Skip to comments.Obama Readies His Revenge on the "Rich"
Posted on 11/14/2012 12:22:24 PM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
If today’s www.whitehouse.gov said the sun would rise in the East tomorrow, I’d want to independently verify it.
so verify it.
Here’s Bruce Bartlett on the subject:
I put a New York Times blog in the same boat.
Another self serving .obamagov website?
Nobody claimed the effect was immediate, incidentally, when talking about single-year data. The economy needs a bit of time to move when the shackles are loosened. But move it does, and move it did, eventually to beat the pre-tax-reform revenue flow. When Reagan loosened the shackles, and when Bush loosened the shackles.
Yeah, someone did . . . you.
Unless you want to spin your comment to say what the plain reading of it clearly doesn't say.
Another self serving .obamagov website?
Hahaha, so I guess President Bush's own report is now just awful Obama spin. You're priceless, please keep posting.
Prove it. I said when Bush tax rates kicked in, revenues went up. They did, and even the old liberal JFK knew they would. He’s the source of the “rising tide lifts all boats.” You are remarkably petty, attacking over and over on the basis of quibbles about a very valid principle. Are you a troll from DU?
I did prove it. When Bush’s tax cuts kicked in revenues went down. I also posted a report you didn’t want to read from President Bush’s economic advisor admitting that revenues would not catch up with where they would have been.
And the principal is far from valid. I’ve posted links to reports and studies you’ve pettily waved away. So why don’t you pony up your own evidence instead of sniping.
You’ve given the Obamaview for one, and you’ve ignored Reagan for two. So you pettily wave away the principle.
The 2003 President’s economic report is the Obamaview?
A cherrypick of the shortly post-9/11 times...
Still waiting on your evidence.
Still waiting for you to answer the Gipper
Would you mind posting or linking what you want me to answer again?
Since you are not replying I'm going to assume you meant for me to explain rising federal revenue under President Reagan.
Since we are talking about income taxes we need to look at income tax revenue to the federal government. For reference I'm getting my data from this site.
In 1980 (numbers indicate millions) federal income tax receipts were $249. In 1988 federal income tax receipts were $413. That is an increase of 66%, not exactly a doubling of revenues.
Let's fast forward to Bill Clinton since he signed into law one of the biggest tax increases at that time. In 1992 federal income tax receipts were $476. When Clinton left office federal income tax receipts were $981. That was an increase of 113%, nearly double the increase of during Reagan's 8 year term.
Ok, income tax receipts did rise under Reagan, but was the cut to marginal income tax rates the cause? Highly doubtful. If you look at any 10 year period income tax revenue nearly doubles just through natural population changes and economic growth.
If you say you are for starving the federal beast and you believe lower income tax rates causes increased revenue shouldn't you logically be politicking to have rates increased in order to cause less revenue to go the federal government?
And as for tha Laffer Curve how do you know we are still on the right hand side of the top of the curve? If we were on the left hand side of the top would you advocate for higher marginal tax rates?
One last thing, if lower marginal rates leads to higher economic growth maybe you can look through this congressional Research Service report and address the fact that as income tax rates have been lowered the rate of GDP growth has gone down as well?
You sure say a lot of ifs, meaning you really don’t know squat about me whom you are so quick to condemn.
I am also concerned that you cite Bill Clinton, who rode a tech boom that was worldwide, not just a fluke of some supposedly marvelous American tax rate policy.
Hey HiTech . . . nice avoidance mechanism you have going on there. You haven’t dealth with the actual data at all and are just sticking to your talking points.
The facts, presented from a few different sources, are that there was no unprecedented increase in tax revenues under Reagan. If anything the growth in government revenue under Reagan was more anemic than in other comparable periods. But that shouldn’t be a problem because as a good conservative you should be applauding the slower growth in tax revenue instead of trying to proudly proclaim that tax revenues increased dramatically under Reagan.
Starve the Beast!(tm) amirite?
I laugh at how you assume.
Did I complain that you tried to use Reagan? Your point, that I have repeatedly refuted with hard facts, was that tax cuts increase tax revenues. No, they don't. They slow down revenue generation for the government as has been shown over and over again in this thread. Reagan cut taxes, Bill Clinton raised taxes and tax revenue grew more under Bill Clinton such that we were able for the first time in many decades run a surplus which George W. Bush promptly pissed away.