Lower Taxes Raises Revenues

[TerryOfromCA]

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every tax payer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."


Dang Republicans! Tea Party extremists! We have to raise taxes, right? The government needs the revenue, right?

Woops. Wait a second


The first quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 message to Congress on tax reduction and reform. The second quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 radio and television address to the nation on his tax reduction bill.

Kennedy knew and understood the paradox, that raising revenues happens by actually cutting tax rates. President John F. Kennedy said in 1962, "The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Yet, when Ronald Reagan said the same thing around 20 years later he was ridiculed by the Left and by the press.

Reagan said: "The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rats and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll become more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all--and more revenue for government."

I am no JFK fan, but by golly he was right about taxes, as was Ronald Reagan, and as are the Republicans today. Its too bad that our current Idiot-In-Chief and his braindead followers do not understand these things.

​

 

[ocean515]

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every tax payer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."


Dang Republicans! Tea Party extremists! We have to raise taxes, right? The government needs the revenue, right?

Woops. Wait a second


The first quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 message to Congress on tax reduction and reform. The second quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 radio and television address to the nation on his tax reduction bill.

Kennedy knew and understood the paradox, that raising revenues happens by actually cutting tax rates. President John F. Kennedy said in 1962, "The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Yet, when Ronald Reagan said the same thing around 20 years later he was ridiculed by the Left and by the press.

Reagan said: "The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rats and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll become more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all--and more revenue for government."

I am no JFK fan, but by golly he was right about taxes, as was Ronald Reagan, and as are the Republicans today. Its too bad that our current Idiot-In-Chief and his braindead followers do not understand these things.

​

Prepare yourself. Like the impact of kicking a killer bee hive, the Liberal/Progressive Keynesians will soon be swarming.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Prepare yourself. Like the impact of kicking a killer bee hive, the Liberal/Progressive Keynesians will soon be swarming.

I believe you. It will be fun to see their heads explode when they are forced to attack their Camelot God, JFK.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Wow.

What a revelation.

No one has ever taken the time to post this before.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Wow.

What a revelation.

No one has ever taken the time to post this before.

The truth often bares repeating, since it is often lost in the sea of leftist drivel.

 

[Kobie]

Wow.

What a revelation.

No one has ever taken the time to post this before.

He also just posted a thread, complete with American Thinker citations, that proves once and for all that Bush was completely blameless for the 2008 economic crash. Glad we settled all that.

 

[Kobie]

The truth often bares repeating, since it is often lost in the sea of leftist drivel.

Fuuuuudge, ANOTHER one?

 

[Helix]

when JFK cut income taxes, the top rate was 90 percent. when Reagan cut taxes, the top rate was 70 percent. the top marginal rate today is historically low. the Laffer curve is just that; a curve. it's not a straight line in which we achieve maximal revenue by cutting income taxes to zero percent. additionally, the Bush tax cuts completely failed to deliver the trickle down prosperity which was promised.

i'm fine with cutting the corporate rate to make it competitive with Europe if it is actually collected from all corporations, not just the ones which are too small to dodge it. as for the individual rate, i would set it at 1990s levels and tax all income as income above a cap, which could be negotiated.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Dang Republicans! Tea Party extremists! We have to raise taxes, right? The government needs the revenue, right?

Woops. Wait a second

The first quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 message to Congress on tax reduction and reform. The second quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 radio and television address to the nation on his tax reduction bill.

Kennedy knew and understood the paradox, that raising revenues happens by actually cutting tax rates. President John F. Kennedy said in 1962, "The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Yet, when Ronald Reagan said the same thing around 20 years later he was ridiculed by the Left and by the press.

Reagan said: "The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rats and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll become more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all--and more revenue for government."

I am no JFK fan, but by golly he was right about taxes, as was Ronald Reagan, and as are the Republicans today. Its too bad that our current Idiot-In-Chief and his braindead followers do not understand these things.

The context of when all of this was said means something here.

Yes, Kennedy said both of those statements and they had merit at the time. The top marginal tax rate at the time was 91%, and his tax cuts dropped them to roughly 70%. The lower tax rate dropped from 20% to 14%. He also reduced the corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%. The whole idea of the tax cuts was a stimulus right in line with something Keynes would have said. Which raised personal incomes, did increase GDP, and also investment capital was increased (stock market went up.) Also, because of the GDP growth it can be attributed to Kennedy's tax cuts that tax revenue did increase in both 1964 and 1965. However while the deficit did shrink from 1964 to 1965, it then quickly shot back up and stayed there throughout the Vietnam War. Mainly off Johnson's escalation of the War and well into Nixon's time of racking up debt. No matter the reason spending stayed well above tax revenues.

Here is your problem. It is very difficult for the new tax revenue from a tax cut to be enough to eclipse spending if there are not matching reductions in that spending. This is a lesson that Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and to a degree Obama all did not bother to learn. So, while it is factually significant to suggest the right tax cuts at the right time to stimulate growth and achieve down the road higher tax revenues, that does not mean you do so all the time and it does mean watching spending in the process. There are only so many times that you can try the same thing. It then explains well why Reagan increased Total Debt 189% (per capita,) Bush 41 followed up with another 55% in just 4 years, Bush 43 added another 86%, and Obama will end up somewhere in the high 90% range. Granted their associated Congresses have culpability in those increases but we still face a fundamental flaw. No one really reduced government, including Republicans all along the way.

The even bigger problem that you have is Kennedy's tax cuts were not an example of "supply side economics." Yes, Kennedy's tax cuts was to encourage investment and output expansion but his tax cuts did not primarily benefit the wealthy. Kennedy's tax cuts was designed to effect more of the populace, where as Reagan was more inclined to look to wealth and corporate taxation as the means to stimulate. While Bush 43 did apply tax cuts for more people, he then went to two wars one of which ended up being the longest US war in history surpassing Vietnam by a long way. Again, tax cuts but not considering spending needs. So, more Total Debt.

The bottom line is trickle down economics was a Republican idea, not an idea of Kennedy's. Kennedy's tax cuts are not an example of the tax cuts that Republicans generally prefer. And when it comes to "starving the beast"... well, no one has actually done that yet but we do have quite a bit of Total Debt to show for how often it is tried.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

He also just posted a thread, complete with American Thinker citations, that proves once and for all that Bush was completely blameless for the 2008 economic crash. Glad we settled all that.

Nowhere in the article or my post did I say he was "completely blameless". The point of the article and thread is that it is a lie to say it's Bush's fault, as in ALL Bush's fault, which is the mantra of the low-information Left, and the on-going propaganda lie of the media.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

More from JFK:


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

 

[TerryOfromCA]

The context of when all of this was said means something here.. . . . .

Yes, I know. . . . . taxes were super high in '62 and all that.

But the "principle" of what he said is true regardless, which is the paradoxical truth of tax rates is that the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates.

That is true no matter what.

The REAL question though is: What is the optimum personal tax rate for growth, and what is the optimum corporate tax rate for growth. Nobody ever asks that essential question. Taxes are used as punishments on industries that the Left does not like, they are used as palm-greasing by all politicians, but they are never optimized for economic growth. Ronald Reagan gave it the best try this century. Obama does not give a crap about the optimum rate.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Yes, I know. . . . . taxes were super high in '62 and all that.

But the "principle" of what he said is true regardless, which is the paradoxical truth of tax rates is that the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates.

That is true no matter what.

The REAL question though is: What is the optimum personal tax rate for growth, and what is the optimum corporate tax rate for growth. Nobody ever asks that essential question. Taxes are used as punishments on industries that the Left does not like, they are used as palm-greasing by all politicians, but they are never optimized for economic growth. Ronald Reagan gave it the best try this century. Obama does not give a crap about the optimum rate.

You ignored the rest of my statement, which is showing your blind partisanship.

What is true is that no matter what the tax rate, if tax revenues stay below spending all you get is Debt. For the statement above to be totally factual and fiscally responsible is to add the qualifier on spending. Until then all you have done is make the same mistake plenty of Presidents have made.

There is a real difference between economic stimulus for the sake of the economy and the fiscal position of the nation vs. just the sake of the economy. What is then optimum comes down to what is necessary for a functioning government. Now you and I may lean government conservative in that regard, but that does not mean "starve the beast" works when no one bothers to look at what that beast is spending. Total Debt can only go up so far, and now that we are well above 100% of GDP we need to consider the best options going forward.

And another round of "trickle down economics" would be fiscally disastrous.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

You ignored the rest of my statement, which is showing your blind partisanship.

What is true is that no matter what the tax rate, if tax revenues stay below spending all you get is Debt. For the statement above to be totally factual and fiscally responsible is to add the qualifier on spending. Until then all you have done is make the same mistake plenty of Presidents have made.

There is a real difference between economic stimulus for the sake of the economy and the fiscal position of the nation vs. just the sake of the economy. What is then optimum comes down to what is necessary for a functioning government. Now you and I may lean government conservative in that regard, but that does not mean "starve the beast" works when no one bothers to look at what that beast is spending. Total Debt can only go up so far, and now that we are well above 100% of GDP we need to consider the best options going forward.

And another round of "trickle down economics" would be fiscally disastrous.

If I were partisan I would not be applauding Kennedy.

As for spending: Yes, I know spending must also be lowered. We spend too much. But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that cutting rates increases revenues. What you are addressing is deficit and debt, and how to marry tax rates and spending to address them. Thats a good topic for discussion, but that's not what I was discussing.

Don't get bent out of shape if I only address a piece of your post that has to do with what I am talking about.

 

[OrphanSlug]

If I were partisan I would not be applauding Kennedy.

