Posted on 04/26/2017 6:16:23 PM PDT by central_va
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.
Would you consider this tax a plan a failure if years down the road it proves not to increase receipts?
libs always lie on this.
They try to bluff that spurring growth doesn’t work.
It doesn’t cover the deficit because NOTHING could cover the deficit without cuts!!
Slash away Trump!!
They screwed Reagan in the 80s with cutting the budget.
Let’s hope RINOs don’t do it this time
Won’t work this time. Too much Republican racism and homophobia going on to allow the tax cuts to work like that. Did I mention that the transgenders will all be slain by cutting taxes?
Whose plan? Trump or JFK?
Trump’s plan
Yep, any cuts in spending will send the media and the liberals into meltdown mode. Because any cuts in gov’t spending will impact whoever benefits from that spending.
We know the drill. Any attempts to cut back food stamp/SNAP benefits, for example, will be cast as evil Republicans and Trump taking the food out of babies’ mouths.
Cutting back Section 8 housing subsidies means that Trump wants to kick people out of housing and see them homeless.
Cutting back federal aid to education, means that Trump doesn’t support education.
Cutting back any social services spending of any kind will be portrayed as hurting women, children, and all the various minority groups the hardest. Inner cities will be hardest hit. Rural poverty stricken areas such as Appalachia will be said to be hardest hit.
And so it goes.
Been said many times, JFK could never get nominated by the current democrat party.
JFK could not run as a Democrat today. That party has changed and those days are gone.
Regardless I would not consider it a failure if federal revenue fell year over year, for any reason, rate cut or not. But there is very little chance of that happening. Historically Uncle Sam gets more each year regardless of which party controls the congress and/or the presidency. The question is really "how much more than last year" and not one of "is it going to be less than last year".
>>>Regardless I would not consider it a failure if federal revenue fell year over year
Yet you seem to be be spending a lot of time trying to make the supply side case to support this plan. Should not the preferred argument be that we are putting more money back in consumers hands and leave it at that? Who cares if it creates more revenue or not. As noted by VP Cheney, deficits don’t matter.
That’s really cute that you think liberals care about facts. Barky was on record as saying he was in favor of tax hikes regardless if they actually decreased revenues (and they will) “because it’s the right thing to do.”
Taxation today is used as a punishment, or social policy, not so much getting revenue, and this was pointed out 70 years ago, when policy makers were somewhat more honest. Remember the government gets the money they need by printing it up, and then borrowing it. That’s a simplification of course, but not by much.
When the money supply was fixed, before the funny money , tax rates were very low. Individuals didn’t pay income tax until their wages reached about $600,000 in todays dollars, and then rates started at 2%
There’s no reason for people making $100,000 to be paying tax on their income, other than squashing private enterprise. Once the regulations and permits and tax and BS starts to pile up, nobody wants to take the risks of starting a business. It’s like pouring water on the fire, if the economy were a steam engine, say. Nobody is going to risk their capital, their time, only to have it all confiscated. Eventually the politicians are all complete demagogues, promising ever more and more free shit to calm the masses of people fed up with the disaster the politicians created. Venezuela here we come! Then they start “nationalizing” whole industries, and people who’ve never ran a business are in charge of everything. If a minimum wage sounds good, why, a maximum wage is even better! And, we need you to “volunteer” to work in the fields. It’s only temporary, comrade.
“Deficits don’t matter.”
Read the context of what he actually said. I’m not here to defend Dick Cheney, but he was talking about them in the context of Presidential elections. Not, that deficits “don’t matter.” See the difference? Apples and aircraft carriers. This is standard lefty boilerplate. Let’s not humor them.
But the MSM is brainwashing the sheeple into thinking that a rate cut will worsen the deficit and reduce revenues. They will believe it too. The MSM is attempting to sway public opinion with out right lies. Doesn’t that affect you at all? That is why we have to fight the MSM propaganda and educate the sheeple. Hell there are lot of dummies right here that don’t understand the Laffer curve and tax revenues. It is pathetic.
Absolutely not. Because that is only half of the equation. You are not fighting the other part of the lie which is a marginal rate decrease will increase the deficit because of revenue shortfalls. Revenue will actually increase year over year. That is a lie that must be dispelled also.
If revenues decrease, they tax and spend more. If revenues increase they spend even more more. You know this already.
Liberals wouldn’t even object to a balanced budget amendment. There’s nothing in the way of taxing everyone at 100%
The mistake here is trying to approach the problem as if we’re all on the same team with similar end goals here. The goal that leftists are working for is a collapse of the existing social and political order, everything. Every thing. The very pillars of civilization, and they don’t care who is in the way. Republicans, as you may have noticed, are of no help. Congress is “for display purposes only”, apparently.
>>>Hell there are lot of dummies right here that don’t understand the Laffer curve and tax revenues.
But you forgot the counterexample in your original post.
Federal revenue in 1992 = $1,091 Federal revenue in 2000 = $2,025 Over a 85% increase in revenue!
It seems from the empirical data that the only thing that can cause a year over year revenue decreases is a recession. And that is usually for only one or two years - at the most.
Yes, but a period with a tax increase outperformed the period with significant tax cuts.
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.