Posted on 07/15/2006 9:54:37 AM PDT by Babu
Yep, I'm sticking to my remark about economic ruin.
Your other point about raising taxes is well-taken. The author does indeed tip his hat to spending reduction as a remedy for debt. But he explicitly blames the tax cuts as a cause of the problem.
Over the long run, no, there isn't. If you just extended that graph back to the 1990's, you see the opposite trend: tax revenue increasing after a tax increase.
You're basing your correlation on ONE DATA POINT!
Extend the Chart to the 1990's and 1980's, and your correlation dissappears.
Thank you for the lucid explanation of your point of view. Are you a member of the CFR? You seem to know what they do and don't do. Rockefeller alledgedly said, "Control the money and you control the world." Perhaps many members are not aware of the total power this organization wields. You may find the mentioned book in post 17 an interesting read. God bless.
> You missed one. It started with Wilson.<
Thank you. You are right.
Any way you cut it, tax revenues are up, and my taxes are down, and I like it that way. If they would just cut spending and stop the flow of illegal invasion, we could totally eliminate the deficit.
Excellent post and thanks!
Stopped reading right there, as the author has NO credibility after writing such a comment. After the tax cuts, government revenue INCREASED! What an idiot this one is.
No, I'm not a member of the CFR. I'm out here in the wide open landscapes of Arizona and I diligently avoid Washington, D.C. and anyone who lives or works there...lol. (I'll make an exception to that for J.D. Hayworth, Trent Franks, and Jon Kyl if I get a chance to meet them.) We don't admire the federal government (or FDR) out here in the west, and like you I'm one of those working continuously to limit and control federal power.
There's a global interdependence of economies now. If America sinks economically, through denial of credit or for any other reasons, many other economies go down the tubes as well. These foreign creditors are not going to cut off their nose despite their face. Money is usually the one area in which they are fairly realistic.
>...(social security and medicare) will be reduced because they have to be significantly reduced...<
Perhaps if the gubmint were not allowed to use the funds collected for SS for a slush fund, but they were actually put in an interest bearing account, we wouldn't be facing these problems. As far as medicare goes, anything the gubmint ventures into becomes a nightmare. Before medicare went into effect, EVERYONE could afford medical care. Since then the costs have gone out of sight. Now that MedicareD has gone into effect, watch the price of prescriptions take off. Alot more going on in the world than meets the eye, IMHO.
Hey, that's something we agree on. We also need to do something about medicare, because as another poster remarked, that's the real bomb.
BTW, I didn't find a fancy chart, but I found this only PDF document that has historical levels of Federal tax receipts:
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/23feb20050900/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
Go to page 27, and look at the Federal Funds column under receipts. You will note, that following the Regean tax cuts in 1981, tax revenue fell for 2 straight years. From 410 billion in 1981, to 409 in 1982, to 382 in 1983. It caught up in nominal terms by 1984, but adjusted for inflation, it was still lower.
You'll also note the opposite trend in "trust fund" receipts. They grow substantially after 1981, and it just so happens that this increase conincides with a sharp hike in the payroll tax around the same time.
Then note that after the 1986 tax increases, revenue jumps significantly, from 474 in 1986 to 538 in 1987.
Finally, look at 1993. Tax revenues were 641 billion. After Clinton's tax increase, they went up to 656 billion, and kept growing.
I heard you the first time. ;)
" One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. "
Anybody believe that if we doubled taxes today, congress would not spend it, today?
Both of these statements are fallacious.
If the law ordered a doubling of these taxes, there would an immediate total bankruptcy of virtually all personal and corporate entities.
The tax receipts would actually decline, therefore the congress would be unable to "finance" current spending much less additional spending.
No one can spend more than they make if they can't borrow.
Woops. I mean see post 133.
Anybody believe that if we doubled taxes today, congress would not spend it, today?
Ummm, don't quote me but I'm quite sure it's already been spent.
Not a bad idea, how does this one sound? Don't raise taxes, just increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $350,000/year...
Then everybody would be in the maximum tax bracket and tax revenues would rise through the roof...
...this is right...isn't it?
As far as I can tell, TD posted a graph showing a continuous 5-year curve. That's not "one data point."
If you believe that boosting tax rates has historically resulted in more revenue to government than lowered tax rates can provide, by all means, post your own graphs and sources for this.
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.