Record Tax Revenues For FY14 [W:346]

[MTAtech]

On the contrary - revenue from capital gains shot upwards after Clinton cut capital gains tax rates.

You are applying a static analysis assumption, which is deeply flawed.



Actually revenue tracks growth more than it tracks nominal rates.

As anyone can see from the below graph, real GDP growth was already on the upswing by the time capital gains was cut in the 1990s. Throughout this whole period of time, there is no relationship at all between capital gains rates and economic growth -- which drives higher government revenues. From 1950 through the late 1960s, capital gains was a straight 25% and economic activity moved up and down without any regard to the rates.

 

[cpwill]

But tax revenues increased from day one of the Clinton tax rate increases.

Sure, and tax revenues increased after the Kennedy and Reagan tax rate cuts. But revenue growth remained somewhat anemic under Clinton until he cut capital gains - at which point it became very profitable to invest in America, and so many people did so.

And, again, you're attributing the tech boom to reductions in capital gains rates - bogus. Maybe it contributed to the bubble.....???

You cannot suggest that increased investment as a result of reduced capital gains taxation contributed to the bubble without contributing to the tech boom that it was built on.

Also, too, when there's a nearly 20% difference in rates between ordinary income and capital gains, smart people spend massive amounts of time and energy converting what was ordinary income into capital gains, especially for the top slivers. So it's at least partly an exercise of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Well - did Income Tax revenues fall comparative to Capital Gains Tax revenues increases? That would demonstrate the plausibility of your claim.

The math is pretty simple - revenue = base X rate.

Yup. It is also false, as demonstrated by wild swings in Rate that are not matched by corresponding swings in Base or Revenue. (assuming by Base you mean GDP?)

 

[cpwill]

As anyone can see from the below graph, real GDP growth was already on the upswing by the time capital gains was cut in the 1990s. Throughout this whole period of time, there is no relationship at all between capital gains rates and economic growth -- which drives higher government revenues.

:lol: i think it's funny you cite a graph that says rather the opposite of what you claim.

 

[MTAtech]

:lol: i think it's funny you cite a graph that says rather the opposite of what you claim.

a correlation of 0.12 is essentially no correlation at all.

The original work was done by Leonard E. Burman and this is what he said:

The heated rhetoric notwithstanding, there is no obvious relationship between tax rates on capital gains and economic growth. Figure 4 shows top tax rates on long - term capital gains and real economic growth (measured as the percentage change in real GDP) from 1950 to 2011. If low capital gains tax rates catalyzed economic growth, we’d expect to see a negative relationship – high gains rates, low growth, and vice versa–but there is no apparent relationship between the two time series.


The correlation is 0.12, the opposite sign from what capital gains tax cut advocates would expect, and not statistically different from zero. Although not shown, I’ve tried lags up to five years and using moving averages, but there is never a larger or statistically significant relationship.

 

[JasperL]

Tax cuts were designed to spur economic growth, and they succeeded. The deal on spending was that Reagan would get to repair the damage done the military in the 1970s if he didn't touch Democrats domestic lucre. Later he made a bargain with Congressional Democrats that he would raise taxes if they would cut spending, he went ahead and raised taxes, and they laughed and then refused to come forward with spending cuts.

Reagan's own budget proposals didn't cut spending - over the 8 years Reagan requested higher spending than Congress enacted. Congress enacted budgets FAR lower than Bush Sr's requested levels. I used to believe that until facts kept getting in the way of the propaganda....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18/pdf/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18-1-12-4.pdf

Well we've been fooled twice by that trick, which is why when Democrats now shout about how they want a "balanced approach", well, they've already burned that bridge.

Not fooled even once, according to the record. And during the Clinton years, for some reason we got a balanced approach.... Huh. Weird...

Bottom line is GOPers love to cut taxes and ramp up spending. That's the unbroken record beginning with Reagan.

Nope. Then it was the fault of the GOP that we kept large spending going, and expanded it. It is additionally the fault of the GOP that they didn't back Bush when he tried to save Social Security.

"Save social security" = Wall Street bankster bonus maximization act. SS can be 'saved' over the weekend with the slightest bit of cooperation and political will.

Those two things are correlated by their both stemming from growth.

Correlated with growth and increases in the rates. Revenue = rate X base.

You are conflating rates with revenues.

Well, sure, big cuts in rates resulted in big cuts in revenues. Math....

