OK, Liberals, Let's See What Has Happened After Tax Cuts Since the Early 1900s

[imawhosure]

View attachment 167748

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Bush Tax Cuts

Bush's 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because of the recession that started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the recession.

The deficit only rose after the Bush tax cuts because Congress went on a wild spending spree; the huge increase in spending outstripped the big boost in revenue. If Congress had restrained spending hikes to slightly above the rate of inflation, we would have balanced the budget and continued paying down the debt.

Clinton Tax Cuts

In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999. At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts.

Note that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%.

Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the 1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts.

Clinton and Congress imposed some fiscal discipline and federal spending was held to modest increases, and as a result we balanced the budget and began paying down the debt in Clinton's last year. Again, tax cuts never cause deficits: reckless federal spending causes deficits.

Reagan Tax Cuts

Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Although Reagan agreed to some modest tax hikes following his tax cuts, the net effect was that tax rates were still greatly lower in his last year than they were in his first year. In other words, he modestly scaled back some of his tax cuts, but he still cut taxes across the board by large percentages.

Sadly, the federal government went on an incredible spending spree that more than cancelled out the large revenue hike that followed the Reagan tax cuts, and as a result the deficit rose dramatically and the debt nearly tripled. Yet, the economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. Too bad the government did not get its fiscal house in order at the same time.

JFK Tax Cuts

JFK’s tax cuts, which included a gigantic tax cut for the rich, were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed.

Looking at revenue growth in relation to inflation from JFK's first year to the last year his tax rates were in effect, i.e., 1961 to 1968. we see the following: From 1961 to 1968, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 52%, for an average growth rate of 6.5% per year. Total inflation for that period was only 19.13%, an average of only 2.4% per year. From 1961 to 1967, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion to $149 billion, an increase of 48%, for an average growth rate of 6% per year. Total inflation for those years was only 13.76%, an average of only 1.96% per year.

Harding-Coolidge (Mellon) Tax Cuts

Economist Dr. Veronique de Rugy, in an article titled "1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues":

Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. . . .

When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. . . . As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).

The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell. (1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues)

For more info, see:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

Despite What Lefties Say, Tax Cuts Don't "Cost" Anything | RealClearMarkets​

Thank you....

That is great work. I stick to the 2nd Amendment fight because the numbers are harder to lie about, which is why I really appreciate it when someone like you goes to the trouble to dig through numbers like that.....it is hard work, and the left lies about it easily....but thanks for putting it out there for all to seee....Merry Christmas....

Here you go again.

Read it. It's written by really smart people.


http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax Rates and Revenues.htm

The right wing never gets it.

they're idiots, understanding complex thought escapes them

if tax cuts didnt add to the deficit there wouldn't be a mandatory sunset clause in the bill..

THE END.

It is because under reconciliation, they can't make it PERMANENT! To make them permanent, they need 60 votes. END OF STORY!

Why can't they make them permanent under reconcilation? You MUST know.

I stick to the 2nd Amendment fight because the numbers are harder to lie about,

But yet you still manage.

It's take a real brain surgeon to try to claim that 33,000 gun deaths are somehow acceptable to make up for your tiny pecker.

Here you go again.

Read it. It's written by really smart people.


http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax Rates and Revenues.htm

The right wing never gets it.

they're idiots, understanding complex thought escapes them

I think they are just full of fallacy.

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Do tax cuts pay for themselves? Evidence is thin | PunditFact - PolitiFact

So, let us look back and see what we have learned from this thread, besides the fact that leftists lie through their teeth!

When asked to produce a chart that shows how revenue to the government DROPPED after tax cuts, the charming and delightful LONELAUGHEDAT produced this chart, and crowed for at least 3 pages.http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax Rates and Revenues.htm

Now notice if you will, his link has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, but rather % of GDP, therefore, since he tried to do what all leftists do when presented with facts that prove they are bassackwards, and what is that they do? They LIE! So what do we do with this chart of his? We do this-->

So then, we now know they are liars all to try and confuse Americans, so we put forth actual links along with Mike, that conclusively show how funds to the treasury do NOT drop after tax cuts.

1. Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1960-2022 - Federal State Local Data

2. Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

3. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

In the end, it is so nice to sink leftists talking points, that they themselves know are false.

Thanks Mike for starting the thread, and your help in showing how phony-baloney leftists really are.

The only thing left to see is---------->when we check at the start of 19 to see how much EXTRA, VOLUNTEER tax was paid to the Federal government, will it be substantial as all these leftists will surely give it back, won't they

What is this a chart of?

As compared to TOTAL OF GDP-) Has NOTHING to do with revenues! And that is what this this thread is about, R-E-V-E-N-U-E-S, not % of GDP.

Want to talk about GDP? Start your own thread.

 

[LoneLaugher]

View attachment 167748

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Bush Tax Cuts

Bush's 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because of the recession that started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the recession.

The deficit only rose after the Bush tax cuts because Congress went on a wild spending spree; the huge increase in spending outstripped the big boost in revenue. If Congress had restrained spending hikes to slightly above the rate of inflation, we would have balanced the budget and continued paying down the debt.

Clinton Tax Cuts

In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999. At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts.

Note that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%.

Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the 1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts.

Clinton and Congress imposed some fiscal discipline and federal spending was held to modest increases, and as a result we balanced the budget and began paying down the debt in Clinton's last year. Again, tax cuts never cause deficits: reckless federal spending causes deficits.

Reagan Tax Cuts

Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Although Reagan agreed to some modest tax hikes following his tax cuts, the net effect was that tax rates were still greatly lower in his last year than they were in his first year. In other words, he modestly scaled back some of his tax cuts, but he still cut taxes across the board by large percentages.

Sadly, the federal government went on an incredible spending spree that more than cancelled out the large revenue hike that followed the Reagan tax cuts, and as a result the deficit rose dramatically and the debt nearly tripled. Yet, the economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. Too bad the government did not get its fiscal house in order at the same time.

JFK Tax Cuts

JFK’s tax cuts, which included a gigantic tax cut for the rich, were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed.

Looking at revenue growth in relation to inflation from JFK's first year to the last year his tax rates were in effect, i.e., 1961 to 1968. we see the following: From 1961 to 1968, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 52%, for an average growth rate of 6.5% per year. Total inflation for that period was only 19.13%, an average of only 2.4% per year. From 1961 to 1967, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion to $149 billion, an increase of 48%, for an average growth rate of 6% per year. Total inflation for those years was only 13.76%, an average of only 1.96% per year.

Harding-Coolidge (Mellon) Tax Cuts

Economist Dr. Veronique de Rugy, in an article titled "1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues":

Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. . . .

When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. . . . As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).

The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell. (1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues)

For more info, see:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

Despite What Lefties Say, Tax Cuts Don't "Cost" Anything | RealClearMarkets​

Thank you....

That is great work. I stick to the 2nd Amendment fight because the numbers are harder to lie about, which is why I really appreciate it when someone like you goes to the trouble to dig through numbers like that.....it is hard work, and the left lies about it easily....but thanks for putting it out there for all to seee....Merry Christmas....

Here you go again.

Read it. It's written by really smart people.


http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax Rates and Revenues.htm

The right wing never gets it.

they're idiots, understanding complex thought escapes them

if tax cuts didnt add to the deficit there wouldn't be a mandatory sunset clause in the bill..

THE END.

It is because under reconciliation, they can't make it PERMANENT! To make them permanent, they need 60 votes. END OF STORY!

Why can't they make them permanent under reconcilation? You MUST know.

I stick to the 2nd Amendment fight because the numbers are harder to lie about,

But yet you still manage.

It's take a real brain surgeon to try to claim that 33,000 gun deaths are somehow acceptable to make up for your tiny pecker.

The right wing never gets it.

they're idiots, understanding complex thought escapes them

I think they are just full of fallacy.

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Do tax cuts pay for themselves? Evidence is thin | PunditFact - PolitiFact

So, let us look back and see what we have learned from this thread, besides the fact that leftists lie through their teeth!

When asked to produce a chart that shows how revenue to the government DROPPED after tax cuts, the charming and delightful LONELAUGHEDAT produced this chart, and crowed for at least 3 pages.http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax Rates and Revenues.htm

Now notice if you will, his link has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, but rather % of GDP, therefore, since he tried to do what all leftists do when presented with facts that prove they are bassackwards, and what is that they do? They LIE! So what do we do with this chart of his? We do this-->

So then, we now know they are liars all to try and confuse Americans, so we put forth actual links along with Mike, that conclusively show how funds to the treasury do NOT drop after tax cuts.

1. Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1960-2022 - Federal State Local Data

2. Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

3. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

In the end, it is so nice to sink leftists talking points, that they themselves know are false.

Thanks Mike for starting the thread, and your help in showing how phony-baloney leftists really are.

The only thing left to see is---------->when we check at the start of 19 to see how much EXTRA, VOLUNTEER tax was paid to the Federal government, will it be substantial as all these leftists will surely give it back, won't they

What is this a chart of?

As compared to TOTAL OF GDP-) Has NOTHING to do with revenues! And that is what this this thread is about, R-E-V-E-N-U-E-S, not % of GDP.

Want to talk about GDP? Start your own thread.

Ohhhh! I get it!! You can't read a chart!!

No wonder!

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is no such thing as a tax cut without cutting spending, because they just print the money taxing multiple times harder through inflation. Notice the rise of Bitcoin under Trump. Soon we will remove that government credit card.

Uh, in case you missed the news, Bitcoin is doing terribly. It recently dropped by more than 30%. But don't let facts get in your way.

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003: It was $1.78 trillion in 2003. It was $2.56 trillion in 2007. $2.56T is a lot more than $1.78T, at least down here on Earth.

And if Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down debt. Over-spending causes deficits, not letting people keep more of their own money.

 

[JoeB131]

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003:

But that doesn't really mean anything, guy. We went from the depth of a recession to the height of a recovery, that had NOTHING to do with tax cuts. Every other country saw the same thing happen, and most of them didn't engage in "Voodoo Economics".

Here's what did happen with the Voodoo Tax cuts of George W. Stupid. We went from 200 Billion dollar surpluses in 2000 to 400 billion dollar deficits in 2003.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Bush Tax Cuts

Bush's 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because of the recession that started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the recession.

The deficit only rose after the Bush tax cuts because Congress went on a wild spending spree; the huge increase in spending outstripped the big boost in revenue. If Congress had restrained spending hikes to slightly above the rate of inflation, we would have balanced the budget and continued paying down the debt.

Clinton Tax Cuts

In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999. At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts.

Note that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%.

Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the 1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts.

Clinton and Congress imposed some fiscal discipline and federal spending was held to modest increases, and as a result we balanced the budget and began paying down the debt in Clinton's last year. Again, tax cuts never cause deficits: reckless federal spending causes deficits.

Reagan Tax Cuts

Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Although Reagan agreed to some modest tax hikes following his tax cuts, the net effect was that tax rates were still greatly lower in his last year than they were in his first year. In other words, he modestly scaled back some of his tax cuts, but he still cut taxes across the board by large percentages.

Sadly, the federal government went on an incredible spending spree that more than cancelled out the large revenue hike that followed the Reagan tax cuts, and as a result the deficit rose dramatically and the debt nearly tripled. Yet, the economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. Too bad the government did not get its fiscal house in order at the same time.

JFK Tax Cuts

JFK’s tax cuts, which included a gigantic tax cut for the rich, were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed.

Looking at revenue growth in relation to inflation from JFK's first year to the last year his tax rates were in effect, i.e., 1961 to 1968. we see the following: From 1961 to 1968, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 52%, for an average growth rate of 6.5% per year. Total inflation for that period was only 19.13%, an average of only 2.4% per year. From 1961 to 1967, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion to $149 billion, an increase of 48%, for an average growth rate of 6% per year. Total inflation for those years was only 13.76%, an average of only 1.96% per year.

