direstraits posted:L. Cranston posted:Stanky posted:L. Cranston posted:Stanky posted:L. Cranston posted:Stanky posted:L. Cranston posted:
Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.
Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.
Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:
Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.
Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.
Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.
Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.
Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.
The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.
The real facts are this chart:
In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?
As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".
So, you just don't like the report and your biggest concern is why Democrats didn't try to go back to a 70% tax bracket?
Well, the only answer I can come up with is, running a campaign on raising taxes wouldn't be a popular idea, would it.
Problem with the graph is it shows "total government revenue," not just tax receipts. Its the mandatory vs. budgeted revenue/spending. Total revenue includes all taxes (personal and corporate income taxes, tariff and excise tax revenue, which is the budgeted spending Congress must authorize annually). Versus, other revenue, including Medicare and Social Security contributions from employees and employers, about a dozen pension trust fund contributions, including but not limited to two civil service pension fund, Railway pension fund, and the pension guaranty act fund, plus revenue from government properties from logging, contractor hotels and shops, oil royalties, etc.
The mandatory spending portion is the reason people still receive Social Security even during a government shut down. I gave the total tax revenue differences in an earlier comment. This illustrates why I wanted more info. Amateurs!
I gave my totals in everything from charts to %gdp. This illustrates why facts don't matter to Republicans.