 

[JasperL]

Sure, and tax revenues increased after the Kennedy and Reagan tax rate cuts. But revenue growth remained somewhat anemic under Clinton until he cut capital gains - at which point it became very profitable to invest in America, and so many people did so.

The so-called "anemic" revenue growth under Clinton was by comparison to Reagan fantastic, through the roof, etc. because it took years for revenues in the Reagan years to reach pre-tax cut levels.

You cannot suggest that increased investment as a result of reduced capital gains taxation contributed to the bubble without contributing to the tech boom that it was built on.

That as a side issue. The main point was the tech boom was real, and would have happened with or without the reductions in the capital gains rates.

Well - did Income Tax revenues fall comparative to Capital Gains Tax revenues increases? That would demonstrate the plausibility of your claim.

It's hard to tease out shifts from ordinary to capital gains, versus market effects, but capital gains as a share of GDP went from 3.3 to 6.5 between 1997-2000.. There isn't any doubt about the tax shifting, though. It generated a number of accounting scandals back in the day that IRS is still dealing with like Whack a mole.

Yup. It is also false, as demonstrated by wild swings in Rate that are not matched by corresponding swings in Base or Revenue. (assuming by Base you mean GDP?)

It can't be 'false' it's math. And as I explained, the major rate reductions (except the Bush II tax cuts which weren't 'reforms' at all) all had significant increases in the base (loophole closures), and weren't predicted to have major effects on revenue. And for the Bush II tax cuts, see the collapse in revenues? Rate X Base.....

 

[JasperL]

a correlation of 0.12 is essentially no correlation at all.

The original work was done by Leonard E. Burman and this is what he said:

There you go, presenting rigorous analysis instead of cherry picked data. It's really not fair in this kind of discussion.....

FWIW, I've met Len Burman a number of times. He's not a partisan, just a good economist who likes to make evidence based observations.

 

[cpwill]

The so-called "anemic" revenue growth under Clinton was by comparison to Reagan fantastic, through the roof, etc. because it took years for revenues in the Reagan years to reach pre-tax cut levels.

That is an incorrect depiction - revenues for both Presidents tracked growth. Reagan faced a deep recession in '82. Clinton did not face one in '94. As growth took off for both presidents, revenue followed.

That as a side issue. The main point was the tech boom was real, and would have happened with or without the reductions in the capital gains rates.

:shrug: quite possibly. We would have won WWII without the A-Bomb, also, which isn't to say it didn't cause us to win it sooner.

It's hard to tease out shifts from ordinary to capital gains, versus market effects, but capital gains as a share of GDP went from 3.3 to 6.5 between 1997-2000.

If your theory is correct, that instead of increased revenues we simply saw revenue-shifting is correct, then we should see a corresponding loss in income tax revenue. That, however, is the opposite of what we actually see.

It can't be 'false' it's math.

Sure it can. Look, I can do it to: GDP = GNI + (E-I). That is a formula that is false because its' assumptions are false, so attempting to calculate GDP by adding Gross National Income to the difference between Exports and Imports will get you a false result. We test your formula back through history and observe that in fact reality does not act at all like it suggests, and thus conclude that it is false.

And as I explained, the major rate reductions (except the Bush II tax cuts which weren't 'reforms' at all) all had significant increases in the base (loophole closures), and weren't predicted to have major effects on revenue. And for the Bush II tax cuts, see the collapse in revenues? Rate X Base.....

Yeah.... then under the exact same rates revenue as a % of GDP climbs back up. Gosh, it's almost as if going through an economic downturn can cause revenues to collapse independent of rates. In fact, under the exact same rates, revenue as a % of GDP is pretty variable..... If, as you are claiming, revenues = Rates x Base, then that would be impossible.

Huh, that's odd. Well, is there another factor that more directly corresponds to revenue? Oh hey - look at that! Growth.

 

[JasperL]

That is an incorrect depiction - revenues for both Presidents tracked growth. Reagan faced a deep recession in '82. Clinton did not face one in '94. As growth took off for both presidents, revenue followed.

Do the math, I did. Here's the comparison (Reagan 81-89, Clinton 93-2001):

___________________Reagan Clinton
Real GDP ___________+32% +33%
Real Tax Revenues ___+20% +47%

Similar net increases in GDP, but tax revenues under Clinton rose more than twice as much. Tax revenues lagged GDP growth under Reagan by 13 points, exceeded GDP growth under Clinton by 14 points. Reagan lowered rates, Clinton raised them. Amazing how that works out.

