Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: econjack

I have no problem with the Cato piece. I suspect you failed to read it closely.

Richard Rahn in the Cato piece refers to “the revenue gains of the 1978 and 1997 capital-gains rate cuts”. He refers to the “economic gains from the Reagan era tax cuts”.

This accords with Lindsey and Anderson, who note that the sole tax rate cut that generated greater tax revenue was the capital gains cut of Carter. The Reagan marginal rate cuts on income didn’t. They did what they were intended to do- spur economic growth.

Rahn himself makes the distinction in his piece. Revenue gains in the one instance and economic gains in the other.

Not a surprise because he’s undoubtedly familiar with Lindsey’s study and wouldn’t conflate gross revenue numbers with the effect of the marginal rate cuts themselves. Had it been that easy Lindsey could have saved a lot of trees by subtracting the gross revenues of 1981 of 1988 and his book could have been one page long. It wasn’t of course because it was a complex regression analysis that is described in the book, and gives a breakdown of the contribution of the rate cuts alone after accounting for other factors that contributed to tax revenue gains.

If you were confused by my substitution of ‘elasticity curve’ for ‘elasticity of demand’ it makes me wonder if you insist on employing technically correct physics terms as well in conversation or manage to make yourself known in colloquial English.


38 posted on 06/11/2016 10:11:29 PM PDT by Pelham (Barack Obama. When being bad is not enough and only evil will do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Pelham
Revenue gains in the one instance and economic gains in the other.

Agree. On the other hand, saying that the Reagan tax cuts on personal income didn't impact economic growth and, hence, tax revenues is simply wrong.

...if you insist on employing technically correct physics terms ...

Physics terms? Where did that come into the conversation? Elasticity of demand has nothing to do with physics. And, yes, I do prefer proper English to the alternative. I cringe when I hear something like: "The man that entered the elevator." instead of the correct: "The man who entered the elevator." I see examples all the time of writers who confuse "then" and "that". I don't like hearing things like: "Him and me are friends." Poorly spoken English is probably linked to a poorly education person.

39 posted on 06/12/2016 7:44:47 AM PDT by econjack (I'm not bossy...I just know what you should be doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson