Better tell that to the Treasury Dept. which doesn't show that. What you ignore is human behavior and the fact that people keeping more of their money makes it easier for economic growth and that creates demand for jobs.
If Bush had kept revenue and spending levels where Clinton had them, we could paid off the National debt by now.
Of course the Treasury data shows that.
Maybe this will help clear it up for you: Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Right now we have a net job loss and that is after adding 4.4 trillion to the debt. Yours seems to be a ringing endorsement of tax cuts for taxpayers.
You do realize these job losses came with tax cuts in place? So, no, it isn't a ringing endorsement for tax cuts.
But that is besides the point. Taxes really play a very small small role in the economy and mean next to nothing concerning jobs. If there is a need, business will meet it. If there are people to spendon something, someone will sell it.
So explain to me how govt. revenue grew after the Reagan tax cuts and how 17 million jobs were created and what affect those new hires had on govt. revenue?
Yes, I do realize that job losses occurred because costs continue to rise and incentive to grow your business has been reduced. If you got a pay raise every 6-8 years you wouldn't be spending mucn money either. You really are naive when it comes to understanding human behavior and the affect keeping more of what you earn. To say that doesn't have any affect on the economy is naive.
As I stated, you need to tell that to the U.S. Treasury Dept. Do you believe the economy would have created 17 million jobs without the tax cuts? What do you do when you get to keep more of your own money and do you need as much of that govt. "help" when you do?
Do you need a history lesson? You are not really suggesting nothing was going on other than tax cuts? We'ren't we at the begining of the housing market growth? A lot was going on with internet sales? right? Much was changing and people were taking advantage of it, as they tend to do. If there is money to spend, someone will find something to sell them.
As I explained, the Treasury data supports the view that tax cuts reduce revenue. No one who understands economics disputes that, including the advisors to Reagan and Bush.
I thought tax cuts were incentive to grow? Now you're saying they aren't?
But, you see, something other than taxes effected growth. Something other than anything government does if you want to be technincal. We cycle all the time. Always have. If you think government is the naswer, you're likely wrong. :2funny:
Same answer, there is nothing to prevent you from sending in more of your money to the govt. Stop being a hypocrite and do it.
not the results I see, but then again you choose what you want to see and believe. Absolutely amazing how much passion you have for the govt. getting more of your money. Do us all a favor, send more of it to the govt. and get your friends to do it rather than spread your misery equally to everyone else.
You do realize, you have no idea what I send or don't send.
But, let's not distract. Try to address the issue we're discussing if you can.
Sorry, but you can't change the data because you want to see something different.
"As can be seen in the second table and graph, real individual income tax receipts declined 25.06% from 2001 to 2009. Even total receipts declined -13.93% over that period. Finally, real GDP grew just 13.36% from 2001 to 2009. This was the lowest real GDP growth over any 8-year span since 13.33% from 1966 to 1976."
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
You cannot explain either why Federal Income tax revenue grew after the tax cuts and what affect those cuts had on economic growth. What you fail to recognize is that 2001 was a recession and 2008 was a recession and that cost the economy taxpayers and tax revenue. You have a real passion for higher taxes so what are you doing to help the govt. get more revenue? Sending in more to the govt than required?
You cannot explain either why Federal Income tax revenue grew after the tax cuts...
Why do you keep repeating the lie that revenue grew after the tax cuts, when the data clearly shows that revenue FELL after the tax cuts and did not recover to pre-tax-cut levels for five years?
how many years after Bush's tax-cuts did it take for revenue to finally grow again?
FACT: Clinton increased revenue by 75% over his 8 years. Bush increased revenue by 28% over his 8 years.
how many years after Bush's tax-cuts did it take for revenue to finally grow again?
FACT: Clinton increased revenue by 75% over his 8 years. Bush increased revenue by 28% over his 8 years.
The issue is tax revenue and who needs it more, the Federal Govt. or the taxpayers. In addition the issue is what people do with their money and what affect that has on the economy. Still waiting for you to explain why Govt. revenue grew after the Reagan tax cuts and how 17 million jobs were created.
Who needs it? Well, we do things with that tax money. Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care. Needs? Seems like the wrong word and the wrong frame you're trying to set up.
We have a deficit, and we still have wars to fight and bills to pay. So, like any family, we ahve to come together and seeks spending to cut and revenue to increase. This is rather basic.
Jobs or employment is a bit of a different issue, but the evidence is rather clear, tax cuts don't create jobs.
As for the 80's, did you look at the increase in military spending? Now that's a third reason you can add to the other two I gave you. Have you considered looking up the history of the 80's?
Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes.
Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy
If you follow budget debates carefully, you will sometimes hear the same politician, in effect, making opposing arguments. When arguing in favor of tax (rate) cuts, a politician may make the supply-side claim that government revenues will increase as a result. When arguing against new or expanded government programs, however, they may argue that the new spending will require tax (rate) increases.
If they really believe the supply-side story, they should be arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts, in order to increase tax revenues.
EconoFAQs: Do Lower Tax Rates Really Increase Government Revenue? | Dollars & Sense
Like all liberals you are being dishonest in your discussion of taxes. You don't seem to know what each tax funds so like all liberals you lump it into one pot and that is simply false. FIT doesn't fund roads, schools, police and fire like many liberals want to claim. FIT doesn't fund SS and Medicare so until you at least try to be honest in the discussion of taxes there is no room for debate here.
So being fiscally irresponsible is only excusable if your predecessor made the same error?
Actually, they are polling 4 times more favorable than Congress. Which of the proposed 8 demands for Congress by the one OWS working group do you disagree with?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?