:shrug: quite possibly. We would have won WWII without the A-Bomb, also, which isn't to say it didn't cause us to win it sooner.

We've got lots of data to evaluate the effect of tax rates on growth, unlike a once in a lifetime event like the A Bomb. And there just is no empirical evidence tax rates DRIVE the economy. They affect growth, but are way down the list of most significant factors.

If your theory is correct, that instead of increased revenues we simply saw revenue-shifting is correct, then we should see a corresponding loss in income tax revenue. That, however, is the opposite of what we actually see.

I don't have the inclination to do the work on that. I'm sure dividend yield decreased, and there is tons of anecdotal evidence of the wealthy spending vast amounts of energy, including through pay packages, shifting income to a form taxed at half the rate as ordinary income. So the effect is real, but it would take a regression analysis to get to a decent estimate.

Sure it can. Look, I can do it to: GDP = GNI + (E-I). That is a formula that is false because its' assumptions are false, so attempting to calculate GDP by adding Gross National Income to the difference between Exports and Imports will get you a false result. We test your formula back through history and observe that in fact reality does not act at all like it suggests, and thus conclude that it is false.

What's false about the simple tax revenue formula. It's basic math. Where is the error.

And you're trying, I think, to look at one number, the top stated marginal rate, and then expect to see a pro rata change in revenues based on reductions to that top rate, even though, for example, the number of taxpayers paying 92% before the LBJ tax cuts was miniscule. So the formula properly analyzed wouldn't predict a steep drop in revenues, and doesn't. And that's ignoring the base broadening included in the LBJ tax bill, and the TRA 86, which were predicted to offset some (or more than all in the case of TRA 86) of the effect of the rate reductions.

Cleaner rate changes were with Clinton's tax increases and Bush II tax cuts, and those had the predicted effects - you can see them right on the graph a few pages back. Immediate changes, as math would predict.

Yeah.... then under the exact same rates revenue as a % of GDP climbs back up. Gosh, it's almost as if going through an economic downturn can cause revenues to collapse independent of rates. In fact, under the exact same rates, revenue as a % of GDP is pretty variable..... If, as you are claiming, revenues = Rates x Base, then that would be impossible.

Huh, that's odd. Well, is there another factor that more directly corresponds to revenue? Oh hey - look at that! Growth.

It climbed back up a BIT for Reagan, but even after 6 years of tax increases, never reached the pre-ERTA 81 peak. Clinton raised rates and reached record highs. Bush lowered rates and again the peak was far lower than the previous peak, even at the peak of the biggest bubble since the Great Depression.

It's so bizarre having to debate about math. Higher tax rates generate more tax revenue. Lower rates generate less. This is just obvious stuff, but GOPers want to argue with math and history. Hard to believe the party of fiscal responsibility relies on a Tax Santa Clause as a key element of their fiscal philosophy.

 

[Karl]

Tax cuts were designed to spur economic growth, and they succeeded.

Only in the right wing alternate reality.

The deal on spending was that Reagan would get to repair the damage done the military in the 1970s if he didn't touch Democrats domestic lucre. Later he made a bargain with Congressional Democrats that he would raise taxes if they would cut spending, he went ahead and raised taxes, and they laughed and then refused to come forward with spending cuts. [...]

This one is really a hoot :lamo

 

[Karl]

[...] It's so bizarre having to debate about math. Higher tax rates generate more tax revenue. Lower rates generate less. This is just obvious stuff, but GOPers want to argue with math and history. Hard to believe the party of fiscal responsibility relies on a Tax Santa Clause as a key element of their fiscal philosophy.

:thumbs:​

 

[Fenton]

:thumbs:​

Yes, raising taxes in a vacuum increases revenues.

That one dimensional reasoning deserves a "thumbs up " !!

 

[JasperL]

Yes, raising taxes in a vacuum increases revenues.

That one dimensional reasoning deserves a "thumbs up " !!

So you believe in the Tax Santa Clause. The propaganda merchants will be pleased their efforts have paid off.

BTW, no one (certainly not me) has actually asserted that raising (or lowering) tax rates has no effect on the economy, and so no one assumes a vacuum. We just don't believe in magic, free lunches, or that the cowardly, pain free decision to believe such things is actually responsible, fiscally or otherwise.

 

[cpwill]

Only in the right wing alternate reality.

:shrug: If you wish to label it so. I admit, I have never ceased to be surprised at liberals who are honest enough to the truth of their theory over reality that they insist that the 1980s were a time of economic despair, whereas the 1930s were a time of Grand Recovery.

