Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Rshermr]

Weird, how did the economy 'boom' as conservatives say happened under Reagan if the top rate was 50% first 6 years? was it only his last 2 years? lol



The Myths of Reaganomics

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.



It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

And, again, reagan did indeed lower tax rates in the beginning. 1981. But within 20 months, the ue rate had shot up to the second highest in the last 200 years. 10.8%. Then ronnie raised taxes 11 times AND spent like crazy. A sure way to get yourself out of the recession he had created. Funny how cons ignore the truth.

Unemployment rose because Reagan cut taxes so much?

Damn, you're funny!

No, of course not. Lowering taxes had no DIRECT effect on unemployment. What caused the unemployment rate to increase was the fact that in an already weak economy, the gov had to eliminate jobs that were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues.
Really, you must understand this. Lower taxes, cut gov jobs. Raise taxes, you can hire. Simple enough that even a con tool should be able to understand.
Then again, you have to WANT to understand. Kinda leaves you out. Try a google search on "Voodoo Economics" and see what GW had to say about it.
Jesus, does it hurt to be that ignorant, me boy?

 

[KissMy]

When did Clinton cut spending with his Dem House and Dem Senate?

Democrat President, House & Senate Federal spending:
1993-Q4 = $1,568 billion
1994-Q1 = $1,548 billion
$20 billion cut in spending

Actual Federal Spending

Federal Spending Percent of GDP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And, again, reagan did indeed lower tax rates in the beginning. 1981. But within 20 months, the ue rate had shot up to the second highest in the last 200 years. 10.8%. Then ronnie raised taxes 11 times AND spent like crazy. A sure way to get yourself out of the recession he had created. Funny how cons ignore the truth.

Unemployment rose because Reagan cut taxes so much?

Damn, you're funny!

No, of course not. Lowering taxes had no DIRECT effect on unemployment. What caused the unemployment rate to increase was the fact that in an already weak economy, the gov had to eliminate jobs that were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues.
Really, you must understand this. Lower taxes, cut gov jobs. Raise taxes, you can hire. Simple enough that even a con tool should be able to understand.
Then again, you have to WANT to understand. Kinda leaves you out. Try a google search on "Voodoo Economics" and see what GW had to say about it.
Jesus, does it hurt to be that ignorant, me boy?

In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?

It's true, your ignorance is painful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did Clinton cut spending with his Dem House and Dem Senate?

Democrat President, House & Senate Federal spending:
1993-Q4 = $1,568 billion
1994-Q1 = $1,548 billion
$20 billion cut in spending

Actual Federal Spending

Federal Spending Percent of GDP

Try again.

LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

When did Clinton cut spending with his Dem House and Dem Senate?

Democrat President, House & Senate Federal spending:
1993-Q4 = $1,568 billion
1994-Q1 = $1,548 billion
$20 billion cut in spending

Actual Federal Spending

Federal Spending Percent of GDP

Try again.

LOL!

Well, yes indeed. It was such a great thing that ronnie created so many private jobs during his eight years as compared to Clinton. Lets see. OOPS. You are lying to us again. Ronnie's admin created 13M jobs. Not bad. Clintons admin created 19M. A record among all presidents in US history. So, Ronnie created FEWER jobs per term than CARTER. Carter created 8500 jobs in his term, while Ronnie created an average of 6500. But that is normal, me boy. Private job creation is on average much higher during democratic administrations.

Jobs Created in Thousands President Political Party
6,551 Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat
8,752 Harry S. Truman Democrat
1,555 Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican
2,728 John F. Kennedy Democrat
8,892 Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat
5,255 Richard Nixon Republican
2,234 Gerald Ford Republican
8,592 Jimmy Carter Democrat
13,594 Ronald Reagan Republican
1,042 George H. W. Bush Republican
19,495 Bill Clinton Democrat
-563 George W. Bush Republican
-871 Barack Obama Democrat

Therefore, the average amount of private sector jobs created during Democratic Presidential terms is 1,463,220 and the average amount during Republican Presidential terms is 642,000.
U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party » truthful politics

Now, I understand that job creation is NOT an interesting issue for cons. But for the rest of us, it is the most important issue.
Oh, and by the way, job creation under Obama is now much greater than under Bush. What was it you said about that tax decrease under Bush creating so many jobs??? Bush had the WORST job creation of any president in our history, since the statistics were kept. Yup, like you said, that bush tax decrease was a real job creator. And led to great things, assuming you like the worst recession since the great depression.


