressing the Bush tax cuts.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
[LEFT]
Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
[/LEFT]
I reread your source and it speaks of (3) separate tax cuts, and all (3) were for wealthy Americans.
At the time of each tax cut, rich people were hiding their money, and not paying taxes on it. These wealthy Americans had attorneys hiding the money for them.
After these tax cuts it became cheaper for these wealthy Americans to pay taxes, rather than pay attorneys to hide the money.
A similar thing (sometimes) happens when taxes are cut on capital gains
These revenue increases are not because of economics, job creation, business, or investment in infrastructure. They are because rich people found it cheaper to pay taxes, rather than pay an attorney to hide the money.
I see your point, but this is mine.
Chad.
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.
