Jeb Bush Says He'd Back a Tax Increase to Cut the Deficit

Jeb is showing he's one of the few adults left in the room in the GOP.

Bingo. And I'm sure he's gonna pay for it.


.

I'm being an optimist. I'm hoping after Romney gets taken to the woodshed in November (and he will be), the GOP will start confronting their own inner crazies.

I still think Jeb's biggest liability is that he has the last name of Bush. But it might also be his biggest asset.

Be honest for once Joe.

If Jeb was running for any office you'd be trashing him like you trash Romney.

So STFU.
 

The Heritage link says that there is an optimal rate that maximizes tax revenues. If tax rates are too high, a tax cut will increase revenues. It says so in the first paragraph under the first graph. That's what the Time article addresses.

It's not that the theory is wrong per se. It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.

Bullshit.

Mankiw's position is that the US is usually on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Things I did not say

Yes. And if you pay attention rather than wander around in a fog of partisan hackery, you'll notice that's what I've been saying too.
 
The Heritage link says that there is an optimal rate that maximizes tax revenues. If tax rates are too high, a tax cut will increase revenues. It says so in the first paragraph under the first graph. That's what the Time article addresses.

It's not that the theory is wrong per se. It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.

Bullshit.

Mankiw's position is that the US is usually on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Things I did not say

Yes. And if you pay attention rather than wander around in a fog of partisan hackery, you'll notice that's what I've been saying too.


LOL.

You just stated:

' It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.'

Give up.
 

The Heritage link says that there is an optimal rate that maximizes tax revenues. If tax rates are too high, a tax cut will increase revenues. It says so in the first paragraph under the first graph. That's what the Time article addresses.

It's not that the theory is wrong per se. It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.

No, it's always true. There is an optimum rate of taxation in any economy. THat is why it isn't really hte Laffer Curve. Other economists noted this as far back as the Ottoman Empire.
We are past the point of optimal taxation now.
 
Bullshit.

Mankiw's position is that the US is usually on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Things I did not say

Yes. And if you pay attention rather than wander around in a fog of partisan hackery, you'll notice that's what I've been saying too.


LOL.

You just stated:

' It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.'

Give up.


You don't understand what he said in that blog post, do you?

The "wrong side" is the left side, ie the wrong side where tax cuts increase revenues.
 
Last edited:
Nice attempt at obfuscation, but fail. Notice you said 'most.'

Real GDP had stalled or fallen (recession) in the year(s) prior to the Federal tax cuts being used to unleash the private sector.

The purpose of cutting taxes on the rich was to drive the economy.

Worked when Coolidge did it.

Worked when JFK did it.

Worked when Reagan did it.

Worked when Bush did it.


Those are the facts. Deal with it.

Reference any econometric study to support your views other than relying on anecdotes.

Thanks.



Fuck you.

Thanks.
Brilliant! Your concession is noted.
 

The Heritage link says that there is an optimal rate that maximizes tax revenues. If tax rates are too high, a tax cut will increase revenues. It says so in the first paragraph under the first graph. That's what the Time article addresses.

It's not that the theory is wrong per se. It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.

No, it's always true. There is an optimum rate of taxation in any economy. THat is why it isn't really hte Laffer Curve. Other economists noted this as far back as the Ottoman Empire.
We are past the point of optimal taxation now.

Mankiw disagrees.

And I agree that it is not always true.
 
You really think that Norquist holds THAT much power?

Hell I could see a 10:1 ratio of cuts to taxes. Hell! Half of the revenue increase would be covered by saving on interest.

That's funny, because every Republican candidate was asked that exact question a few months back and every one of them said they wouldn't support 10:1 cuts to taxes.

I don't think that anyone would be against that. That kind of ratio would actually help with the deficit, and therefor help business which would increase revenue.

Of course we all know that the 10 cuts won't happen so there ya go.
 
The Heritage link says that there is an optimal rate that maximizes tax revenues. If tax rates are too high, a tax cut will increase revenues. It says so in the first paragraph under the first graph. That's what the Time article addresses.

It's not that the theory is wrong per se. It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.

No, it's always true. There is an optimum rate of taxation in any economy. THat is why it isn't really hte Laffer Curve. Other economists noted this as far back as the Ottoman Empire.
We are past the point of optimal taxation now.

Mankiw disagrees.

And I agree that it is not always true.

Where does he disagree?
Why do you think it is not always true?
 
Jeb Bush should be hung by his balls!

Spending Cuts!
Spending Cuts!
Spending Cuts!
THEN Tax Cuts.

Exactly, after we realize the actual cuts -not cuts from baseline growth, but actual cuts in spending- we can look at tax rates.

I'd like to see a cap on federal expenditures at around 18% of GDP (historically that is what the feds collect- regardless of the tax "rate").
 
No, it's always true. There is an optimum rate of taxation in any economy. THat is why it isn't really hte Laffer Curve. Other economists noted this as far back as the Ottoman Empire.
We are past the point of optimal taxation now.