This one is really a hoot :lamo

Yup. They got us. hoo hoo hee hee haw haw. Except like Crying Wolf, eventually you lose the ability to ever make deals because you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted to follow through on them. That's the problem we have now.

 

[JasperL]

:shrug: If you wish to label it so. I admit, I have never ceased to be surprised at liberals who are honest enough to the truth of their theory over reality that they insist that the 1980s were a time of economic despair, whereas the 1930s were a time of Grand Recovery.

The 1980s were a good decade economically. That doesn't translate necessarily into tax cuts caused that prosperity, as opposed to lower interest rates, stable currency, relative peace, etc.

Yup. They got us. hoo hoo hee hee haw haw. Except like Crying Wolf, eventually you lose the ability to ever make deals because you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted to follow through on them. That's the problem we have now.

Reagan's people never proposed any spending cuts - Congress passed the spending levels Reagan requested. You're reading the history of Reagan written by Reagan - what's he going to say? "I never cared about spending cuts. All I wanted was my tax cuts then I'd blame spending on the D's!"

 

[cpwill]

The 1980s were a good decade economically. That doesn't translate necessarily into tax cuts caused that prosperity, as opposed to lower interest rates, stable currency, relative peace, etc.

:lol: The left spent the 80s screaming about how Reagan was going to get us all killed by ramping up tensions, threatening the Soviets, and pursuing an aggressive foreign policy abroad and now they cling to the idea that it wasn't superior policies that produced superior wealth, but all the "relative peace".... :roll:

Reagan's people never proposed any spending cuts - Congress passed the spending levels Reagan requested.

Democrats agreed that if Reagan increased revenue, they'd cut spending. He came through on his end and they didn't on theirs. They did a similar stunt with Bush Sr, when they tricked him into breaking his Read My Lips campaign promise.

 

[JasperL]

Again. Reagan never proposed any spending cuts. He got the spending he asked for.

 

[Fenton]

So you believe in the Tax Santa Clause. The propaganda merchants will be pleased their efforts have paid off.

BTW, no one (certainly not me) has actually asserted that raising (or lowering) tax rates has no effect on the economy, and so no one assumes a vacuum. We just don't believe in magic, free lunches, or that the cowardly, pain free decision to believe such things is actually responsible, fiscally or otherwise.

No, I KNOW that raising taxes in a free market economy to " increase revenues " is economically counter productive.

I KNOW, that there are consequences to these dumb ass policy decisions that are based on nothing more than manufactured narratives like " income inequality " or having the " rich pay their fair share. ".

If you were a REAL Conservative you would understand these things.

 

[JasperL]

No, I KNOW that raising taxes in a free market economy to " increase revenues " is economically counter productive.

I KNOW, that there are consequences to these dumb ass policy decisions that are based on nothing more than manufactured narratives like " income inequality " or having the " rich pay their fair share. ".

If you were a REAL Conservative you would understand these things.

No need to talk to me - talk to your fellow "conservatives" who believe tax cuts come with no downside. Want to spend MORE? Cut tax rates. Boost the economy? Cut tax rates. The answer is always more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations! Tell me the question!

And, sure, there are consequences to spending money and not spending money. It's a difficult trade off in the real world, requiring tough decisions. The problem with the Laffer Curve nonsense is a big number of your fellow GOP voters think spending more (such as on war) doesn't require tax increases, and that tax cuts don't require tough decisions to spend LESS.

 

[Fenton]

No need to talk to me - talk to your fellow "conservatives" who believe tax cuts come with no downside. Want to spend MORE? Cut tax rates. Boost the economy? Cut tax rates. The answer is always more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations! Tell me the question!

And, sure, there are consequences to spending money and not spending money. It's a difficult trade off in the real world, requiring tough decisions. The problem with the Laffer Curve nonsense is a big number of your fellow GOP voters think spending more (such as on war) doesn't require tax increases, and that tax cuts don't require tough decisions to spend LESS.

Wow....

Texas is no # 44 on the list of States with the Highest local and State tax burdens on its citizens.

California is #3 on that list.

Tax cuts have incentivized new investment on a exponential scale in Texas, and that's led to new jobs not just for out if work Texans, but for over 2 Million Californians that have picked up everything they own to find work in my great State.

And of-course, its not just Californians coming here.

