Trump.Stamped
Gold Member
- Mar 11, 2016
- 1,075
- 130
- 140
From the right you hear tax cuts increase jobs, investments, spending, etc which makes up for the lower rate.
From the left you just hear it cuts taxes for the rich and increases the deficit.
Frankly, I don't give a shit one way or the other. We don't have a problem with tax rates being too low, we have a spending problem. I feel I can spend MY MONEY better than the fucksticks in Washington DC.
You can research and find different answers, and not many definitive answers. In the Washington Post article below they say the following:
First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.
But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.
But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
So, in summary, if my taxes are lower and we initially lose a few hundred billion in revenue a year, so be it. Cut the ridiculous spending to make up for it.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’
FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?
From the left you just hear it cuts taxes for the rich and increases the deficit.
Frankly, I don't give a shit one way or the other. We don't have a problem with tax rates being too low, we have a spending problem. I feel I can spend MY MONEY better than the fucksticks in Washington DC.
You can research and find different answers, and not many definitive answers. In the Washington Post article below they say the following:
First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.
But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.
But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
So, in summary, if my taxes are lower and we initially lose a few hundred billion in revenue a year, so be it. Cut the ridiculous spending to make up for it.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’
FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?