Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Just some CBO figures concerning tax revenues.

In April alone, receipts primarily from taxes totalled a record $US403.8 billion ($A429.71 billion), up from $US383.6 billion ($A408.22 billion) in April 2007.

So, let's see, with the Bush tax cuts, we have had increased tax revenue. So the obvious thing to do, is let them lapse (as the Dems propose) ...... huh?

[chucklesR]

Um, further point - that is an increase in revenue during a supposed (tho not official, nor real in my opinion) Recession.

Stuff that in your pipe those of you who want to rescind the tax cut ( yes you!)

[US27inKS]

Remember that in politician speak, a tax cut is actually a reduction in the amount of tax INCREASE. So instead of the full increase, we only get a partial increase. The dems want to rescind the tax cut (reduced increase) then increase the taxes some more.

[sck5]

It is a fanatasy to imagine that cutting taxes raises revenue. By that logic you should cut them to zero and the deficit will disappear!

The reason revenue went up was because the economy grew, not because tax cuts increase revenue. And before you claim the growth was because of the tax cut please remember that Clinton raised taxes in 93, the beginning of the highest growth we have had in a long time.

[erps]

It is a fanatasy to imagine that cutting taxes raises revenue. By that logic you should cut them to zero and the deficit will disappear!

I"ve seen it written elsewhere that there is a sweet spot between a 0 and 100 % tax rate that creates the most government income and that it's not a fantasy at all.

The reason revenue went up was because the economy grew, not because tax cuts increase revenue

but because the tax cuts spurred the economy to grow? so the tax cuts did increase the revenue.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by sck5

It is a fanatasy to imagine that cutting taxes raises revenue. By that logic you should cut them to zero and the deficit will disappear!

The reason revenue went up was because the economy grew, not because tax cuts increase revenue. And before you claim the growth was because of the tax cut please remember that Clinton raised taxes in 93, the beginning of the highest growth we have had in a long time.

Might that not have had more to do with Reagan and Bush senior laying the foundation for the previous 12 years rather than an increase in taxes?

[sck5]

erps

Yes, there is a sweet spot. And we are well below it. We have done the experiment twice now (Reagan and Bush). Both times taxes were cut the deficit ballooned. Do we really need to try a third time?

Knothead - Sure, there were lots of factors, and there's no doubt the country was ready to roll in 92. But it is also true that investors liked it that the US Government was living within its means and so didnt require as high interest rates as they did before and were willing to put money down as a result. My point is that the notion that simply cutting taxes will increase revenue is hogwash. Cutting taxes gets you a higher deficit. Overall revenue may increase if the economy keeps growing but I will take Clinton's growth record after his tax increase over Bush's record after his tax cut any day.

[sck5]

erps said


Quote:
The reason revenue went up was because the economy grew, not because tax cuts increase revenue
but because the tax cuts spurred the economy to grow? so the tax cuts did increase the revenue.

If you believe that then you have to explain to yourself why the economy grew massively after the Clinton tax increase and why it didnt grow nearly as fast after the Bush cuts.

[sck5]

us27 said

"sck5, I saw a poll the other day that showed the relationship between position or job and who they are voting for. The overwhelming number of people who list their postion as CEO will vote for obama. Do you really think that a politician (any politician) would sell out such a powerful segment of his supporters by taxing them to death? Surely the average person who lists their job as CEO falls into your "rich" category. IF they want social justice, they'll give at the office."

That is news to me. But if it is true, then it is worth wondering why since Obama's position on taxes is well known. Perhaps they know that having a federal government that doesnt spend money it doesnt have is good for business. Also, that having a government that has the money needed to keep infrastructure from degrading is good for business.

And please, nobody is talking about "taxing them to death". They will still be multimillionaires after any possible tax change. Well, I take it back. Republicans think any taxes at all are unfair so maybe they do equate taxation with death.

[camaraderie]

The economy grew during Clinton's early years because of the REAGAN tax cuts and a Republican Congress that ACTUALLY controlled spending unlike our more recent one.
You will recall that a recession was under way by several months before GWBush took office so THAT is Clinton's economic legacy which many choose to forget.
The fact that there is a massive GWBush deficit is the result of HIS and Conresse's gluttony AND the impact of 9/11 on the economy early on and the CLINTON recession...despite RECORD breaking revenues due to the tax cuts.
BTW,,,it is convenient to blame the war for the deficit...but military spending is lower than at many points in the last 40 years and deficits are way higher...sure...it would be nice to have some of that money to REBUILD the armed forces, or control our borders...but it is NOT the cause of our deficits. DC gluttony is to blame.

There IS a right number for tax rates vs. revenues. It is called the FAIR TAX plan.