Posted on 05/01/2007 4:09:19 AM PDT by from occupied ga
We actually argue that reducing the tax rates will lead to more revenue, which is an admission that we are actually “increasing taxes” by reducing the tax rate.
But the idea is that for an individual taxpayer, the total “burden” of tax goes down through a combination of having lower taxes, OR having increased income, such that we end up with more money when we are finished than we did before.
Does the author propose that we re-raise tax rates so that federal revenues will decrease along with incomes and the economy
Did you see him suggest that? I didn't. I did see
"Since all forms of government revenue are generated by a coercive, non-contractual transfer of assets, it would be accurate to refer to all government spending as some form of taxation"
In short he's saying that all government spending has to be paid for with some sort of forced transfer. SO even simpler a spending increse is equal to a tax increase even if it isn't immediately felt.
I think it is clear that the author is proposing we cut spending. As far as the Laffer Curve goes, I've not seen anything that makes me think that we have ever slipped over the peak onto the right side. Western Europe might be near the peak, though. The tax cuts did help slip us out of the recession earlier, but today's growth is due to the nature of our economy. We are speeding along at the same 3% growth that our nation has for the last 150 years.
Milton Friedman was a big fan of tax cuts, and proposed that their biggest benefit might be to increase the deficit to a point where everyone agreed that we had to stop spending so much.
I think you missed the point of the article. The author contends that increasing spending is the equivalent of increasing taxes because the spending increases under Bush will have to be paid for somehow.
I see you are well practiced at the great art of deflection.
I didn’t miss it, it’s just that the only part of the article I wanted to talk about was his argument that we paid more in total taxes now, so we had a “tax increase”.
The rest I wasn’t interested in adding my own words about.
If I did, it would be to note that, if we grow the economy 20% by cutting the tax rates 5%, and we then grow the government by 10% because of the extra revenue from growing the economy by 20%, I don’t think that would be what I would consider a “Tax Increase”.
But that is more of a theoretical argument that I couldn’t see making based on this particular article.
Praise from a master is praise indeed
“just that it’s UTTER KOOKINESS to claim the RATS would be more so”
who made that claim?
The original statement by the author was that the republicans had indeed been more irresponsible than the democrats. You said this was a lie.
It is not a lie, it is the truth.
What a crock....the increase under Bush has primarily been on defense, the war in Iraq, and emergency spending for catastrophes. 50% of the budget can’t be touched at all because of entitlements. Bush has nothing to do with that.
Somehow this moron figures that because tax revenue increased, taxes increased. GWB cut the INCOME TAX rates, cut rates on CAPITAL GAINS also.
Geez....
Obviously you don't have to pay the AMT, but this aside, the major point of the article is that spending increases equate to tax increases eventually even if the rate is temporarily cut the spending will have to be paid for somehow
LLS
Bush's nondefense discretionary spending - that is, everything that is not defense and not a continuing entitlement - was up over 20% in his first three years. That is pre-Katrina and does not include the WoT. Compare with Reagan's numbers:
It is not a lie, it is the truth.
The RATS were in power, Whitehouse and Congress, in 93+94. Their average deficit was average deficit -3.35% (1993 -3.8, 1994 -2.9).
The GOP was in power, Whitehouse and Congress, in 05+06. Their average deficit was average deficit -2.25% (2005 -2.6 2006 -1.9).
So math genius, explain how overspending by 3.35% is more fiscally responsible than overspending by 2.25%.
Sorry, but that doesn’t fly either. A tax cut is a tax cut. GOvernment expenses increase with the GDP. That has nothing to do with the tax rates.
His discretionary spending may have increased 20%, but it still translated to less than a 3% increase as compared to the GDP.
If his spending went from $1.00 to $1.20, that’s a twenty percent increase. It doesn’t mean squat unless it’s compared to GDP.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf Table 8 gives you the comparison by GDP. Besides, the military, DHS, etc...needed the funding badly.
save
How come you keep getting hit with the AMT? Me thinks you need a better accountant.
If your income goes over a certain point, then you get the AMT. I've had a couple of really good years recently (maybe to make up for the bad ones earlier)
I just read this. Good post.
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.