As for spending: Yes, I know spending must also be lowered. We spend too much. But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that cutting rates increases revenues. What you are addressing is deficit and debt, and how to marry tax rates and spending to address them. Thats a good topic for discussion, but that's not what I was discussing.

Don't get bent out of shape if I only address a piece of your post that has to do with what I am talking about.

No, you are trying to make a point using Kennedy, suggesting he did something along the lines Reagan did. The real truth of the matter is Kennedy's tax cuts have little comparison to Reagan's "trickle down" tax cuts. What the rates were at the time, intention of the cuts, who got the cuts, and total scope of economic package.

You trying to limit the discussion to taxation decreases as a means to encourage growth is then dubious.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Still more from JFK:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

 

[Declan]

The truth often bares repeating, since it is often lost in the sea of leftist drivel.

Sure, like the truth that the taxes rates under the prior Presidents were much higher and neither had two new wars to pay for in addition to the old ones that never have been paid for either.

 

[humbolt]

Sure, like the truth that the taxes rates under the prior Presidents were much higher and neither had two new wars to pay for in addition to the old ones that never have been paid for either.

Don't get all worked up about it. According to the government, we only recently paid off the Spanish American War, or so the taxes would have us believe.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Sure, like the truth that the taxes rates under the prior Presidents were much higher and neither had two new wars to pay for in addition to the old ones that never have been paid for either.

How typical of a liberal, bringing in totally unrelated subjects because he cannot argue the subject at hand.

This is not about wars, debts, or deficits, its about the simple fact that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That is the topic.

Now, can you address that? Or do you want to rant as most liberals are wont to do?

 

[KevinKohler]

when JFK cut income taxes, the top rate was 90 percent. when Reagan cut taxes, the top rate was 70 percent. the top marginal rate today is historically low. the Laffer curve is just that; a curve. it's not a straight line in which we achieve maximal revenue by cutting income taxes to zero percent. additionally, the Bush tax cuts completely failed to deliver the trickle down prosperity which was promised.

i'm fine with cutting the corporate rate to make it competitive with Europe if it is actually collected from all corporations, not just the ones which are too small to dodge it. as for the individual rate, i would set it at 1990s levels and tax all income as income above a cap, which could be negotiated.

Crazy talk.

 

[KevinKohler]

More from JFK:


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

Lower tax rates on WHO?



Answer that question, and maybe, just MAYBE...you'll start to get the picture.

 

[KevinKohler]

If I were partisan I would not be applauding Kennedy.

As for spending: Yes, I know spending must also be lowered. We spend too much. But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that cutting rates increases revenues. What you are addressing is deficit and debt, and how to marry tax rates and spending to address them. Thats a good topic for discussion, but that's not what I was discussing.

Don't get bent out of shape if I only address a piece of your post that has to do with what I am talking about.

You're editing his post because a large portion of it doesn't fit your narrative.

In short, you're going to fit in just fine with most of the "conservatives" here.

 

[KevinKohler]

Still more from JFK:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

That would be because, unlike Reagan, JFK cut taxes for the middle, upper middle, and lower income americans, as well as, but more so, than corporate taxes. Which, of course, is not trickle DOWN economics....it's more like trickle UP.

As has been pointed out to you.

 

[KevinKohler]

How typical of a liberal, bringing in totally unrelated subjects because he cannot argue the subject at hand.

This is not about wars, debts, or deficits, its about the simple fact that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That is the topic.

Now, can you address that? Or do you want to rant as most liberals are wont to do?

You're accusing him of doing exactly you are doing. You get out of life what put in to it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every tax payer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."


Dang Republicans! Tea Party extremists! We have to raise taxes, right? The government needs the revenue, right?

Woops. Wait a second


The first quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 message to Congress on tax reduction and reform. The second quote is President John F. Kennedy in a 1963 radio and television address to the nation on his tax reduction bill.

Kennedy knew and understood the paradox, that raising revenues happens by actually cutting tax rates. President John F. Kennedy said in 1962, "The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Yet, when Ronald Reagan said the same thing around 20 years later he was ridiculed by the Left and by the press.

Reagan said: "The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rats and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll become more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all--and more revenue for government."

I am no JFK fan, but by golly he was right about taxes, as was Ronald Reagan, and as are the Republicans today. Its too bad that our current Idiot-In-Chief and his braindead followers do not understand these things.

​

The idea that any tax policy alone would result in a balanced federal budget is ridiculous. If the federal government spends 24% of GDP then it must tax at 24% of GDP in order to balance that budget. The problem, as I see it, is that every dollar spent does not have the same affect on the GDP. Investing (the favorite term for government spending?) in keeping a moron able to live somewhat above their actual income potential (usually requiring that moron to reproduce first) is not the same as building/maintaining a road or even teaching that moron a valuable skill so that they may actually support themselves (and their dependents).