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

To: Toddsterpatriot; expat_panama; ChessExpert
Individual income tax revenues did drop sharply from 1982 to 1984 so they did not appear to increase in the short-term.

Really? You have the actual revenue numbers for this period?

I see that you posted those numbers from a table that I posted at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc02.html. No fair using my own numbers against me! The fact is, in trying to answer all the questions from you, expat, and ChessExpert, I got a little sloppy in my answer to you. I looked quickly at the following graph and saw that individual income tax revenues did drop sharply from 1982 to 1984 as a percentage of GDP:

The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc.html. I also glanced at the second graph at that URL and noted that, corrected for inflation, total revenues dropped for two years (though I see now that it was from 1981 to 1983). In any case, I didn't qualify my statement as a percentage of GDP or corrected for inflation. So you're correct that, in current dollars, individual income tax revenues only dropped from 1982 to 1983, not 1982 to 1984. Still, the graphs and numbers do not suggest to me that Reagan's first tax cut "paid for itself" in the sense of tax revenues being higher than they would have been otherwise.

Given the limitations of the Laffer curve that I listed in the previous message, I don't think there is enough historical data to answer those questions.

You're kidding about this part, right? Did that reduction in taxes help the economy to grow faster and did it result in higher after tax income for America's citizens?

You want to try again? I don't think you even need to know what the Laffer Curve is to admit that lower tax rates would increase after tax income.

Once again, in answering your message too quickly, I misread your question about "did it result in higher after tax income for America's citizens" as "did it result in higher tax revenues". Of course, a tax cut will result in higher after tax income. That's its chief goal. It's not a free lunch but it is a lunch, so to speak.

Anyhow, I cannot keep up with all of the questions from you, expat, and ChessExpert. If you have any questions you really want answered, perhaps the three of you can confer and put one or two questions or points into a common posting. Otherwise, I'll just have to pick and choose among your questions and answer a few of them as I have time.

35 posted on 11/27/2005 2:05:51 PM PST by remember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: remember; expat_panama; ChessExpert
I see that you posted those numbers from a table that I posted at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc02.html. No fair using my own numbers against me!

Yeah, sorry about that.

The fact is, in trying to answer all the questions from you, expat, and ChessExpert, I got a little sloppy in my answer to you. I looked quickly at the following graph and saw that individual income tax revenues did drop sharply from 1982 to 1984 as a percentage of GDP:

Just because we're all nipping at you shouldn't cause you to rush your answers. Relax. This isn't homework. There's not a deadline.

I also glanced at the second graph at that URL and noted that, corrected for inflation, total revenues dropped for two years (though I see now that it was from 1981 to 1983).

How much of the tax revenue during Carter's term was due to inflation pushing people into higher brackets? Reagan fixed that and now you blame him for indexing?

Still, the graphs and numbers do not suggest to me that Reagan's first tax cut "paid for itself" in the sense of tax revenues being higher than they would have been otherwise.

I have a different definition of "paying for itself". If you cut the rate from 70% to 50% and don't lose money, it's "paid for itself". I never claimed a tax cut would raise more revenues, except for capital gains tax cuts.

Of course, a tax cut will result in higher after tax income. That's its chief goal.

Now you're beginning to understand!! So, Reagan cut rates, people kept more of their own income and tax revenue didn't drop by 28% (even though rates did, from 70% to 50%). You'll have to agree that if no one changed their behavior in reaction to the rate cut, revenues should have dropped close to 28%.

Anyhow, I cannot keep up with all of the questions from you, expat, and ChessExpert.

I apologize again if we've been too rough on you.

Otherwise, I'll just have to pick and choose among your questions and answer a few of them as I have time.

No hurry. Take your time. How about answering this one?

Did that reduction in taxes help the economy to grow faster?

37 posted on 11/27/2005 9:37:42 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The Federal Reserve did not kill JFK. Greenspan was not on the grassy knoll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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