Economists agree: Tax cuts don't create revenue

Pioneer Press ^ | 3-14-10 | Ed Lotterman

[WOBBLY BOB]

Self-paying tax cuts are a popular delusion, except among economists.

University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod is adamant on one of the key economic issues of our day: 'Tax cuts don't pay for themselves! Period!'

Hardly any economist would disagree. This is true for Republicans as well as Democrats. It is also true regardless of whether they describe themselves as NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists.

Yet, for a substantial portion of the general public, the idea that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues has become an article of faith. The following anonymous comment to an online Associated Press story is typical: "The only way our government can create jobs is to cut taxes. It's been proven over and over again. Cutting taxes also increases government revenue."

[WOBBLY BOB]

Minnesota's own Ed LottoBS at it again.

[martin_fierro]

Sigh.

[Natural Law]

Please disregard the empirical data, academic opinion is all that matters.

[little jeremiah]

How ‘bout this, Ed?

Cut taxes. So what if it cuts government revenue, that’s a GOOD THING!

Cut government revenue means less unconstitutional spending and funding of junk that is ruining our country.

I say cut all fedgov spending except what is enumerated in the Constitution.

[Oklahoma]

These clowns in academia often suffer from confusing words and phrases. A tax rate isn’t the same as a tax. A tax rate cut isn’t the same as a tax cut.

[Paladin2]

That’s what I was going to say: “it all depends on the shape of the Laffer curve and where you are currently situated on the curve.

[AmishDude]

It is amazing, isn't it, how Arthur Laffer discovers a quadratic equation and that's still too difficult a concept for economists.

You know what else economists know? How to predict unemployment:

But seriously, this author is just an imbecile who is speaking out of his lowest oriface.

[big'ol_freeper]

As someone who was an economics major I can say this article is total BS.

[Paladin2]

I’m not sure the peak of your curve is an equilibrium point. It looks unstable to me.

[Ol' Sparky]

Then why did tax revenue double in the 1980s after substantial tax cuts?

Tax cuts result in economic growth. Citizens make more money and, even though they are paying at a lower rate, pay more total dollars to the government.

[Track9]

Sometimes thinking can elevate you to the heights of our maker and sometimes it can bury you in a rat hole. This guys digging for China.

[avacado]

Bush Tax Cuts of 2003, federal revenue was $1.7 trillion, by 2006 federal revenue was $2.5 trillion.

That author is full of it!

[Blue Devil Reaganite]

As an economics major in undergrad from a ridiculously liberal school, the thought range of my professors ranged from Keynsian to Marxist. They only brought in other professors who agreed. I went to school during the late ‘80’s and they could not bring themselves to understand that tax rates affect behavior of people. The problem is that any economics professor who supported a tax rate cut would be participating in the economy more directly - with a real job, not as a professor of economics.

[big'ol_freeper]

Bunch of idiot liberal economists who don’t understand the velocity of money or shifting curves.

[OldMissileer]

Pioneer Press!? Should be the Young Pioneer press. Commie rag.

The professor was from U of M. “Nuff said.

[FrankR]

"Economists agree: Tax cuts don't create revenue, "

This is very reminiscent of the typical headline "SCIENTISTS AGREE: GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL"

These "economists" obviously graduated from the algore school of manipulated facts.

They can tweak adn squeak the figures all they want, but at some point common sense enters the room and shows them to be frauds as big as the "warmers".

More jobs = more tax revenue; taxes that prohibit profit to employers - less jobs; less jobs = less revenue.

Every salesman worth his salt knows it is better to have 25 smaller clients than only one, big client. If the big client goes under, there goes 100% of your income; if one of the small ones goes bust, you only lost 1/25th of your income.

The problem with socialism is, it gobbles up all 25 of the smaller clients, putting them out of business with exhorbitant taxes and regulations, if each has 10 employees, 250 people are out of work,(no tax revenue); if they turn to the big guy to make up the tax loss, he just picks up and moves overseas...1000 more Americans out of work, no tax revenue.

While these "economists" may be whizzes at working a spreadsheet, few have ever really run a business, and like most college geeks, rely solely on theory taught to them by hard left professors who hate capitalism.

So put this theory into the "global warming trash can" and continue on with your day.

[orinoco]

Lotterman, prove it! Where is your data?

Check the data. Whenever taxes are cut people have more to spend. Is that so hard to understand! Forget Keynesian BS. When people have more to spend that circulates more money in the economy. This results in job and wealth creation. It has been shown over and over again.

EDWARD LOTTERMAN

Lotterman, you are blinded by your socialist ideology!

[WOBBLY BOB]

That’s why he’s “Ed LottaBS”!

comments can be made here:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/twincities-pioneer-press/TFCETREQ2PN4S6LJE#lastPost

[okie01]

Lotterman, prove it! Where is your data?

How does he explain JFK's economy?

And Ronald Reagan's?

And the Bush tax cuts?

Does he have any examples -- even one -- of how tax increases have improved an economy? What does he think will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire?

[Wuli]

“Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves! Period!’ Hardly any economist would disagree.”

“Hardly Any” - translation; “Hardly any whom the author selectively chose to speak or refer to.”