Here's the pudding - More supply-side Laffer curve proof

natesfortune · 12-09-05, 02:45 PM

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b..._in_feder.html

Quote:

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues Since 2003 Tax Act

Treasury Secretary John Snow released this chart today, showing the growth in federal tax revenues since the 2003 Tax Act.

Yet again, it is proved that tax cuts do not "cause deficits". There have been four major tax cuts in the last 100 years, and each one of them caused an INCREASE in tax revenue afterward. Even after very large, across-the-board double-digit tax cuts as with Reagan and Kennedy, revenues INCREASED rather than decreased.

But of course having to "prove" something so simple over and over is a bit ridiculous anyway, isn't it? The idea that liberals would have us believe, that somehow taxes are different than any other "price", and thus have no yield curve affect to them at higher or lower "prices" is just absurd.

Liberals routinely try and present the issue this way: "cutting taxes = causes deficits; and raising taxes + reduction in deficts". They tell us that raising taxes gives us more revenue - as if tax revenue is on some straight diagonal line and not a mathematical curve. This not only defies experience with any other kind of pricing system, it also defies common-sense. Yet the media lets them spew this drivel without challenge any time they like.

So here it is - proven, yet again. But, I predict one week won't pass before somebody on this forum again says something along the lines of "Can you believe Bush is cutting taxes for rich people when we have a deficit!" or trying to act as if our deficit was caused or "made worse" by the tax cuts - when the facts show that the opposite has occured.

cpgator · 12-09-05, 02:56 PM

I would also like to see a chart that shows spending levels - both with and without the cost of the war.

natesfortune · 12-09-05, 03:06 PM

Spending is another issue. Spending is what causes deficits, not tax cuts.

My point here is that people blame the tax cuts for deficits, or they say we should raise taxes BECAUSE we have deficits, when in fact, the opposite is true.

VinVega · 12-09-05, 03:08 PM

I'm waiting with bated breath for the Republicans to slash domestic spending across the board. Prediction: It won't happen. They like their jobs.

natesfortune · 12-09-05, 03:11 PM

If they like their jobs, it better start happening - lots of grumbling going on out there on the right about this...

wendersfan · 12-09-05, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natesfortune

Spending is another issue. Spending is what causes deficits, not tax cuts.

My point here is that people blame the tax cuts for deficits, or they say we should raise taxes BECAUSE we have deficits, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Tax cuts can cause deficits, especially in the short run. Based on these data that certainly seems to not be the case in this instance.

VinVega · 12-09-05, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natesfortune

If they like their jobs, it better start happening - lots of grumbling going on out there on the right about this...

No it won't. What's the alternative to Republican "cut and spend" tactics? A Democrat who will try to "tax and spend" and actually try to balance the budget. Surely you don't want THAT option!

No, Americans are perfectly happy to have their cake and eat it too. Tell Joe Six Pack that he can't get his Medicare or SS anymore and they'll vote with their wallets. Hopefully China will continue to fund our deficit spending.

natesfortune · 12-09-05, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendersfan

Tax cuts can cause deficits, especially in the short run. Based on these data that certainly seems to not be the case in this instance.

Maybe in the first year or so - yet that has simply not happened in the last four major American tax cuts. Revenue has always increased.

Tax cuts CAN cause deficits, sure - but only once you start going down the other end of the Laffer curve. We don't seem to be anywhere near that, though.

X · 12-09-05, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpgator

I would also like to see a chart that shows spending levels - both with and without the cost of the war.

I believe that would provide some insight as government spending stimulates the economy and raises tax revenues.

natesfortune · 12-09-05, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

No it won't. What's the alternative to Republican "cut and spend" tactics? A Democrat who will try to "tax and spend" and actually try to balance the budget. Surely you don't want THAT option!

No, Americans are perfectly happy to have their cake and eat it too. Tell Joe Six Pack that he can't get his Medicare or SS anymore and they'll vote with their wallets. Hopefully China will continue to fund our deficit spending.

There you go again...

"Cut and spend" sounds like you're trying to make the Republican policy here to be contrary - "Oh, they cut taxes and increase spending???" But as the data proves, it is NOT. Cutting taxes has INCREASED revenue.

