Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

[danielpalos]

End our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to end our income tax, right wingers; otherwise, thou dost protest too much.

 

[AntonToo]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

math or data analysis is not really your thing, is it?

If your chart does anything it is prove there is no correlation between the two. Tax receipts go up because every year there are more people paying taxes, that is what is known as population growth. You will notice that tax receipts were going up the entire time the rate was 70%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Google velocity of money... if I get an extra $100... how many times does that money get spent each time being taxed?

 

[AntonToo]

Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

Look, if the Left had half the sense needed to understand basic economics, they'd be too smart to be Leftists in the first place.

In your perfectly adequate, righty sense, would you say conservative economists understand economics?

 

[healthmyths]

Didn't Kansas try tax cut theory only to miserably fail?

Didn't you read this in a previous response to that dumb statement?
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

 

[healthmyths]

Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

Look, if the Left had half the sense needed to understand basic economics, they'd be too smart to be Leftists in the first place.

In your perfectly adequate, righty sense, would you say conservative economists understand economics?

You are 100% correct regarding "conservative economists"... READ below!
The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.
1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.
2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy.
When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.
Who are the supply siders?

Above is a biased and my amateur opinion IGNORANCE on the crowd following the crowd!
By the way this is why the above author thinks Reagan bought Arthur Laffer's Curve!
Why Reagan by-passed thousands of qualified conservative economists for the council of a few supply-siders is a mystery. Perhaps the most likely reason was practical: the supply-siders told Reagan what he wanted to hear. To understand why, we should devote a paragraph to the economic problems that Reagan faced in 1980...

Now my living through the gas lines of Carter, Carter's sweater speeches, and the MISERY INDEX gave me a real personal perspective!
THAT's what Reagan FACED!
Under Carter...The inflation rate went from 6.8% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1978, to 11.5% in 1979, to 12.4% in 1980
Jimmy Carter's Inferior Years | Human Events
Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.
Under Carter...Unemployment rate Jan 1981 7.5%
Yup and I lived through this... plus the really bad indignity of it! I VOTED FOR CARTER!!!! YUP totally ignorant and believe the MSM entirely! "Nixon Crook" Carter Not"!

 

[Syriusly]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

So if we cut taxes to zero that would maximize our tax revenue?

 

[toobfreak]

Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

Look, if the Left had half the sense needed to understand basic economics, they'd be too smart to be Leftists in the first place.

In your perfectly adequate, righty sense, would you say conservative economists understand economics?

You are 100% correct regarding "conservative economists"... READ below!
The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.
1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.
2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy.
When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.
Who are the supply siders?

Above is a biased and my amateur opinion IGNORANCE on the crowd following the crowd!
By the way this is why the above author thinks Reagan bought Arthur Laffer's Curve!
Why Reagan by-passed thousands of qualified conservative economists for the council of a few supply-siders is a mystery. Perhaps the most likely reason was practical: the supply-siders told Reagan what he wanted to hear. To understand why, we should devote a paragraph to the economic problems that Reagan faced in 1980...

Now my living through the gas lines of Carter, Carter's sweater speeches, and the MISERY INDEX gave me a real personal perspective!
THAT's what Reagan FACED!
Under Carter...The inflation rate went from 6.8% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1978, to 11.5% in 1979, to 12.4% in 1980
Jimmy Carter's Inferior Years | Human Events
Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.
Under Carter...Unemployment rate Jan 1981 7.5%
Yup and I lived through this... plus the really bad indignity of it! I VOTED FOR CARTER!!!! YUP totally ignorant and believe the MSM entirely! "Nixon Crook" Carter Not"!


View attachment 149184

Hey Myth,

you have any documentation to support your phony facts? If any of it is true, all it proves is that the "Misery Index" has gone down by -8.10 over the past 69 years! Or about DOUBLE the "Happiness Index!" Life is good.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

math or data analysis is not really your thing, is it?

If your chart does anything it is prove there is no correlation between the two. Tax receipts go up because every year there are more people paying taxes, that is what is known as population growth. You will notice that tax receipts were going up the entire time the rate was 70%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

It just kills me that the graph he used as "proof" actually killed his argument before it even started, but he does not seem to know that.

 

[healthmyths]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

math or data analysis is not really your thing, is it?

If your chart does anything it is prove there is no correlation between the two. Tax receipts go up because every year there are more people paying taxes, that is what is known as population growth. You will notice that tax receipts were going up the entire time the rate was 70%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

It just kills me that the graph he used as "proof" actually killed his argument before it even started, but he does not seem to know that.

How did it "kill" the argument?
A) TAX RECEIPTS DON"T GO UP every year!
GEEZ DIDN"T you read this chart?
Tax receipts went down Dummy in 2001, in 2002,in 2003,in 2004 AND WHY ?
THE EVENTS that happened directly AFFECTED JOBS and businesses!
Yet the population went up. Technology still existed. "social growth" what the f..k is that???

So right there you are so wrong!
In fact the chart I used showed the decline in receipts! Look at 2000 through 2004 DOWN not up or don't you know the difference???
B) Even your beloved Obama had 2016 decline in receipts and oh yea the population had increased but the idiot in office was killing businesses!
See you don't even know that in one business area alone Obamacare taxed an additional 10% on their revenue...
and this has drastically reduced that industry's revenue!

So again YOU are a dummy for stating my chart "killed" my argument!

 

[hazlnut]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

 

[Slade3200]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

GDP is the measure of economic activity. Taxes are levied ON economic activity. More GDP, more revenues at same tax rate.

Revenues as a % of GDP is the yardstick of Revenue comparison because it has built-in economic growth and inflation adjustment.

Read up
Relationship Between GDP and Tax Revenue - GetMoneyRich.com

HEY Dummy... WHICH CAME FIRST... economic activity or GDP????
GDP is a MEASURE of economic activity!
Federal government REVENUE comes from ECONOMIC activity NOT from anything the government creates, sells and earns revenue!
So take out of the GDP a MEASURE of economic activity Federal revenue and then tell me tax cuts don't help!
BECAUSE TAXES are based on economic activity that creates MORE revenue then is spent on labor/capital. Federal revenue comes AFTER economic activity
has paid labor/capital expenses. So you can't count Federal revenue as part of GDP because it is left over from economic activity which is then measured by GDP!
Dummy!View attachment 149168

You ever going to give us numbers? Ive asked like 4 times now. Come on man back up your argument with something practical

Where did you go healthmyths ?? How about those numbers?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

math or data analysis is not really your thing, is it?

If your chart does anything it is prove there is no correlation between the two. Tax receipts go up because every year there are more people paying taxes, that is what is known as population growth. You will notice that tax receipts were going up the entire time the rate was 70%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

It just kills me that the graph he used as "proof" actually killed his argument before it even started, but he does not seem to know that.

How did it "kill" the argument?
A) TAX RECEIPTS DON"T GO UP every year!
GEEZ DIDN"T you read this chart?
Tax receipts went down Dummy in 2001, in 2002,in 2003,in 2004 AND WHY ?
THE EVENTS that happened directly AFFECTED JOBS and businesses!
Yet the population went up. Technology still existed. "social growth" what the f..k is that???

So right there you are so wrong!
In fact the chart I used showed the decline in receipts! Look at 2000 through 2004 DOWN not up or don't you know the difference???
B) Even your beloved Obama had 2016 decline in receipts and oh yea the population had increased but the idiot in office was killing businesses!
See you don't even know that in one business area alone Obamacare taxed an additional 10% on their revenue...
and this has drastically reduced that industry's revenue!

So again YOU are a dummy for stating my chart "killed" my argument!
View attachment 149209

Here is the chart you posted...

In this chart there is no correlation at all between tax rate and tax receipts. The entire time the tax rate was 70% tax receipts went up. When the tax rate went up in 92 there was no drop in receipts, which would be the case if you were correct about the correlation between the two things.

That is why this chart kills your argument, it shows there is no correlation between the two things. The two drops due to the recessions do not have a corresponding increase, which would need to be the case for your theory of a connection between the two to be correct.

I hope that helps, if I need to I could draw it out in crayons for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

The left know. They simply want everyone to be poor and wearing brown jumpsuits riding bikes.

Yep, that's in the Manifesto of the Libertine Party.

Charp. I: Man is born free but is everywhere in the chains of despotic progressives:

• Progressives believe in equal rights and equal opportunity for all; a horrible outcome occurs when a black man or women supervises a white man, who is superior to them by an act of God;
• Progressives believe in a Social Contract, a faux contract which guarantees the poor will remain poor and the money of the not poor will be spent for those who want free things;
• Libertines deny liberty and happiness to entrepreneurs - they punish them for not providing their wares to those who have walked a path less traveled.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

It would be better if Democrat enlightened you.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

It would be better if Democrat enlightened you.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

Sorry Pal, that was before the don't tax and spend Republican Party put us into a 20 Trillion Dollar Hole. If you go to war, sell Bonds; if you want to build a Wall, sell bonds, if you want to cut the debt, cut the annual deficit to zero and don't spend my take dollars on boondoggles and tax cuts to Global Corporations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans still don't understand that 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. They don't seem to understand what that means.
If Chinese labor at $173 a month was too expensive and so corporations like Fox-comm still automated, why do Republicans think they didn't automate here?

If they can't get an issue as simple as automation, why would they understand taxes? Something even more complex?

 

[Care4all]

Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.

Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.

However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.

True. And the housing and mortgage boom....with lower Fed interest.....all could have been part of bringing in more tax revenues too?