Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[CrusaderFrank]

"trickle down" economics was a failure when the Gipper did it & it has devastated this great nation's middle-class. Thanks Ronnie.

"The middle class has been buried these past 4 years" -- Joe Biden Oct 2012

 

[Freewill]

Thought we fixed the roads and bridges under O's shovel rdy jobs program

No matter how many times we approve tax increases for "roads and bridges," the Dims always come back for more.

It's very. very obvious that the "Dims" haven't asked for enough. It's also very obvious that some people don't care about something that is extremely serious that effects the future of this country's long-term economy.
America just keeps on sliding downwards and some people could give a shit.

Moron, how much do you think we need? How do you propose to get it?

Considering many in the GOP are sane enough to know that our highway infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades and open to taxes to pay for it, I'd would certainly agree with their approach.
It's been estimated the cost of getting our highway system up practical standards that the cost would be well over a trillion dollars. Obviously this is a long term project. The cost is huge but that's what we get for years of neglect.
Our highways are already incapable of handling the projected population growth.

Why do we pay a gasoline tax?????????????????

Tolls???????????????

It's very obvious that what this country has put into our highway system isn't enough based on several analyses of our highways.
Can any of you naysayers find anything that states our highways are good enough?
I'll wait. I'll be waiting until hell freezes over.

The interstate roads I travel seem to be in good shape. The main State arteries seem to be in good shape. Some of the smaller roads could you some help but by and large, around me I am happy with the roads.

 

[Dad2three]

Considering many in the GOP are sane enough to know that our highway infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades and open to taxes to pay for it, I'd would certainly agree with their approach.
It's been estimated the cost of getting our highway system up practical standards that the cost would be well over a trillion dollars. Obviously this is a long term project. The cost is huge but that's what we get for years of neglect.
Our highways are already incapable of handling the projected population growth.

Why do we pay a gasoline tax?????????????????

Tolls???????????????

Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other chargesto motorists covering—or nearly covering—the full cost of highway constructionand maintenance.

They are wrong.


Highways do not—and, except for briefperiods in our nation’s history—never havepaid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees"

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.or...d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf


Tolls

INEFFICIENCY

Waste of Taxpayer Money
Decades of data shows that toll infrastructure is inherently inefficient and takes many years to generate any net income.

According to the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, the administrative, collection and enforcement costs of a typical toll facility are 33.5% of the revenue generated. Compare this to the Board’s finding that the administrative cost of the fuel tax is about 1% of revenue.

Tolls Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates ATFI

For example, the federal motor fuels tax, 18.4 cents per gallon, generates one-third fewer dollars in real purchasing terms than when it was last increased in 1993, according to an estimate by the (ANTI) Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization.


“At the state and local levels, gas taxes cover less than half of state and local transportation spending,” said Tax Foundation economist Joseph Henchman. He said proposals to cut mass transit funding or relax federal salary standards for laborers on public works projects won’t solve the underlying problem, which is that “every year we’re spending a little more and taking in a little less.”

The Problem with Cheap Gas

Quoting some dumbass progressive group...yeah, impressive

So NO, you can't refute it with a fact based response, with sources and links, ALL you have is an ad hom. Shocking

 

[mudwhistle]

She keeps making points against "Trickle Down", gotta love Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the Magical Accounting of Trickle-Down Economics Mother Jones

Elizabeth Warren says "America's middle class is in deep trouble." Although general economic indicators are on the rise, the Massachusetts senator argued in a speech Wednesday morning, pay has stagnated for all but the richest Americans—and trickle-down voodoo economics and loose Wall Street regulation are to blame. And although Warren has given every indication that she's happy to remain in the Senate and pass on liberals' hopes that she'll run for president in 2016, her speech—at an AFL-CIO conference on wages—had the tone of a presidential campaign barnstormer.

Warren kicked off her address by noting that the current economic recovery, while real, hasn't helped most Americans. The stock market's up, but half the country doesn't own any stocks. Inflation is low, but that doesn't matter for millennials burdened by overwhelming student debt. Corporate profits have risen, but that hardly matters to people who work at Walmart and are paid so little that they still need food stamps, Warren said.
<more>

She's just what some feel is a viable alternative to Hillary. She is a leftwinger and she is a woman. That's all she is. She is not presidential material. Image with little or no substance.

What will you guys run after you get your female martyre in the Oval Office, a Hispanic transexual??? Is every one of your candidates merely a gimmick??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Considering many in the GOP are sane enough to know that our highway infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades and open to taxes to pay for it, I'd would certainly agree with their approach.
It's been estimated the cost of getting our highway system up practical standards that the cost would be well over a trillion dollars. Obviously this is a long term project. The cost is huge but that's what we get for years of neglect.
Our highways are already incapable of handling the projected population growth.

Why do we pay a gasoline tax?????????????????

Tolls???????????????

Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other chargesto motorists covering—or nearly covering—the full cost of highway constructionand maintenance.

They are wrong.