But cons hate the national debt. In real terms, Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. Clinton ended his term with SURPLUSES. You know, surpluses are those economic conditions that NEVER occur under republican presidents.

 

[Rshermr]

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

The economy entered 1982 in a severe recession and labor market conditions deteriorated throughout the year. -The unemployment rate, already high by historical standards at the onset of the recession in mid-1981, reached 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, higher than at any time in post-World War II history

Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf
Now, your ignorance is indeed your fault, me boy. Your base stupidity is not. That is just plain bad luck. You need to try a bit of self education. Even a simple google search will provide you with some relief to your ignorance problem. Though I suspect it will not help with your desire to follow your agenda.

Where do I send the bill for your education, me poor ignorant con tool??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

The economy entered 1982 in a severe recession and labor market conditions deteriorated throughout the year. -The unemployment rate, already high by historical standards at the onset of the recession in mid-1981, reached 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, higher than at any time in post-World War II history

Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf
Now, your ignorance is indeed your fault, me boy. Your base stupidity is not. That is just plain bad luck. You need to try a bit of self education. Even a simple google search will provide you with some relief to your ignorance problem. Though I suspect it will not help with your desire to follow your agenda.

Where do I send the bill for your education, me poor ignorant con tool??

Thanks for the link that did nothing to prove your claim. I enjoyed it. LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

The economy entered 1982 in a severe recession and labor market conditions deteriorated throughout the year. -The unemployment rate, already high by historical standards at the onset of the recession in mid-1981, reached 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, higher than at any time in post-World War II history

Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf
Now, your ignorance is indeed your fault, me boy. Your base stupidity is not. That is just plain bad luck. You need to try a bit of self education. Even a simple google search will provide you with some relief to your ignorance problem. Though I suspect it will not help with your desire to follow your agenda.

Where do I send the bill for your education, me poor ignorant con tool??

Thanks for the link that did nothing to prove your claim. I enjoyed it. LOL!

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf
Now, your ignorance is indeed your fault, me boy. Your base stupidity is not. That is just plain bad luck. You need to try a bit of self education. Even a simple google search will provide you with some relief to your ignorance problem. Though I suspect it will not help with your desire to follow your agenda.

Where do I send the bill for your education, me poor ignorant con tool??

Thanks for the link that did nothing to prove your claim. I enjoyed it. LOL!

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

 

[Dad2three]

Thanks for the link that did nothing to prove your claim. I enjoyed it. LOL!

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Carters last year -1981 F/Y Indiv income tax 9.1% GDP
Reagan's first year 1982 F/Y 9.0% GDP
Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP
Reagan's third year 1984 F/Y 7.5% GDP

SEE A TREND? LOL



1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible."

Reagan Economist Feldstein: "It Is 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




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."


Lets take a look at Revenues after the Reagan tax cuts adjusted for inflation:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many. But upon a closer look, it’s easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.



http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue

The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines.

Rand Paul?s Supply-side Distortion



Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.


The Impact of Tax Cuts



This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Carters last year -1981 F/Y Indiv income tax 9.1% GDP
Reagan's first year 1982 F/Y 9.0% GDP
Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP
Reagan's third year 1984 F/Y 7.5% GDP

SEE A TREND? LOL



1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible."

Reagan Economist Feldstein: "It Is 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




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."


Lets take a look at Revenues after the Reagan tax cuts adjusted for inflation:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many. But upon a closer look, it’s easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.



http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue

The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines.

Rand Paul?s Supply-side Distortion



Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.


The Impact of Tax Cuts



This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP

I didn't realize government employees were paid in % of GDP.

How does that work exactly?

 

[Rshermr]

Thanks for the link that did nothing to prove your claim. I enjoyed it. LOL!

