Posted on 04/26/2017 3:45:53 PM PDT by lowbridge
>>>Tax receipts INCREASE when tax rates decrease.
Then if you raise rates, receipts should decline, correct. So why is that when Clinton passed the largest tax increase in American history, tax receipts increased?
That is to say the people will save 6 trillion dollars...
Correct....Obie’s stimulus went on the books such that every continuing resolution thereafter used that extra trillion as part of the baseline. That’s why Harry Reid never wanted to pass a budget....they’d have lost that huge hunk of the baseline.
Damn you mean the taxpayers are going to get 6 trillion back in their pockets?
Debunked over and over. In Econ 201. You didn’t get to it.
The liars claim revenue decreases when in fact a simple google search would dispel that myth.
Historically marginal tax rate cuts make federal revenues go thru the roof. The have been a boon for the Treasury.
He also got lucky as that was in the middle of the dot.com boom. They've been dining out on that ever since.
I love this tax plan. Repatriated funds back into the US. No death tax....YUUUUUGE. Deductions are all but gone, which is how everyone sheltered income in the past....honestly and not so honestly, imho.
Lower tax rates also reduce the need to shelter and cheat on taxes. We don't mind paying our fair share, but we've been beyond the limit.
The Dems who wrote 9.5 Trillion Dollars in debt in just 8 years have a problem with this?
And put trillions in the hands of the wage earners.
The last two major income tax rate reductions were in the 1960s and 1980s. Here are the results of those cuts and their effect on revenue collection.
Federal revenue in 1960 = $92.5 Federal revenue in 1968 = $153.0 Over a 50% increase in revenue! Federal revenue in 1980 = $517.5 Federal revenue in 1989 = $909.0 Over a 70% increase in revenue!So the FACTS show that cutting taxes in the 60's and 80's increased federal tax revenue.
Now you know the truth.
No one really knows yet — but, clearly, the betting is that you’re somewhere to the right of the optimum point (i.e. paying too much tax).
BTW, Arthur Laffer (the supply-side economist, who came up with this theory) was a key economics advisor to President Reagan. Laffer has also been advising President Trump recently.
And our Vichy Republican Uni-Party Geldings went along with this.
I can barely stomach McConnell, he'll do politically what he has to to save his skin. But Ryan? He needs to resign, he ain't got the metal for the job especially with this high speed train called the Trump Agenda...
Having taken Econ 101, 201 ... 501 ... etc., I challenge you to offer citations to back up your statement. (And no, articles from Buzzfeed, NYT, etc. don’t count.)
(I will readily agree that prior conditions matter. If you can show that Americans are currently under taxed then, yes, you’re on the wrong side of the Laffer curve apex for tax cuts to work. Good luck proving Americans are under taxed, on this forum.)
Government takes 6 trillion from struggling middle class families.
I knew about the 80’s one, and use it for even Conservative friends and relatives when they say things like “I know taxes are too high, but how else are we going to pay for x,y and z?” George W. also lowered taxes and revenues increased, although it pissed me off when he wouldn’t talk about it much.
It doesn’t take much explaining that if people are allowed to keep more of the money that they earn that they will typically earn even more money. And/or put the money into expanding their operations (which means buying more stuff from other folks, hiring more people, etc.)
So LOTS of people are CREATING and increasing in wealth, and that increase gets passed along to the government.
I saw a movie with Victor Mature in it where the biblical Danites went into rebellion because the ruling King RAISED taxes to 10%. They thought that was intolerable.
I’ve been studying JFK. He actually was a very conservative President. He gave a great speech about lowing tax rates( in the 1950s the top marginal rate was 90%!) and increasing tax revenue at the same time. He called it paradoxical but it makes sense why it happens if you really give it thought. Like I said it was good speech. The data from the 1960s told the story and it was true and revenues increased by almost 50%!
>>No one really knows yet — but, clearly, the betting is that you’re somewhere to the right of the optimum point (i.e. paying too much tax).
I bet you would have made that same bet when Clinton raised rates. But apparently we were on th left side of the peak at that point, as revenues increased.
I’m not opposed to this tax plan. But I think the argument should be that consumers and businesses get to keep more of their money. If it pays for itself that is great. But that should not be the reason to cut taxes or a requirement.
Federal deficit in 1960 = $300 million surplus
Federal deficit in 1968 = $25.2 billion
An astronomical increase in deficit!
Federal revenue in 1980 = $517.5
Federal revenue in 1989 = $909.0
Over a 70% increase in revenue!
Federal deficit in 1980 = $73.8 billion
Federal deficit in 1989 = $152.5 billion
Over a 110% increase in deficit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.