All that economic activity has led to increased revenues and a ACTUAL budget surplus of 10 Billion dollars and growing.

Tax cuts and increases don't occur in a vacuum. There are extenuating circumstances to raising taxes based on divisive manufactured Political narratives.

Why you Libs can't grasp that is just beyond me.

 

[JasperL]

Wow....

Texas is no # 44 on the list of States with the Highest local and State tax burdens on its citizens.

California is #3 on that list.

Tax cuts have incentivized new investment on a exponential scale in Texas, and that's led to new jobs not just for out if work Texans, but for over 2 Million Californians that have picked up everything they own to find work in my great State.

And of-course, its not just Californians coming here.

All that economic activity has led to increased revenues and a ACTUAL budget surplus of 10 Billion dollars and growing.

Tax cuts and increases don't occur in a vacuum. There are extenuating circumstances to raising taxes based on divisive manufactured Political narratives.

Why you Libs can't grasp that is just beyond me.

I'm sure low taxes help the Texas economy. But low taxes aren't enough. Tennessee is lower taxed than Texas and has the 7th highest unemployment rate in the country.

And I get that taxes affect economic growth. It's not exactly an advanced concept. I also pay taxes - lots of them - so the lower the better. But we also have to run a country and pay the bills....

 

[jaeger19]

What difference could it possibly make to the calculated after tax return on your pot farm that you have $30k/year in muni income taxed at 0, LTCG of 85k at 20%, and that the first 400,000 of your salary and corn farm income is taxed at an effective rate of a bit more than 25%? All the income from the pot farm will be taxed at 39.6%. That's what rate I'll use to analyze this proposal to buy a pot farm in CO.

Becaues Jasper, I need to know if I have the disposable income after taxes so that I can BUY the pot farm. If I don't have the money to buy the pot farm.. then I don't buy the pot farm. It doesn't really matter the return on the pot farm... if I don't have the money to BUY the pot farm.. now does it.

Do you get it now Jasper? The decision whether to buy the pot farm isn't just on what the last dollar of income will be from the pot farm.. it will be on the money I will have after taxes.. to BUY the pot farm. And that depends on effective taxes Jasper. Not on what I will pay on the last dollar.

 

[JasperL]

Becaues Jasper, I need to know if I have the disposable income after taxes so that I can BUY the pot farm. If I don't have the money to buy the pot farm.. then I don't buy the pot farm. It doesn't really matter the return on the pot farm... if I don't have the money to BUY the pot farm.. now does it.

Do you get it now Jasper? The decision whether to buy the pot farm isn't just on what the last dollar of income will be from the pot farm.. it will be on the money I will have after taxes.. to BUY the pot farm. And that depends on effective taxes Jasper. Not on what I will pay on the last dollar.

You said this:

Finance 101 would tell you that the return on investment is your effective rate.. not the marginal rate Jasper.

That's wrong.

If the question is how much money will you have in year 5 to invest in a pot farm, given current income, consumption, savings, return on those savings, etc. then I'd use some total income figure, and reduce it by your total tax bills including property taxes, consumption/sales taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, and all the rest. This is basic budgeting and I know how to prepare budgets - done or reviewed a few hundred of them at least.

But if we are talking about using the Laffer Curve for purposes of the U.S. in the post WWII era, the tax rate we are interested in is not the average tax rate. It's never been above 20% and has been in a fairly narrow band in recent decades that, including payroll taxes, has varied from maybe 15% to 21% or so. And no one believes a tax cut on a secretary making $24k pays for itself - it shifts spending from government to that secretary, none is saved by her or government and it's got a small multiplier effect that might offset a few pennies per nominal dollar of tax cut.

The Laffer Curve 'free lunch' effect happens as very high top marginal rates come down, e.g. from the 92% pre-LBJ to 70%, or from 70-50-28% under Reagan - not the AVERAGE tax rates, but the tax rates on the margin for the Job Creator John Galt Producers.

I explained all that. You will ignore it this time too....

 

[jaeger19]

What part of that analysis is wrong, and where is it that I need to know your average tax rate?

I have to know what my disposable income will be.. which is based on my effective tax rate.. not on what percentage I pay on my last dollar of income.

If I don't have the money after taxes, to pay my for my kids education, the vacation house upgrades the wife wants (if mommy not happy no one happy), have money held back in the S corporations (which are a pass through to my income as you know) to pay for salaries if medicare decides to hold back payments for a couple of months to say wait and see if Congress will do a doc fix etc. If there isn't going to be enough income after taxes for those things AND for me to go out and make that investment.. then the investment doesn't get made.

