Summary of points made in responses to sslarson
:1. It may have been shown that the 1920s tax cuts led to higher tax revenues (or not - the answer is most likely more complex - but it is "possible").
2. It is theoretically possible that cutting tax revenue will cut spending and government growth, but it is far from being a certain result.
3. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to higher tax revenues than would have been taken in without the tax cuts.
4. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to reduced government spending and growth.
5. As both of the major tax cuts in the past 25 years have led to neither reduced spending OR increased revenues, it is logical to believe that a third such tax cut would have the same lack of promised results.
If you want to argue that one of the above points is wrong, please quote and reply to the specific points - thanks.
Originally Posted by Jubelum
You cut taxes, and tell government to live within a BUDGET, just like the rest of us do.
So how did that work out after the Reagan tax cuts?
Did non-defense spending increase, or decrease?
So how did that work out after the Bush tax cuts?
Did non-defense spending increase, or decrease?
This is why there will NEVER be high enough taxes for you liberals.
This is a complete strawman. If it's not, please provide a quote where I even suggested that this is my belief.
I'm a moderate, not a liberal - a registered Independent who has historically voted for Republican candidates about a third of the time. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to alienate me and others with the same viewpoints over the past 10-15 years, I will vote for the candidate and not for the party, every time. If you are seeing any partisanship in my arguments, it is but a reflection of your own highly partisan methods of discussion.
You want us to just accept that the government MUST get ever more money, with little regard for what it is doing to people and families.
"You want" ... could you try making your argument without
putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, please?
Why do you think most families have both parents working to make a living? TAXES.
Because incomes have not risen as fast as living expenses - how's that? Do you think your answer is more likely to be true than my answer? Then please answer the following:
When exactly did higher taxes cause both parents to start working?
Were there more or less two-income families than now in the Reagan years?
How much higher was the tax burden in the Reagan years, as compared to today?
Has the cost of living increased since then? Has it been more or less than wages and income for 90% of the country have increased? Have significant items such as health care, education, housing, and energy increased more or less than the rest of the CPI?
OK... here is a response to get your panties out of a wad- BULLSHIT SPIN. Here ya go...
. Ah, a 2001 article from The Heritage Foundation - that's sure to be timely, contain relevant information about the actual effects of Bush's tax cuts, and be completely nonpartisan as well....
I don't see anything in there that even comes close to refuting the 2001 - 2006 CBO numbers that my link's article is based on.
Perhaps we could try this - show how the following from my link is "BULLSHIT SPIN":
But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm
Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.”
In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. During the current recovery (with its tax cuts), the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959.
Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal year 2006, total revenue growth over the current business cycle as a whole has still been negative, after adjusting for inflation and population growth.
But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy. What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy’s recent performance has been far from stellar.
Meanwhile - your link contains 2001 projections
of the effects of the Bush tax cuts (by that famously impartial source The Heritage Foundation). Please explain how these projections are more relevant than the actual data
of the CBO numbers from 2001 to 2006.
And BTW- just look at the language of that glorious article you link to- tax cuts do not "cost" anything. The assumption is that the government is ENTITLED to that money, and not receiving it is a COST.
Well, if your assumption is that the government is NOT "entitled" to that money, then why are they entitled to ANY of "your money"? Why settle for tax cuts, which still leave you paying a significant portion of your income to the government? Aren't you really arguing for the complete elimination of taxes? The only way they'll be taking none
of your money, is if you pay no
As far as your strong objection to the usage of the word COST - perhaps from a technical accounting standpoint, it may be more technically correct to refer to it as "unrealized revenue" or something like that - I'm not sure. I suppose it could be argued that nothing is truly a "cost" unless it results in an outlay of cash. But when it gets right down to it, anything financial is either a positive item on the books, or a negative one. If Apple contemplates discontinuing a product, or lowering a price, I'm sure that the "cost in lost revenue" is part of the financial discussion.
Regardless, you appear with this statement to be hung up on simple semantics and what you see as their dangerous rhetorical implications.
Nope, it means a reduction in the rate of growth in government."
Nope - it means a reduction in the revenue
available to the government. It does NOT automagically have ANY effect on the rate of government growth. For plain evidence of this, please see the growth of non-defense spending in both the Reagan and Bush administrations following their tax cuts.
Do you think the government will ever be big enough? Should it ever stop growing? Should it ever be reduced in size? Or should we, the people, just let them tell us that it MUST grow 12% per year from now until eternity? Do you understand baseline budgeting, and what it is doing to our country?
Did you not see where I specifically advocated SPENDING CUTS? Can you quote anywhere I am specifically advocating government growth?
More rhetorical strawmen - you seem to love those.
This is now the fourth time you've tried to bring your anti-taxation rhetoric into this discussion, and I'm still refusing to buy in to your diversionary rhetorical strawmen.
Let me remind you what instigated this discussion - you said "Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE?" and I and several others disagreed with this statement.
You hate taxes - we get that.
You think taxes are fundamentally government theft - we get that.
You think that everyone who doesn't think like you is a liberal that loves taxes - we get that.
You think that "liberals" only motivation in opposing tax cuts is to increase their political power - we get that, too.None of your rhetorical strawman arguments against the very principle of taxation have anything at all to do with whether or not tax revenues increase when tax rates are cut.
The way to reduce the size of government is to limit the drug that it is hooked on- the peoples' money.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that cutting revenues will magically and automatically reduce the size of the government, despite the complete lack of evidence for this in either theory or practice.
The way to reduce the size of the government is to reduce the size of the government
- specifically, by cutting government spending.
You want to maintain perpetual political power for your side, while you get the taxpayers to fund it.
Excuse me? "political power for my side"? I don't HAVE a side, and I'm not involved in fundraising or power politics for either "side".
You're just trying once again to divert the discussion using made-up shit, and refusing to address the actual issue of net revenue effects of cuts in income tax rates.