Harding-Coolidge (Mellon) Tax Cuts

Economist Dr. Veronique de Rugy, in an article titled "1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues":

Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. . . .

When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. . . . As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).

The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell. (1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues)

For more info, see:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

Despite What Lefties Say, Tax Cuts Don't "Cost" Anything | RealClearMarkets​

You forgot to mention the severe recessions, depressions, and huge budget deficits. After Reagan's tax cuts revenue greatly declined when adjusted for inflation and he agreed to "revenue enhancement. The Bush tax cuts culminated in the worst economic recession since the 1930s and revenue also greatly declined.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Instructions for historic revenue comparison for ignorant politicos: To be directly compared nominal revenue numbers need to be adjusted for the following growths: Inflation, population, productivity, business cycle etc. Easiest way to do that is to look at revenues as a %ofRealGDP (basically looking at revenue with respect to economy volume). Bush’s tax cuts did not themselfs cause huge real estate and finance bubble that correspondingly grew (shamelessly cherrypicked) receipts in 2003-2008.

We have posted RECORD LOW REVENUES on average since the passage of Bush’s tax cuts when you look at reciepts with respect to the size of the economy.

Sorry kiddos, no free lunch here - someone has to pay up.

What a joke! I guess you didn't notice that I already anticipated this silly argument. And I guess you don't realize that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP was lower under Obama than under Bush.

As I already pointed out, revenue-to-GDP is irrelevant as a measure of federal revenue increases and decreases. It's comparing apples to snails.

I'll tell you what: The next time you ask your boss for a raise (assuming you work), and he tells you that your income in relation to GDP has already gone up and that therefore you don't need a raise, please be sure to say, "Ah, yes, okay." Don't give in to the temptation to say, "What? My income-to-GDP percentage is irrelevant to how much I am earning!" Don't do it! Be consistent in your peddling of propaganda.

And I repeat that revenue-to-GDP got worse under Obama. Just look at any economics website that provides this information--some even provide a graph to illustrate this figure.

 

[mikegriffith1]

wow, revenue grew, so did the debt...

Uh, you didn't actually read the OP, did you?

The debt did not grow after the Clinton tax cuts and after the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts, and the budget was nearly balanced thanks to the JFK tax cuts.

The debt has only grown after tax cuts when the government has gone on a spending spree and cancelled out the revenue hike. When the government has not done so, the budget has either been balanced or the deficit has been reduced considerably.

Free your mind.

Revenues have only gone down year over year in the last 72 years since the end of WWII, whether we had tax cuts tax hikes or no changes.

Claiming tax cuts increase revenues is like claiming the celebration of Christmas causes two months of cold weather.

You got it bassackwards NY...............I am NOT claiming it causes revenue to rise.....eventhough revenue has risen.

It is YOU people who claim it causes revenue to DROP, and the charts show it hasn't!

Doubt me?

Then show us a government website that shows revenue DROPPED after a federal tax cut. That is all you have to do, show us that table from our government.

You see, we are NOT the ones who have to prove that revenue rises. YOU are the ones that have to prove that revenue falls, because that is the basis for your dislike of the cuts. You claim it is going to cost revenue. OK, prove it! Show us where it did before-)

No you have to prove cause and effect between the tax cut and the revenue increase.

btw, revenues fell year over year in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

See Table 1.3

Historical Tables

You use the lying OMB under Obama as your source?!

Funny that dozens of other economic websites show that federal revenue rose dramatically from 2003 to 2008:

• FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
• FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
• FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
• FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
• FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.

Source: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Liberal sites mislead people by showing charts that show federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, which is a meaningless, irrelevant figure--instead of showing them the actual dollar amounts. If you get a raise but your income as a percentage of GDP drops, try using that comparison to get your boss to give you another raise. If doesn't fire you, he'll at least laugh you out of his office.

 

[imawhosure]

wow, revenue grew, so did the debt...

Uh, you didn't actually read the OP, did you?