Mankiw disagrees.

And I agree that it is not always true.

Where does he disagree?
Why do you think it is not always true?

He looked at recent tax rates when he did his study.

There is empirical evidence that cutting corporate tax rates, some capital gains taxes and resource royalty rates does increase government revenues.
 
Mankiw disagrees.

And I agree that it is not always true.

Where does he disagree?
Why do you think it is not always true?

He looked at recent tax rates when he did his study.

There is empirical evidence that cutting corporate tax rates, some capital gains taxes and resource royalty rates does increase government revenues.

Except that isn't what we're talking about because that isn't what the Laffer Curve says.
THe LC posits an optimum rate of taxation for any economy anywhere.

I agree that some tax cuts are better at bringing in revenue than others. When cap gains rates got cut in the Bush tax cuts revenue to the Trasury increased. Even Obama admitted that.
OTOH temporary targeted tax cuts, as Obama has been doing, do nothing to increase revenue (the opposite), as well as being economically counter productive.
 
Yes. And if you pay attention rather than wander around in a fog of partisan hackery, you'll notice that's what I've been saying too.


LOL.

You just stated:

' It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.'

Give up.


You don't understand what he said in that blog post, do you?

The "wrong side" is the left side, ie the wrong side where tax cuts increase revenues.

More bullshit.

He said:

' tax hikes do not generate as much revenue as static estimates suggest. However, I have long been skeptical that the United States is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve;

Get it?
 
LOL.

You just stated:

' It's just wrong to apply it all the time, and it's usually wrong in a US income tax context except at very high rates, as Mankiw concludes.'

Give up.


You don't understand what he said in that blog post, do you?

The "wrong side" is the left side, ie the wrong side where tax cuts increase revenues.

More bullshit.

He said:

' tax hikes do not generate as much revenue as static estimates suggest. However, I have long been skeptical that the United States is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve;

Get it?

Yes, I do get it. You don't.

What he means by "static revenue" not being as much as thought is that traditional macroeconomic models underestimate the absolute amount of revenues generated by a tax increase. IOW for every 1% increase in the income tax rate, actual government revenues increase by 0.83%, as opposed to other macroeconomic models which assume an increase in government revenues of 0.95-0.99%. Note that the mathematical signs are the same, ie if income tax +, then gov rev + & if income tax -, then gov rev -. He differs in the magnitude, not the direction. That's from his own study using recent tax rates. So when he says we are on "the wrong side" of the Laffer Curve, he means we are on the wrong side to generate increased government revenues by cutting taxes.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind a tax increase as long as we cut spending today. No more deficit. If we don't have we don't spend it. We could stop supporting illegals for a start. How aboiut that Obama?
 
Where does he disagree?
Why do you think it is not always true?

He looked at recent tax rates when he did his study.

There is empirical evidence that cutting corporate tax rates, some capital gains taxes and resource royalty rates does increase government revenues.

Except that isn't what we're talking about because that isn't what the Laffer Curve says.
THe LC posits an optimum rate of taxation for any economy anywhere.

I agree that some tax cuts are better at bringing in revenue than others. When cap gains rates got cut in the Bush tax cuts revenue to the Trasury increased. Even Obama admitted that.
OTOH temporary targeted tax cuts, as Obama has been doing, do nothing to increase revenue (the opposite), as well as being economically counter productive.

The Laffer Curve says that if we are on the right side of that optimum rate, we will generate more revenues by cutting taxes. In the UK, "unearned income" was taxed at 98% in the 1970s. This caused many rental units to fall into disrepair and abandonment. Thatcher cut these taxes dramatically, causing increased investment and activity. The UK rental market was on the right side of the Laffer Curve as absolute revenue rose because of the tax cut. But the opposite did not happen when taxes were later increased by a small amount. Absolute revenue did not fall. The market was on then on the left hand side of the Laffer Curve.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind a tax increase as long as we cut spending today. No more deficit. If we don't have we don't spend it. We could stop supporting illegals for a start. How aboiut that Obama?

I agree but let me tell you how bad IT REALLY IS.
The only way to end the deficit now is to cut Medicare and Medicaid payments by 60%, cut the military by 50%, furlough 25% of the Federal employees and maybe in 5 years of doing that we would balance that deficit.
Stop supporting illegals may be 1/10 of 1% if that. Nothing against your post but Medicare, Medicaid, social security, interest on the debt and the military is 90% of the budget.
 
.

Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, declined to comment on Bush’s remarks.

Bush said that while he cut taxes every year he was governor, “I don’t believe you outsource your principles and convictions to people.” He said, “I respect Grover’s political involvement, he has every right to do it, but I never signed any pledge.”



Two of my favorite parts of the story. "I refuse to be an absolutist sheep."

Speaking of sheep, has Rush told his listeners what to think about this development yet?

.

It doesn't matter. In four years, Rush will pretend he didn't say any of this, and his listeners will have a short memory span.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top