Tax cut dont increase revenue
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
No, if it is an actual surplus there is no need to borrow more money you pay principal with a surplus. There was no surplus, they borrowed more money. If you put more onto your credit card to balance your books you are not realizing any surplus.
You really shouldn't speak on economics if you cannot understand the very simple fact that increasing debt is never realizing a surplus.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
DESH... try to pay attention. YES, his policies helped to ensure that it was not worse than it was. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT PAY DOWN ANY DEBT. WHY do you refuse to look at the treasury site? Are you simply being obtuse? Or are you really that incapable of seeing what the ACTUAL results generated?
A BUDGET surplus is just an estimation of expectations. The ACTUAL numbers show you how close you came to your estimations. In 2000 they came within $18billion of their budget. But they still overspent. Not by much, but they did overspend.
evince
Truthmatters
Yes he did pay some of it down. If he had not it would have been larger.
Without the policies they implemented it would have bee larger
No, he simply slowed the increase of the debt.
Again, if you spend more than you make you have not payed any of the debt down. Even if it was increased by a smaller amount than the year before.
I hope your hubby handles the finances. If you believe spending more than you make is paying down debt then you shouldn't have any access to any funds.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You need to learn the difference between deficit and debt. Yes, the deficit was not as large as it could have been. Which is why the DEBT only increased by $18 billion. But the DEBT still INCREASED.
Are you seriously going to ignore the treasury numbers?
If so, then you truly are an economic idiot.
If you charge $50 a month on your credit card until you owe $300, each month only paying interest and not decreasing your debt, then the next month pay only the interest and increase it by only $20 you have not payed your credit card down, you increased your debt by $20. You did not realize a surplus, you overspent and had a deficit. A smaller deficit than before, but a deficit indeed.
President Ronald Reagan signed tax cuts into law and while it took some time, these tax cuts arguably stimulated a doubling in total tax revenues (from five hundred billion to one trillion dollars).[2] Don Lambro of the Washington Times credits the Reagan tax cuts with the eventual surpluses of the 1990s
Tax cuts increase revenue?
Tax cuts pay for themselves?
Two entirely different things.....
one has nothing to do with the other...
Tax cuts increase revenue?
Tax cuts pay for themselves?
Two entirely different things.....
one has nothing to do with the other...
WRL
Well...the right is right
Top 10 Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Posted: 02/12/2007
Compiled by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation.
10. Myth: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden. From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from 0% to -4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy. The share paid by the top 20% of households increased from 81% to 85%.
9. Myth: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. These policies increased market incentives to work, save and invest, creating jobs and increasing economic growth.
8. Myth: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy," because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. The right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms.
7. Myth: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. In 2007, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10% bracket and Alternative Minimum Tax fix will have a combined budgetary impact of minus $114 billion -- without strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect. But the more maligned capital gains, dividends and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion, even before the large supply-side effects are incorporated.
6. Myth: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.
5. Myth: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Revenues are projected to increase from 18% of GDP to almost 23% by 2050, while spending is projected to increase from 20% of GDP to at least 38%.
4. Myth: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% (depending on income) to 15% and 5%, respectively. Rather than expand from $50 billion in 2003 to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
3. Myth: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve merely formalizes the common-sense observations that: Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate; raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
2. Myth: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Historic spending increases pushed federal spending up from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.2% in 2006.
1. Myth: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19395
Posted: 02/12/2007
Compiled by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation.
10. Myth: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden. From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from 0% to -4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy. The share paid by the top 20% of households increased from 81% to 85%.
9. Myth: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. These policies increased market incentives to work, save and invest, creating jobs and increasing economic growth.
8. Myth: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy," because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. The right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms.
7. Myth: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. In 2007, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10% bracket and Alternative Minimum Tax fix will have a combined budgetary impact of minus $114 billion -- without strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect. But the more maligned capital gains, dividends and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion, even before the large supply-side effects are incorporated.
6. Myth: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.
5. Myth: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Revenues are projected to increase from 18% of GDP to almost 23% by 2050, while spending is projected to increase from 20% of GDP to at least 38%.
4. Myth: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% (depending on income) to 15% and 5%, respectively. Rather than expand from $50 billion in 2003 to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
3. Myth: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve merely formalizes the common-sense observations that: Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate; raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
2. Myth: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Historic spending increases pushed federal spending up from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.2% in 2006.
1. Myth: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19395
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
Heres the deal Clinton did not run up the credit card Reagan did and there was substancial debt ( off budget ) that they had no control over. They kept the increase from beig as big as it would have been.
If he had continued Reagan methods the debt would have been higher at the end of his term.
This means he did pay some of it down.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
The debt hasn't been "paid down" since 1960, any way you slice it.
We as a "family" ran up the debt. Pretending that when the card was handed to you that it was payed down when you increased it every month is not reality.
You do not "pay down" debt by increasing the principle! 100% you should not speak on economics, even home economics.
I said several times he decreased the growth rate of the debt, but still increased the debt (along with congress, both D and R congresses). Increasing debt is never a surplus, and increasing debt is never paying off debt. Never.
It is just plain unfortunate the level of stuck in ignorance I have seen from you on this thread.
I will say it in the simplest terms possible. Borrowing $18 Billion dollars to pay interest on the debt is not fiscally responsible. It increases the debt.
Crap. I was going to go simple.
2+2=4 <-previous years
4+1=5 <-clinton years...
Is five greater than four? If it is, it is an increase and not a decrease in debt.
You keep mixing up the difference between deficit and debt, first of all, and confuse increasing debt with realizing a surplus somehow....
It is impossible to realize a surplus if you are overspending, even if it is "only" 18 Billion dollars.
AnglScarlett
New member
All women are like this Damocles, as you so cleverly point out, and that is one thing the Mensa man will back you up on, even though he does not like to be caught publically agreeing with a non-mensa handicapped poster such as yourself?
I have seen this first hand with women, and it is one moore reason we cannot elect The Hillary, she might go on a shoe-shopping spree with our tax money, it would not surprise me? For instance my cousin is married to Peggy, and they had a big fight only two weeks ago and, it ends up that the fight was over what Peggy bought at Wal-mart?
Peggy comes home with these new boots from their new high end line and she tells my cousin she needed them and that "look, they're new for the fall' which is what the tag on them says?
Butt, that tag also says the price, and my cousin saw 45 dollars and his eyes rolled up in back of his head and he hit the floor, unconcious. And when he comes to, Peggy is in the living room watching The View, and he starts demanding to know, what was she spending that kind of money on boots for? After all it takes him all day to earn 45 dollars and she blows it on a boot? And then Peggy looks at him and tells him, "no, I got two boots It's a pair dumbass, that's what a pair means, two"
The cops had to come, and that proves why The Hillary cannot be President and girls shouldn't be posting, you should ban them, thank you.
AnglScarlett
New member
Folks, did you notice how long it took Beefy to think of cake, with his giveaway of "slice it"?