"Tax and spend" also does not imply that any budget will be balanced - raising taxes is just as likely to DECREASE revenue due to decreased economic activity as cutting taxes INCREASES them by raising that activity.

VinVega · 12-09-05, 03:37 PM

There's one part of government spending that has quite a bit of pork in it. Actually, it's the largest percentage of government spending, but if we tinker with that, you're simply unpatriotic.

kvrdave · 12-09-05, 03:38 PM

pudding

nemein · 12-09-05, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Yet the media lets them spew this drivel without challenge any time they like.

natesfortune I STRONGLY recommend you read this thread http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448146 and heed the warning about the level of discourse we are trying to promote here. This thread and your argument would be just as valid, if not more so, if you didn't include such language as "spew this drivel".

Ranger · 12-09-05, 03:46 PM

I think it'd be interesting if laws were passed to prevent foreign investors like the Chinese from giving our government loans.

JasonF · 12-09-05, 03:55 PM

Here's another chart, which demonstrates that the growth in revenues is in spite of the 2003 tax cuts, not because of them:

Which chart is right? Beats me. I will point out that under President Bush, we had two rounds of tax cuts -- one in 2001, and a second in 2003. Note that the 2001 tax cuts didn't increase revenues.

nemein · 12-09-05, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Note that the 2001 tax cuts didn't increase revenues.

Shouldn't it also be noted that that tax cut happened right before 11 Sept which definately had an impact on the economy. So I'm not sure your argument is entirely valid on that point.

Mark_vdH · 12-09-05, 04:00 PM

You're really on the wrong side of the reality curve if you happen to believe this Laffer crap.

Federal revenues rely on a whole lot of circumstances, one of them being the tax rate. If the article doesn't correct for other factors (population growth, inflation, economic growth), it has just about as much value as claiming a relationship between the number of existing pirates and global warming.....

If it were so easy for the US government to increase tax revenues by simply reducing tax rates (and a scientific certainty that this wil happen), making everyone richer at the expense of nobody, then boy, every politician would certainly favor it. I mean, what's the conspiracy idea behind this one? Even liberals/socialists must favor this, as this would get them more easy money to waste.....

Ranger · 12-09-05, 04:01 PM

There's also the case of Congress taking money from the ss fund.

Didn't congress increase the ss cap rate a few months ago?

Could someone explain what this means?

Quote:

GAAP-Based GAAP-Based
Fiscal "Official" Deficit Without Deficit With
Year Deficit Soc. Sec., Etc. Soc. Sec., Etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
2004 est. $445 Billion $800 Billion $4.3 Trillion
2003 $374 Billion $665 Billion $3.7 Trillion
2002 $158 Billion $365 Billion $1.5 Trillion
------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi...article/id=342

nemein · 12-09-05, 04:04 PM

Well pirate attacks have been on the rise http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...ase_worldwide/ maybe you're on to something here

Mark_vdH · 12-09-05, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemein

Well pirate attacks have been on the rise http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...ase_worldwide/ maybe you're on to something here

Of course, I was referring to this:

http://www.venganza.org/

X · 12-09-05, 04:08 PM

Even though the tax laws were passed in a particular year one needs to know the timing and amounts of the tax reductions in order to judge when their impact would be shown upon revenues. These were generally phased in and out tax reductions and the phase out hasn't occurred yet.

classicman2 · 12-09-05, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemein

Shouldn't it also be noted that that tax cut happened right before 11 Sept which definately had an impact on the economy. So I'm not sure your argument is entirely valid on that point.

And I'm not sure that the tax cuts that came after increased revenues either.

Quote:

If it were so easy for the US government to increase tax revenues by simply reducing tax rates (and a scientific certainty that this wil happen), making everyone richer at the expense of nobody, then boy, every politician would certainly favor it. I mean, what's the conspiracy idea behind this one? Even liberals/socialists must favor this, as this would get them more easy money to waste.....

classicman2 · 12-09-05, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranger

There's also the case of Congress taking money from the ss fund.

Didn't congress increase the ss cap rate a few months ago?

Could someone explain what this means?

http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi...article/id=342

The Repubs have taken money from all the trust funds that had a surplus.