Highways do not—and, except for briefperiods in our nation’s history—never havepaid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees"

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.or...d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf


Tolls

INEFFICIENCY

Waste of Taxpayer Money
Decades of data shows that toll infrastructure is inherently inefficient and takes many years to generate any net income.

According to the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, the administrative, collection and enforcement costs of a typical toll facility are 33.5% of the revenue generated. Compare this to the Board’s finding that the administrative cost of the fuel tax is about 1% of revenue.

Tolls Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates ATFI

For example, the federal motor fuels tax, 18.4 cents per gallon, generates one-third fewer dollars in real purchasing terms than when it was last increased in 1993, according to an estimate by the (ANTI) Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization.


“At the state and local levels, gas taxes cover less than half of state and local transportation spending,” said Tax Foundation economist Joseph Henchman. He said proposals to cut mass transit funding or relax federal salary standards for laborers on public works projects won’t solve the underlying problem, which is that “every year we’re spending a little more and taking in a little less.”

The Problem with Cheap Gas

"Federal gas taxes have typically not been
devoted exclusively to highways – The
federal gas tax began its life as a
deficit-fighting measure under President
Herbert Hoover decades before
the Interstate Highway System. Only
during a brief 17-year period beginning
in 1956 did Congress temporarily
dedicate gas tax revenues to construct
the Interstate network, a project
completed in the 1990s. Since 1973,
the gasoline tax has been used to fund
a variety of important transportation
priorities and has periodically been
used to reduce the federal deficit."

The taxes are used for the general fund....no wonder they don't pay for roads

 

[WelfareQueen]

Dems have completely controlled all of Congress for 4 of the last eight years, and they controlled the Presidency for the last six years.

But it's the GOP's fault.


You can't make this shit up.

which party has the record of saying "I object" in the senate asswipe?
Gridlock in Congress Blame the GOP - CNN.com

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

would it kill you rw hacks to use a source every once in a while?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

**** off asswipe. Harry Reid spiked 350 House Bills and the GOP is the party of no?

What a joke.

 

[Dad2three]

"trickle down" economics was a failure when the Gipper did it & it has devastated this great nation's middle-class. Thanks Ronnie.

How exactly so? Considering Reagan saved the country from the malaise of Carter and ushered in the greatest expansion of the economy in peace time history one would think you folks would quite trying to blame the mess 8 years of democrat rule and 6 years of Obama has caused. Reagan was our last great president you need to show respect.

Malaise of Carter? Oh you meant Nixon/Fords price and wage controls then OPEC.

HOW DID RONNIE DO IT WITH A TOP RATE OF 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS, BTW?


8 YEARS DEM RULE? PLEASE SHOW THE POLICIES THE DEMS CHANGED OF DUBYA/GOP WHEN THEY TOOK CONGRESS JAN 2007? PRETTY PLEASE?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan



How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com



"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton's] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation's history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan's re-nomination announcement


One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

 

[Dad2three]

So you believe in JFK's philosophy?

If you do then you should not be a Democrat because Democrats hates these ideas.

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


Read more at John F. Kennedy on taxes

I don't know if I would support his 65% tax rate

Maybe 50%

NO LOOPHOLES though. Top rate of 70% for $100+ million incomes

That worked for the French, right?

Oh, wait

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't know if I would support his 65% tax rate

Maybe 50%

NO LOOPHOLES though. Top rate of 70% for $100+ million incomes

That worked for the French, right?

Oh, wait

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

 

[Dad2three]

Thought we fixed the roads and bridges under O's shovel rdy jobs program

No matter how many times we approve tax increases for "roads and bridges," the Dims always come back for more.

It's very. very obvious that the "Dims" haven't asked for enough. It's also very obvious that some people don't care about something that is extremely serious that effects the future of this country's long-term economy.
America just keeps on sliding downwards and some people could give a shit.

Moron, how much do you think we need? How do you propose to get it?

Considering many in the GOP are sane enough to know that our highway infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades and open to taxes to pay for it, I'd would certainly agree with their approach.
It's been estimated the cost of getting our highway system up practical standards that the cost would be well over a trillion dollars. Obviously this is a long term project. The cost is huge but that's what we get for years of neglect.
Our highways are already incapable of handling the projected population growth.

Why do we pay a gasoline tax?????????????????

Tolls???????????????

It's very obvious that what this country has put into our highway system isn't enough based on several analyses of our highways.
Can any of you naysayers find anything that states our highways are good enough?
I'll wait. I'll be waiting until hell freezes over.

The interstate roads I travel seem to be in good shape. The main State arteries seem to be in good shape. Some of the smaller roads could you some help but by and large, around me I am happy with the roads.

Roads D

Forty-two percent of America’s major urban highways remain congested, costing the economy an estimated $101 billion in wasted time and fuel annually. While the conditions have improved in the near term, and Federal, state, and local capital investments increased to $91 billion annually, that level of investment is insufficient and still projected to result in a decline in conditions and performance in the long term. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that $170 billion in capital investment would be needed on an annual basis to significantly improve conditions and performance.


