Correct me if I'm wrong. It would seem that lower taxes brings in more tax revenue.



In 1995, higher taxes under Clintax brought in 1.5 Trillion in Tax Revenue.



In 2002, lower taxes under Bush took in 2.1 Trillion in Tax Revenue.



See if taxes are lower, people have more to invest.

When people make more money as a result, they pay more tax dollars at a lower percentage.

I just know our pall the thinker will call me an idiot. But goodness it seems this is a no brainer.



http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=28D72D4DFDE0F59140A2DEA9FF2AE03A?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=888#1

Correct me if I'm wrong. It would seem that lower taxes brings in more tax revenue.



In 1995, higher taxes under Clintax brought in 1.5 Trillion in Tax Revenue.



In 2002, lower taxes under Bush took in 2.1 Trillion in Tax Revenue.


That would need to be adjusted for inflation, but nevertheless, I've heard the same, except from real sources, not from Bill O'Reilly.

Lionel, the fact that you don't particulary like a source doesn't make the facts any less true.

I just know our pall the thinker will call me an idiot. But goodness it seems this is a no brainer.

You're not an idiot.

But you are wrong.

(hey, you SAID to correct you if you were)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h020502_1.shtml

Cut men

Cattle, bring yourselves in by the barn. Bruce Bartlett has something to tell you! ------- The Washington Times, 2/4/02

As readers know, there is simply no spin-point—no matter how foolish—the talk-show right won’t feed to the cattle. On Monday, one iconic spin-point was blown apart in the Washington Times by conservative budget maven Bruce Bartlett.

You’ve heard the claim a thousand times. Cutting tax rates increases revenues, the talk-show right’s cattle proclaim. And they usually cite the Reagan tax cuts as their primo example. Across the country, conservative talkers toss this feed to the herd every day of the week....When the cattle get riled, they’re eager to say that lower tax rates produce extra revenue.

...

This favorite bit of cattle feed is a simple piece of talk-show agitprop—a bale of hay the talk-show right loves to throw down to the herd. Bartlett, the conservative budget maven, put some plain talk in the Times:

BARTLETT: Contrary to popular mythology, the Reagan administration never made any claim that the 1981 tax cut would pay for itself.

Bartlett is too polite to say so, of course, but the "popular mythology" to which he refers is the crackpot spin of the talk-show right. What really went on in the early 80s when President Reagan lowered tax rates? Writing in slightly jumbled prose, Bartlett tossed these mots in too:

BARTLETT: U.S. taxes have never been so high, in 1981 or any other time, that an across-the-board rate cut would lead to such an outpouring of economic output, and such a diminution of tax evasion and avoidance, that there would be no loss of revenue.

Read that with care. Tax rates were not so high, in 1981, that rates could be cut without loss of revenue. And in fact, the Reagan administration never said there would be no revenue loss. But cattle, don’t believe us—listen to Bartlett. He spoke about various agencies’ revenue estimates at the time of the Reagan cuts:

BARTLETT: Every revenue estimate ever put out by the [Reagan] Treasury Department or [Reagan] Office of Management and Budget was based on the same methodology used for years before. They all showed large revenue losses that were in line with independent analyses. For example, the CBO, then under Democratic control, had virtually identical estimates of expected federal revenues, including the tax cut, as did the Reagan administration.

Read that passage again, herd members. The Reagan admin, like the Democratic CBO, predicted large revenue LOSSES. These accurate words belong to Bartlett, the Washington Times’ regular budget columnist.

Cattle, did you know that Rush and his various ilk have been playing you all these years? As Bartlett explains, conservative economists have never claimed that you get more future revenue if you cut tax rates. What they have claimed is quite different: they have claimed that you don’t lose as much future revenue as a "static" analysis would predict.

Specifically: If you cut tax rates by 20 percent, you won’t lose 20 percent of future revenue. BUT as Bartlett notes, you will lose substantial revenue all the same. For better or worse, a 33 percent tax rate will produce less revenue than a 39.6 percent tax rate will do.

Cattle, let’s spell out one of the many ways you’ve been played by your cowboy talk-show hosts. Here is what happened because of the Reagan rate cuts. When Reagan cut rates in the early 80s, revenues kept going up anyway. That happened for a very good reason; it happened because revenues always go up. Revenues go up for several reasons. Revenues go up because of inflation. Revenues go up because of population growth. Revenues go up because of productivity gains. But those future revenues were substantially less than they would have been if the Reagan rate cuts hadn’t happened. As Bartlett explains in this piece, revenues in the 80s would have been higher if Reagan had left rates alone.

That doesn’t mean the rate cuts were bad. It doesn’t mean that Reagan was wrong. But cattle, when Rush and the gang start throwing you feed, try to remember what Bruce Bartlett told you. And ask yourselves this—ask yourselves why it is you keep mooing and lowing when Rush tells you things that are wrong.

Tax revenue is directly related to GDP and how fast money moves in an economy. Lower taxes can spur the economy & make make people spend more.

It is incorrect though to say lower taxes automatically result in higher tax revenues. If that were true then the tax rate would be zero and the revenue would be infinity $

Correct me if I'm wrong. It would seem that lower taxes brings in more tax revenue. It's amazing how wrong you can be with such a short post. Numbers will confess to anything if you torture them enough. Please ask Mr. O'Reilly for the Clinton tax receipts in 1999 (at the end of the largest uninterupted expansion of the American industrial age), instead of 1995. Please remind him to adjust his numbers for inflation, and population growth. Any geniune apples-to-apples comparison should be done on a per-capita basis.

Finally, it's important to remind yourself that no tax cut is really a tax cut unless you actually CUT SPENDING. Otherwise it's merely a deferred tax INCREASE. Duh.

If that were true then the tax rate would be zero and the revenue would be infinity $
Let's bring it to its logical conclusion Drew. The tax rate would be negative and the National Surplus Clock would be a 9 Trillion and rising....

Lionel, the fact that you don't particulary like a source doesn't make the facts any less true.

Which, I believe, is exactly what I said!

I wonder how much of the increased tax revenues are due to the tax cuts, and how much is due to economic stimulation from deficit spending. Deficit spending stimulates the economy, as any student of Keynsian economics knows. This is the same program we have followed since FDR used massive deficit spending to combat the great depession.