Reply With Quote
It's a theological belief for Cons.
"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves."
Tax cut dont increase revenue
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html
Lets just watch the heads explode.
It's a theological belief for Cons.
"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves."
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.
Just a republican myth.
Like personal responsibility and Family values while getting a gay massage or foot tapping.
Strong on offense while calling it defense, etc...
Bush doubled the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.
Proving tax cuts work!
Bush asked for and signed for the TARP money.
The Republican senate leader backed Bush on this.
It is all relative to the individual situation. In general, tax cuts will increase revenue and stimulate the economy... in the SHORT run. But they are not sustainable in the long run without corresponding spending cuts.Originally Posted by Desh
It also depends on the start and end points to the cuts. IF you are talking about the cuts Kennedy and Reagan did of slashing top rates from the idiotic 70-90% ranges, then they most certainly had positive economic results. If however, you are talking about cutting rates from 38% to 35% then the long term results are minimal at best in the short term and negative in the long term.
It is all relative to the individual situation. In general, tax cuts will increase revenue and stimulate the economy... in the SHORT run. But they are not sustainable in the long run without corresponding spending cuts.
Bush said in 2000 we could easily afford the tax cuts, increase spending, and reduce debt all at once.
when Al Gore called that "fuzzy math", he was roundly laughed off by bush voters.
Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"
But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.
Note that Laffer gives Clinton the credit for the surpluses my little right leaning friends.
Sometimes tax cuts will increase revenue. Other times not. It's not as simple as they think it is. Somewhere around 40%-50% you actually do start losing revenue, and then you have to come to reality, and stop pretending that you can have your cake and eat it too.
there is a balance. first off lets all admit that 2.6T in tax revenue is absurd. Before we talk about any more tax increases or decreases the spending needs to be cut.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.
I mean - the tax cuts from 70% to 38% on the rich were more succesful than anyone could have ever dreamed. Beyond that? You're not getting increased revenue. All you can claim is that you're giving people more money to play around with, which is good for libertarians, not so good at convincing the average person.
Secondly - the Laffer Curve states that there is optimal level that generates revenue. by this theory the goal would be to find the balance that is optimal for the current economy. and this changed based on situations such as a tech boom.. or housing crash.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer
Oh man I posted this on the con site and they are cracking me up by calling laffer a liberal whos rewriting history.
Guess where Laffer actually got the idea for the curve? Keynes.
Are you a fan of Laffer? Many on the left tried to say the Laffer Curve was discredited during the '80's because of Reagan when it fact it just as Chapdog (i belive?) described, the optimal tax rate which maximizes revenues.
problem with most dems is that they are trying to make case for tax increases.. but what choice will they pick from to do with the increase of taxes?
1) call it a surpluses and divvy out for special interest / programs
2) pay down debt.
you know they will argue about it.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks