- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 65,196
- Reaction score
- 35,399
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Re: Record Tax Revenues For FY14
Tax rate cuts result in a drop in revenues.
I'm missing your point. The 'conservative position' is wrong. When tax rates are cut, revenues drop. Put more accurately, revenues following a tax rate cut are lower than they would be if tax rates were unchanged. There is no free lunch, there is no Tax Santa Clause, there is no Tax Fairy, and if legislators want to lower tax rates, they need to offset the revenue losses with painful spending cuts, or tax rate increases elsewhere.
Clinton RAISED individual income tax rates, and income tax receipts increased, to record levels, both in real terms and as a percent of GDP. If the conservative position was self evidently true, then following the Clinton tax rate increases, the economy should have tanked, and tax receipts dropped below pre-tax increase levels. That didn't happen.
Bush cut individual income tax rates. Individual income tax collections dropped and stayed below pre-tax cut levels for several years. Nominal collections didn't reach pre-cut levels until the height of the real estate and debt bubble.
The only thing conservatives get right, which no one disputes, is tax cuts generally have a small stimulative effect and increase economic activity. But all that means is a nominal tax cut of $1 might only cost 70-85 cents, after accounting for increased economic growth. But, if the tax cuts aren't paid for with spending cuts, that $1 tax cut might cost $1.10 in the long term.
So it was the effects of the tax cuts on the economy that increased revenue ?
Tax rate cuts result in a drop in revenues.
How is that counter to the Conservative position that Tax cuts increase revenues ?
I'm missing your point. The 'conservative position' is wrong. When tax rates are cut, revenues drop. Put more accurately, revenues following a tax rate cut are lower than they would be if tax rates were unchanged. There is no free lunch, there is no Tax Santa Clause, there is no Tax Fairy, and if legislators want to lower tax rates, they need to offset the revenue losses with painful spending cuts, or tax rate increases elsewhere.
Do we ACTUALLY have to explain the exact mechanism EVERY time we state this axiomatic truth ?
Because I thought it was understood .
Clinton RAISED individual income tax rates, and income tax receipts increased, to record levels, both in real terms and as a percent of GDP. If the conservative position was self evidently true, then following the Clinton tax rate increases, the economy should have tanked, and tax receipts dropped below pre-tax increase levels. That didn't happen.
Bush cut individual income tax rates. Individual income tax collections dropped and stayed below pre-tax cut levels for several years. Nominal collections didn't reach pre-cut levels until the height of the real estate and debt bubble.
The only thing conservatives get right, which no one disputes, is tax cuts generally have a small stimulative effect and increase economic activity. But all that means is a nominal tax cut of $1 might only cost 70-85 cents, after accounting for increased economic growth. But, if the tax cuts aren't paid for with spending cuts, that $1 tax cut might cost $1.10 in the long term.