Ranger · 12-09-05, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

The Repubs have taken money from all the trust funds that had a surplus.

Surely that couldn't have had some impact on the amazing revenues the government "received".

wendersfan · 12-09-05, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonF

Here's another chart, which demonstrates that the growth in revenues is in spite of the 2003 tax cuts, not because of them:

Which chart is right? Beats me. I will point out that under President Bush, we had two rounds of tax cuts -- one in 2001, and a second in 2003. Note that the 2001 tax cuts didn't increase revenues.

I don't think there's any way you can spin it that revenues went up "in spite" of the tax cuts. The best you could do, IMO, would be to prove they were an irrelevancy.

I want to see some data that show revenues specifically from taxes on personal income, and no other source.

12-09-05, 03:06 PM	#3
natesfortune DVD Talk Platinum Edition Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,639	Spending is another issue. Spending is what causes deficits, not tax cuts. My point here is that people blame the tax cuts for deficits, or they say we should raise taxes BECAUSE we have deficits, when in fact, the opposite is true. __________________ www.fourpair.com "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

12-09-05, 03:08 PM	#4
VinVega Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Stuck in the middle with you Posts: 24,118	I'm waiting with bated breath for the Republicans to slash domestic spending across the board. Prediction: It won't happen. They like their jobs. __________________ History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity. - Cicero

12-09-05, 03:11 PM	#5
natesfortune DVD Talk Platinum Edition Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,639	If they like their jobs, it better start happening - lots of grumbling going on out there on the right about this... __________________ www.fourpair.com "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

12-09-05, 03:37 PM	#11
VinVega Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Stuck in the middle with you Posts: 24,118	There's one part of government spending that has quite a bit of pork in it. Actually, it's the largest percentage of government spending, but if we tinker with that, you're simply unpatriotic. __________________ History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity. - Cicero

12-09-05, 03:38 PM	#12
kvrdave DVD Talk God Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 79,313	pudding __________________ Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

12-09-05, 02:56 PM	#2
cpgator DVD Talk Ultimate Edition Join Date: May 2000 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,481	I would also like to see a chart that shows spending levels - both with and without the cost of the war.

12-09-05, 03:46 PM	#14
Ranger DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 18,205	I think it'd be interesting if laws were passed to prevent foreign investors like the Chinese from giving our government loans.

12-09-05, 03:55 PM	#15
JasonF DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The greater Chicagoland area Posts: 31,998	Here's another chart, which demonstrates that the growth in revenues is in spite of the 2003 tax cuts, not because of them: Which chart is right? Beats me. I will point out that under President Bush, we had two rounds of tax cuts -- one in 2001, and a second in 2003. Note that the 2001 tax cuts didn't increase revenues. __________________ These are my DVDs 360 GamerTag: William T Bunny PSN ID: William_T_Bunny "JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23

12-09-05, 04:00 PM	#17
Mark_vdH Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 619	You're really on the wrong side of the reality curve if you happen to believe this Laffer crap. Federal revenues rely on a whole lot of circumstances, one of them being the tax rate. If the article doesn't correct for other factors (population growth, inflation, economic growth), it has just about as much value as claiming a relationship between the number of existing pirates and global warming..... If it were so easy for the US government to increase tax revenues by simply reducing tax rates (and a scientific certainty that this wil happen), making everyone richer at the expense of nobody, then boy, every politician would certainly favor it. I mean, what's the conspiracy idea behind this one? Even liberals/socialists must favor this, as this would get them more easy money to waste..... Last edited by Mark_vdH; 12-09-05 at 04:03 PM.

12-09-05, 04:04 PM	#19
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,291	Well pirate attacks have been on the rise http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...ase_worldwide/ maybe you're on to something here __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2752 days 20 hours 6 minutes Last edited by nemein; 12-09-05 at 04:28 PM.

12-09-05, 04:08 PM	#21
X Administrator Join Date: Oct 1987 Location: AA- Posts: 10,218	Even though the tax laws were passed in a particular year one needs to know the timing and amounts of the tax reductions in order to judge when their impact would be shown upon revenues. These were generally phased in and out tax reductions and the phase out hasn't occurred yet.