The debt did not grow after the Clinton tax cuts and after the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts, and the budget was nearly balanced thanks to the JFK tax cuts.

The debt has only grown after tax cuts when the government has gone on a spending spree and cancelled out the revenue hike. When the government has not done so, the budget has either been balanced or the deficit has been reduced considerably.

Free your mind.

Revenues have only gone down year over year in the last 72 years since the end of WWII, whether we had tax cuts tax hikes or no changes.

Claiming tax cuts increase revenues is like claiming the celebration of Christmas causes two months of cold weather.

You got it bassackwards NY...............I am NOT claiming it causes revenue to rise.....eventhough revenue has risen.

It is YOU people who claim it causes revenue to DROP, and the charts show it hasn't!

Doubt me?

Then show us a government website that shows revenue DROPPED after a federal tax cut. That is all you have to do, show us that table from our government.

You see, we are NOT the ones who have to prove that revenue rises. YOU are the ones that have to prove that revenue falls, because that is the basis for your dislike of the cuts. You claim it is going to cost revenue. OK, prove it! Show us where it did before-)

No you have to prove cause and effect between the tax cut and the revenue increase.

btw, revenues fell year over year in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

See Table 1.3

Historical Tables

You use the lying OMB under Obama as your source?!

Funny that dozens of other economic websites show that federal revenue rose dramatically from 2003 to 2008:

• FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
• FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
• FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
• FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
• FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.

Source: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Liberal sites mislead people by showing charts that show federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, which is a meaningless, irrelevant figure--instead of showing them the actual dollar amounts. If you get a raise but your income as a percentage of GDP drops, try using that comparison to get your boss to give you another raise. If doesn't fire you, he'll at least laugh you out of his office.

Mike, Mike! Are you insinuating that the left fibs, misleads, or out and out lies!

Oh my, on Christmas day, they still can't tell the truth.

Betcha old St Nick has a lump of coal for all of them in their stockings; or maybe an EBT card, lolol.

 

[Agit8r]

As many economists have pointed out, every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by substantial increases in federal revenue due to economic growth, as anyone can confirm by looking up federal revenue data. And when the government has not gone on a spending spree after tax cuts, the deficit has either been cut or the budget has even been balanced, and when the government has done the opposite, we have had larger deficits--so tax cuts have never "caused" deficits.

Bush Tax Cuts

Bush's 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because of the recession that started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the recession.

The deficit only rose after the Bush tax cuts because Congress went on a wild spending spree; the huge increase in spending outstripped the big boost in revenue. If Congress had restrained spending hikes to slightly above the rate of inflation, we would have balanced the budget and continued paying down the debt.

Clinton Tax Cuts

In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999. At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts.

Note that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%.

Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the 1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts.

Clinton and Congress imposed some fiscal discipline and federal spending was held to modest increases, and as a result we balanced the budget and began paying down the debt in Clinton's last year. Again, tax cuts never cause deficits: reckless federal spending causes deficits.

Reagan Tax Cuts

Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Although Reagan agreed to some modest tax hikes following his tax cuts, the net effect was that tax rates were still greatly lower in his last year than they were in his first year. In other words, he modestly scaled back some of his tax cuts, but he still cut taxes across the board by large percentages.

Sadly, the federal government went on an incredible spending spree that more than cancelled out the large revenue hike that followed the Reagan tax cuts, and as a result the deficit rose dramatically and the debt nearly tripled. Yet, the economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. Too bad the government did not get its fiscal house in order at the same time.

JFK Tax Cuts

JFK’s tax cuts, which included a gigantic tax cut for the rich, were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed.

Looking at revenue growth in relation to inflation from JFK's first year to the last year his tax rates were in effect, i.e., 1961 to 1968. we see the following: From 1961 to 1968, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 52%, for an average growth rate of 6.5% per year. Total inflation for that period was only 19.13%, an average of only 2.4% per year. From 1961 to 1967, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion to $149 billion, an increase of 48%, for an average growth rate of 6% per year. Total inflation for those years was only 13.76%, an average of only 1.96% per year.

