Replies

NRST is set currently @ 23%, established against Clinton administration tax base.

And IT WAS TOO LOW!! 23% would be too low with current receipts!

NIPA: GDP & Federal Receipts & Expenditures

You obviously have no understanding of the theory Laffer was illustrating with his curve, otherwise you wouldn't have only shown data from after the tax cuts.

	2000	2000	2000	2000	2001	2001	2001	2001	2002	2002	2002	2002	2003	2003	2003	2003	2004	2004
	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II
GDP	9,629	9,823	9,862	9,954	10,022	10,129	10,135	10,226	10,338	10,446	10,547	10,618	10,745	10,884	11,117	11,271	11,473	11,658
Tax Receipts	1,302	1,309	1,323	1,320	1,323	1,316	1,132	1,238	1,070	1,074	1,067	1,065	1,090	1,094	999	1,075	1,074	1,097
SS/Medicare	685	686	697	699	716	718	718	718	731	735	734	735	748	754	762	770	788	796

Increasing government revenues has never caused cuts in spending.

Maybe you can show me an example of when reducing revenues has cut spending.

Two words: CUT SPENDING

That didn't answer the question. Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?

23% would be too low with current receipts!

A federal tax rate of 23% of the consumption base(NNP) is way too high, period.

23% is high on the laffer curve, and consequently knocks GDP growth to a standstill.

The primary track to 23% began with the '97 Clinton Tax increases (refer red zone). Once federal tax level reached 23% of nominal consumption base( NNP) Economic growth declined precipitously into recession mode.

That is pure highside Laffer and a clear case of what happens when excess federal taxation burdens down an economy.

The Bush revenue cuts 2001-2003 with stimulative deficit spending are now just now in the process of reversing that GDP growth decline induced by the tax burdens from the Clinton 2nd Term tax law changes.

Year	Federal Tax Rate %NNP	GDP Growth	Federal Surplus %GDP	GDP	Tax Revenue	Federal Expenditure	Federal Surplus
1986	19.7	5.75%	-5.14%	4,462.8	777.1	1,051.8	-229.6
1987*	20.7	7.41%	-3.94%	4,739.5	859.9	1,090.8	-186.9
1988	20.3	7.69%	-3.27%	5,103.8	919.8	1,132.8	-166.9
1989*	20.5	7.46%	-2.92%	5,484.4	1,021.8	1,206.4	-160.1
1990*	20.2	5.81%	-3.59%	5,803.1	1,042.9	1,301.5	-208.3
1991	20.2	5.70%	-4.09%	5,995.9	1,054.7	1,357.6	-245.3
1992	19.6	5.04%	-5.09%	6,337.7	1,102.2	1,481.3	-322.9
1993*	19.9	4.80%	-4.37%	6,657.4	1,177.0	1,526.1	-290.7
1994	20.4	5.94%	-3.13%	7,072.2	1,275.6	1,557.4	-221.4
1995	20.8	4.60%	-2.69%	7,397.7	1,364.3	1,620.7	-199.2
1996	21.3	5.66%	-1.89%	7,816.9	1,475.3	1,689.3	-147.8
1997*	21.8	6.23%	-0.57%	8,304.3	1,607.0	1,721.1	-47.4
1998	22.4	5.33%	0.55%	8,747.0	1,730.6	1,751.1	47.8
1999	22.5	5.96%	1.09%	9,268.4	1,847.3	1,818.7	101.3
2000	23.1	5.91%	1.93%	9,817.0	2005.3	1,892.6	189.4
2001*	22.2	3.17%	0.41%	10,128.0	1969.7	2,002.4	41.8
2002*	19.7	3.54%	-2.64%	10,487.0	1802.8	2,149.4	-276.8
2003*	18.5	4.92%	-3.70%	11,004.0	1822.5	2,306.6	-407.6

You obviously have no understanding of the theory Laffer was illustrating with his curve, otherwise you wouldn't have only shown data from after the tax cuts.

Obviously you have no understanding of cause, effect and momentum, as in cause then effect afterwards.
Check in again in a couple of years after Bush tax cuts are made permanent at 18% NNP and GDP growth stabalizes at its new equilibrium levels for the answer as to where we are on the laffer curve.

Two words: CUT SPENDING

That didn't answer the question.

It answers it perfectly.

Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?

The numbers are above.

Cut Spending, any deficit and debt issues are resolved.

Unless spending is addressed directly and head on by repealing programs, then spending and govenment will continue grow as long as there are perpetual expectations of ever more revenue to come.