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Well, now, you are truly showing your agenda as a conservative tool, toddster. It was not just 1982. It was for a number of years. Now, I know you would like to take selected stats to prove otherwise, as a con tool always does. But here is an actual analysis. I know you do not like these, done by economists as opposed to your favorite con operative. But try to understand:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan defeated both inflation and the USSR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be because you can not understand what is said. Not my problem. As I stated, your ignorance and need to follow your agenda is your problem, and that of no one else.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Well, now, you are truly showing your agenda as a conservative tool, toddster. It was not just 1982. It was for a number of years. Now, I know you would like to take selected stats to prove otherwise, as a con tool always does. But here is an actual analysis. I know you do not like these, done by economists as opposed to your favorite con operative. But try to understand:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!

 

[Dad2three]

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Carters last year -1981 F/Y Indiv income tax 9.1% GDP
Reagan's first year 1982 F/Y 9.0% GDP
Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP
Reagan's third year 1984 F/Y 7.5% GDP

SEE A TREND? LOL



1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible."

Reagan Economist Feldstein: "It Is 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




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."


Lets take a look at Revenues after the Reagan tax cuts adjusted for inflation:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many. But upon a closer look, it’s easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.



http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue

The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines.

Rand Paul?s Supply-side Distortion



Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.


The Impact of Tax Cuts



This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP

I didn't realize government employees were paid in % of GDP.

How does that work exactly?

It's an economist thing, that's how those pointy headed guys do it. But even looking at the inflation adjusted dollars, Reagan lost revenues for 5 years remember? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan defeated both inflation and the USSR

Reagan funded then cut and ran from terrorists and had the most corrupt administration EVER

 

[Dad2three]

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused 1982 revenue to decrease.

Well, now, you are truly showing your agenda as a conservative tool, toddster. It was not just 1982. It was for a number of years. Now, I know you would like to take selected stats to prove otherwise, as a con tool always does. But here is an actual analysis. I know you do not like these, done by economists as opposed to your favorite con operative. But try to understand:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!

Weird, the Reagan recession happened AS the top rate was cut, just the opposite of what conservatives promised. What happened to tax cuts will bring more growth (jobs)? lol

01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployme*nt HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Carters last year -1981 F/Y Indiv income tax 9.1% GDP
Reagan's first year 1982 F/Y 9.0% GDP
Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP
Reagan's third year 1984 F/Y 7.5% GDP

SEE A TREND? LOL



1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible."

Reagan Economist Feldstein: "It Is 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




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."


Lets take a look at Revenues after the Reagan tax cuts adjusted for inflation:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many. But upon a closer look, it’s easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.



Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines.

Rand Paul?s Supply-side Distortion



Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.


The Impact of Tax Cuts



This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Reagan's second year 1983 F/Y 8.2% GDP

I didn't realize government employees were paid in % of GDP.

How does that work exactly?

It's an economist thing, that's how those pointy headed guys do it. But even looking at the inflation adjusted dollars, Reagan lost revenues for 5 years remember? lol

Reagan lost revenues for 5 years remember?

I'm pretty sure revenues did not drop for 5 years under Reagan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, now, you are truly showing your agenda as a conservative tool, toddster. It was not just 1982. It was for a number of years. Now, I know you would like to take selected stats to prove otherwise, as a con tool always does. But here is an actual analysis. I know you do not like these, done by economists as opposed to your favorite con operative. But try to understand:

So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!

Weird, the Reagan recession happened AS the top rate was cut, just the opposite of what conservatives promised. What happened to tax cuts will bring more growth (jobs)? lol

01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployme*nt HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Rshermr]

So, the Toddster wanted to see the revenue decreases that resulted from the 1981 tax decrease under Reagan. So I provided the following for him, which he appa ently is unable to understand. I suspect unwilling would be more likely.
So, toddster, maybe you color oriented, so I will color code the relevent part below:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Having read, or not read, what was provided so nicely for him, by myself, the toddster stupidly states:
"So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!"
The shock, me boy, is that you can be this stupid. Is it congenital??
Here is a hint. The minus signs in front of the percentages of gdp change in Revenue were to let you know that the following number was a DECREASE.

It is ok, me boy. Stupidity is not your fault. It is congenital, I am sure. Just bad luck.