Harding-Coolidge (Mellon) Tax Cuts

Economist Dr. Veronique de Rugy, in an article titled "1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues":

Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. . . .

When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. . . . As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).

The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell. (1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues)

For more info, see:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

Despite What Lefties Say, Tax Cuts Don't "Cost" Anything | RealClearMarkets​

Oh wow, this crap again? Don't forget that the government during Harding's time raised Tariffs (because that was still a thing back then).

We also seem to be forgetting what happened at the end of the speculation bubbles in the stock market (1920), and real estate during the 1980's and 2000's. The small investors lost their shirts, and the worthless wealthy fuckers made bank.

 

[JoeB131]

As I already pointed out, revenue-to-GDP is irrelevant as a measure of federal revenue increases and decreases. It's comparing apples to snails.

um, yeah, it kind of does...

Supply Side is a joke. It's "Voodoo Economics", as the Smart Bush called it once.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no such thing as a tax cut without cutting spending, because they just print the money taxing multiple times harder through inflation. Notice the rise of Bitcoin under Trump. Soon we will remove that government credit card.

Uh, in case you missed the news, Bitcoin is doing terribly. It recently dropped by more than 30%. But don't let facts get in your way.

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003: It was $1.78 trillion in 2003. It was $2.56 trillion in 2007. $2.56T is a lot more than $1.78T, at least down here on Earth.

And if Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down debt. Over-spending causes deficits, not letting people keep more of their own money.

End the drug war.

 

[KissMy]

There is no such thing as a tax cut without cutting spending, because they just print the money taxing multiple times harder through inflation. Notice the rise of Bitcoin under Trump. Soon we will remove that government credit card.

Uh, in case you missed the news, Bitcoin is doing terribly. It recently dropped by more than 30%. But don't let facts get in your way.

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003: It was $1.78 trillion in 2003. It was $2.56 trillion in 2007. $2.56T is a lot more than $1.78T, at least down here on Earth.

And if Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down debt. Over-spending causes deficits, not letting people keep more of their own money.

Trump caused Bitcoin to go from $750 to $19,205 yet you claim "Bitcoin is doing terribly."
Fact is the US Dollar is doing terribly.because of growing DEBT!

 

[danielpalos]

There is no such thing as a tax cut without cutting spending, because they just print the money taxing multiple times harder through inflation. Notice the rise of Bitcoin under Trump. Soon we will remove that government credit card.

Uh, in case you missed the news, Bitcoin is doing terribly. It recently dropped by more than 30%. But don't let facts get in your way.

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003: It was $1.78 trillion in 2003. It was $2.56 trillion in 2007. $2.56T is a lot more than $1.78T, at least down here on Earth.

And if Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down debt. Over-spending causes deficits, not letting people keep more of their own money.

Trump caused Bitcoin to go from $750 to $19,205 yet you claim "Bitcoin is doing terribly."
Fact is the US Dollar is doing terribly.because of growing DEBT!

Bitcoin is doing its own thing.

 

[KissMy]

There is no such thing as a tax cut without cutting spending, because they just print the money taxing multiple times harder through inflation. Notice the rise of Bitcoin under Trump. Soon we will remove that government credit card.

Uh, in case you missed the news, Bitcoin is doing terribly. It recently dropped by more than 30%. But don't let facts get in your way.

You guys can duck and dodge all day, but that will not change the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900s. This is a matter of grade-school math. Four years after the Bush tax cuts, for example, federal revenue was $480 billion more than it had been in 2003: It was $1.78 trillion in 2003. It was $2.56 trillion in 2007. $2.56T is a lot more than $1.78T, at least down here on Earth.

And if Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down debt. Over-spending causes deficits, not letting people keep more of their own money.

Trump caused Bitcoin to go from $750 to $19,205 yet you claim "Bitcoin is doing terribly."
Fact is the US Dollar is doing terribly.because of growing DEBT!

Bitcoin is doing its own thing.

Wrong! - Bitcoin is people bailing out of the US Dollar.