As I explained, the Laffer Curve is a comment on activities on the margin, and so the relevant rate is the marginal rate.

Nope.

I'd love to "understand" but you haven't explained anything at all. You've made baseless claims that even if based in fact are so hopelessly vague that they cannot be evaluated against any possible evidence. Would be like a stock broker saying,

Broker: "Some of my stock recommendations have returned 137,000%!!! Trust me, my stock picking method works. It's based on this chart that has a magic area!"
Me: "Which ones? And how do I know from this chart which actual picks will return 100,000%"
Broker: "Some have some have not. It depends."
Me: "Fantastic, give me a list of the ones that did?"
Broker: "I've explained this ad nauseum, but I just don't think you want to understand... But the theory works. If a stock falls in this area of my magic chart, you'll make more than 100,000% on your money, promise."

Actually.. you make my point even though you don't understand. Lets take the stock broker. You have a whole bunch of stocks in your portolio. Your stock broker says.. "your portfolio lost money". Tell me.. would you decide based solely on that that ALL the stocks in your portfolio were losers and they should be sold? THATS what you are doing when it comes to tax cuts. You know that all the tax cuts did not increase revenue.., and therefore.. possibly erroneously you have decided that therefore,, NONE of the tax cuts were valuable. And that's not a very good decision. Now you are going to say.. well in the stock example.. I KNOW definitively that some stocks made money and some did not. Well, what if you did not? What if for whatever you had to operate without that definitive knowledge? Would you STILL decide to sell it all because you didn't have definitive knowledge? Or would you use the best available evidence to decide what stocks probably made money and which probably did not and should be sold?

In the real world.. we still have to make decisions on the best available information that makes sense...

 

[JasperL]

I have to know what my disposable income will be.. which is based on my effective tax rate.. not on what percentage I pay on my last dollar of income.

Like I said, you'll ignore my responses. There are two questions:

1) What is my return on this investment
2) How much in some period of time, given current income, consumption, savings, return on savings, average tax rates on income, payroll taxes, etc. will I have to invest.

Now I answered question 1. You then change the question to 2, then say my answer to question 1 isn't correct when applied to question 2.... See above. You ignored it as I said you would. You're getting very predictable.

If I don't have the money after taxes, to pay my for my kids education, the vacation house upgrades the wife wants (if mommy not happy no one happy), have money held back in the S corporations (which are a pass through to my income as you know) to pay for salaries if medicare decides to hold back payments for a couple of months to say wait and see if Congress will do a doc fix etc. If there isn't going to be enough income after taxes for those things AND for me to go out and make that investment.. then the investment doesn't get made.

Right, budgeting. See above.

Nope.

Well, that's easy. I give an answer, and explain it. You pretend that simply uttering a magic word is supposed to persuade anyone?

Actually.. you make my point even though you don't understand. Lets take the stock broker. You have a whole bunch of stocks in your portolio. Your stock broker says.. "your portfolio lost money". Tell me.. would you decide based solely on that that ALL the stocks in your portfolio were losers and they should be sold? THATS what you are doing when it comes to tax cuts. You know that all the tax cuts did not increase revenue.., and therefore.. possibly erroneously you have decided that therefore,, NONE of the tax cuts were valuable. And that's not a very good decision. Now you are going to say.. well in the stock example.. I KNOW definitively that some stocks made money and some did not. Well, what if you did not? What if for whatever you had to operate without that definitive knowledge? Would you STILL decide to sell it all because you didn't have definitive knowledge? Or would you use the best available evidence to decide what stocks probably made money and which probably did not and should be sold?

The point was if you think some of the tax cuts DID increase revenue, then be specific. Which ones? "Some did" is so vague that it cannot be weighed against any evidence, because you've not made a claim that can be tested or even defined.

And sure i would use the 'best available evidence' but how am I supposed to use evidence to evaluate "some tax cuts paid for themselves?" I guess I scour the IRS data for records of "some collections" and over some period of time, and then compare the data of some taxes on some people from some year to some other year and voila! Now I have evidence! :lamo

In the real world.. we still have to make decisions on the best available information that makes sense...

I agree! And the best available information that makes sense is there is no Tax Santa Clause! Tax rate cuts decrease collections, tax rate increases cause collections to rise! There is no free lunch! Spending increase require tax rate increases (or base broadening), not tax cuts! Etc....