Tax cuts boost revenue

[AHILLS205]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

 

[waltky]

No wonder we goin' broke...

Sorry, GOP: Tax revenue needs to go up
March 26, 2011 -- The United States has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That is the persistent Republican mantra whenever the question of how to reduce deficits comes up. The party line: Cut spending, and under no circumstances raise taxes.

The GOP is right about one thing: The country is spending more than it can afford. And economists on the left and right generally agree that big tax increases can hurt economic growth. But there is abundant evidence showing that taxes must be part of debt reduction, however distasteful the GOP finds them.

Why? Because the looming debt problem is just too big. And reducing it by spending cuts alone would require draconian changes that could hurt the economy far more than a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Here's one way to conceive of just how big the problem is. If lawmakers wanted to permanently freeze the debt held by the public at the today's level -- 62% of GDP -- they would need to immediately cut spending by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. And those cuts would need to be permanent from hereon out.

How hard would that be? Consider that in 2010, all of discretionary spending -- including defense -- totaled $1.35 trillion. In other words, to do deficit reduction all on the spending side means "you have to cut into the real meat," said Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Consider, too, how much fun lawmakers are having right now trying to negotiate spending cuts for this year alone. Their working range: Between $10 billion and $61 billion. And here's the kicker: Even permanently cutting $1.2 trillion today wouldn't be the end of the story. Deficit hawks note that public debt at 60% is still well above the country's historical average -- which is below 40%. So more cutting would need to occur in subsequent decades.

Slowing the real drivers of debt takes time

 

[JBeukema]

Also, smashing your neighbor's window boots the economy

 

[Old Rocks]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

Clinton increased taxes, and reduced some spending. A booming economy and the defecit was much reduced.

Bush decreased taxes and hid the cost of two wars off of the books. An economy that created jobs so slowly that it did not even keep up with the number of high school and college graduates. And nearly created the Second Great Republican Depression. As well as huge deficits.

Facts, not bone headed declarations.

 

[Norman]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

tax cuts won't help a thing if the government still spends.

 

[boedicca]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

Clinton increased taxes, and reduced some spending. A booming economy and the defecit was much reduced.

Bush decreased taxes and hid the cost of two wars off of the books. An economy that created jobs so slowly that it did not even keep up with the number of high school and college graduates. And nearly created the Second Great Republican Depression. As well as huge deficits.

Facts, not bone headed declarations.

Clinton CUT capital gains rates fro 28% to 20% - that is what spurred economic growth and the resulting increase in tax receipts.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Put 20 million unemployed or "funemployed" people back to work, all paying income taxes, and your revenue problem disappears. This of course does NOT automatically mean you'll get out of the deficit hole. Only laws which require a balanced budget can do that, no matter the revenue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

Taxes were cut by GWB in 2001; linked from the Brookings Instituti8ion is an evaluation and projection of it's effects (for Today) written in 2002.

The Bush Tax Cut: One Year Later - Brookings Institution

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

Taxes were cut by GWB in 2001; linked from the Brookings Instituti8ion is an evaluation and projection of it's effects (for Today) written in 2002.

The Bush Tax Cut: One Year Later - Brookings Institution

And yet if you look at the actuals at cbo.gov, you will see record revenue every year after 2002 - not just as total dollar amounts, but also as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, by every measure.

The unemployment rate was hovering around 5.5%.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

Taxes were cut by GWB in 2001; linked from the Brookings Instituti8ion is an evaluation and projection of it's effects (for Today) written in 2002.

The Bush Tax Cut: One Year Later - Brookings Institution

And yet if you look at the actuals at cbo.gov, you will see record revenue every year after 2002 - not just as total dollar amounts, but also as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, by every measure.

The unemployment rate was hovering around 5.5%.

And yet you didn't read the article, which would take more than two minutes even by a speed reader of exceptional ability.

 

[Toro]

"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues....................."

A QUITE OBVIOUS DECLARATION

That's right. It's very obvious that the income tax rate which generates the most revenue for the government is 0%!

Arthur Laffer - rotting conservative minds since the 1980s.

 

[Toro]

Republicans disagree with the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/139720-bush-tax-cut-extensions-will-increase-deficit.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/144973-the-laffer-curve-bends-at-an-80-rate-of-income-tax.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...know-if-bush-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html

So does the CBO. Extension of the Bush / Obama Tax Cuts will increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over the next decade.

Of the various initiatives that the President is proposing, tax provisions would have by far the largest budgetary impact. The 2010 tax act (officially the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312) extended through December 2012 many of the tax reductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The President proposes to extend those reductions permanently, with some modifications, and to permanently index for inflation the amounts of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), starting at their 2011 levels. In addition, the President proposes that, beginning in January 2013, estate and gift taxes return permanently to the rates and exemption levels that were in effect in calendar year 2009. Those policies would reduce tax revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of more than $3.0 trillion over the next decade relative to the amounts projected in CBO's baseline. That total exceeds the $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years that would result from the President's budget as a whole; the President's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years.

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

The policy changes in the President’s budget would increase the government’s net outlays for interest by $2 billion in 2011 and by $519 billion between 2012 and 2021. Those increased outlays would result almost entirely from additional borrowing by the Treasury from the public to cover deficits greater than the amounts projected in the baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans disagree with the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/139720-bush-tax-cut-extensions-will-increase-deficit.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/144973-the-laffer-curve-bends-at-an-80-rate-of-income-tax.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...know-if-bush-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html

So does the CBO. Extension of the Bush / Obama Tax Cuts will increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over the next decade.

Of the various initiatives that the President is proposing, tax provisions would have by far the largest budgetary impact. The 2010 tax act (officially the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312) extended through December 2012 many of the tax reductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The President proposes to extend those reductions permanently, with some modifications, and to permanently index for inflation the amounts of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), starting at their 2011 levels. In addition, the President proposes that, beginning in January 2013, estate and gift taxes return permanently to the rates and exemption levels that were in effect in calendar year 2009. Those policies would reduce tax revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of more than $3.0 trillion over the next decade relative to the amounts projected in CBO's baseline. That total exceeds the $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years that would result from the President's budget as a whole; the President's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years.

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

The policy changes in the President’s budget would increase the government’s net outlays for interest by $2 billion in 2011 and by $519 billion between 2012 and 2021. Those increased outlays would result almost entirely from additional borrowing by the Treasury from the public to cover deficits greater than the amounts projected in the baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

Now you've done it. Using evidence to disprove an unproven truth believed by conservatives does one and only one thing - they flee from this truthful thread and start a new thread, posting the unproven truth as truth.