Skip to main content

Reply to "new study suggests some people grossly overestimate their political knowledge."

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.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

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.

Last edited by L. Cranston

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×