2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure

The American Society of Civil Engineers
2013 Report Card for America s Infrastructure Roads

 

[Dad2three]

Dems have completely controlled all of Congress for 4 of the last eight years, and they controlled the Presidency for the last six years.

But it's the GOP's fault.


You can't make this shit up.

which party has the record of saying "I object" in the senate asswipe?
Gridlock in Congress Blame the GOP - CNN.com

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

would it kill you rw hacks to use a source every once in a while?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

**** off asswipe. Harry Reid spiked 350 House Bills and the GOP is the party of no?

What a joke.

LOL, Really? You mean bills like 55+ Obamacares repeals??? lol

 

[Flash]

"Federal gas taxes have typically not been
devoted exclusively to highways – The
federal gas tax began its life as a
deficit-fighting measure under President
Herbert Hoover decades before
the Interstate Highway System. Only
during a brief 17-year period beginning
in 1956 did Congress temporarily
dedicate gas tax revenues to construct
the Interstate network, a project
completed in the 1990s. Since 1973,
the gasoline tax has been used to fund
a variety of important transportation
priorities and has periodically been
used to reduce the federal deficit."

The taxes are used for the general fund....no wonder they don't pay for roads

The stupid incompetent and corrupt government collects a Federal tax every time you fill up your gas tank and that suppose to be used to maintain the roads but instead spends the money on other things like food stamps for illegals.

Then the Libtards want to raise the tax so that they can to deliver to you what they promised you in the first place.

Typical governemnt lies, corruption and incompetency.

The Libtard's answer to everything is always "more money" and you can never trust them.

 

[Dad2three]

NO LOOPHOLES though. Top rate of 70% for $100+ million incomes

That worked for the French, right?

Oh, wait

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

 

[Dad2three]

"Federal gas taxes have typically not been
devoted exclusively to highways – The
federal gas tax began its life as a
deficit-fighting measure under President
Herbert Hoover decades before
the Interstate Highway System. Only
during a brief 17-year period beginning
in 1956 did Congress temporarily
dedicate gas tax revenues to construct
the Interstate network, a project
completed in the 1990s. Since 1973,
the gasoline tax has been used to fund
a variety of important transportation
priorities and has periodically been
used to reduce the federal deficit."

The taxes are used for the general fund....no wonder they don't pay for roads

The stupid incompetent and corrupt government collects a Federal tax every time you fill up your gas tank and that suppose to be used to maintain the roads but instead spends the money on other things like food stamps for illegals.

Then the Libtards want to raise the tax so that they can to deliver to you what they promised you in the first place.

Typical governemnt lies, corruption and incompetency.

The Libtard's answer to everything is always "more money" and you can never trust them.

Got it, ANOTHER low info asswipe who doesn't understand how roads are funded NOR that GENERAL revenues have had to be spent on them over the past 40 years of OVER $1 trillion dollars!

I guess Dubya taking US from the 20% Clinton had US at in FEDERAL revenues to below 15% hasn't helped much?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That worked for the French, right?

Oh, wait

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Dad2three]

NO LOOPHOLES though. Top rate of 70% for $100+ million incomes

That worked for the French, right?

Oh, wait

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

How did revenues 'soar'? Oh right ELEVEN tax increases (THAT FELL ON THE MIDDLE CLASS) AND yet they STILL never made it back to Carters last F/Y, 1981 where Carter had 19.1% of GDP, (you know how ECONOMISTS measure it)?

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

Sure it did. And MANY other nations, including the US UNTIL Ronnie's 'trickle down'

EFFECTIVE tax rates

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

 

[mudwhistle]

Trickledown is why the economy is doing so well today. Low gas prices improved growth because more money was available to the consumer. Instead of it going to OPEC it stayed in the economy. End of story.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It affects the rules of the game

Up till now, the rules have been written to incentivize the capitalists over the workers

Money made from invested is treated differently than money made from labor. Changing the rules levels the playing field. Just because it is not as easy for the wealthy to claim all the income doesn't mean we are taking money away from them

Huh?

"Changing the rules" means imposing punitive taxes on high incomes. The wealthy don't "claim" more income. They earn it. Their income is not a gift from the government. It's the result of entirely voluntary transactions. It was given to them in exchange for some product or service.

They are no more punative than they were under Eisenhower and yet his economy flourished.

That's pretty damn putative. If you want to bring back the same economic conditions that existed during the Eisenhower era you'll have to bomb the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

Workers earn their money also. Most say moreso than the wealthy. Warren is just advocating that they should keep more of what they earn

They haven't "earned" anything that isn't the result of a voluntary transaction. Warren intends to impose force into the transaction between employer and employee. That's more akin to the kind of transaction that occurs during an armed robbery.

No moron, force and fear are the elements of an armed robbery, as well as the use of a weapon.

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The force of law, not violent force. And you wonder why I consider you a dishonest moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

D'oh!!!

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt