MyFox
 

My turn...

by Riley34470 from Florida

Last Post 101 days, 11 hours Ago


I've been researching an Idea that I heard the other day.  Do Tax Cuts actually increase Tax Revenue?   Leave me a comment. 

Thanx

~RileY~

28 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 28
Page 1 of 1
Gammies61 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 11:45 AM

Wish I knew.

dks75 read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 12:27 PM

Ive read mixed reviews. Tax cuts and rebates are supposed to help with short term problems. However in the long run they can actually reduce the amount we can borrow hurting the economy. They usually hurt things like SS..

Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 1:26 PM

dks75.. they might hurt borrowing power from a government loan, but not others...

I tell ya what, Obama gets his way and the wife and I for example this month will have capped our FICA taxes for the year will vanish, and another 150 bucks a month will be gone! Right now I use that money to send my daughter to a private christian summer school, and it would be gone under Obama's policy.

The dirty little secret the media is covering up: Obama is for income RE-DISTRIBUTION and even stated that taxes are also for CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!

THAT is straight out of the book of Marxism!!

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 4:47 PM

Well based on “statistics” and “facts” and the actual amount that has been generated by the Federal government every time we use them the answer is YES , but Democrats don't like “reality” so we are evidently going to use something els to make this determination !
Why are you adding rebates and stretching a point (far beyond any reason) about SS “suffering” DK ? The question was about tax cuts NOT the cutting of the prime rate or the crazy hand outs !

pcarpenter read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 6:16 PM

The neoconservative analysit hve fail to take into abount that tax revenues increase every year because of the growth of our gross domestic product. Tax cuts do not increase tax revenue they just appease tax payers. OUr semi socialist government has many tax bases besides its citizens. Our taxes on import make up a large part of our overall tax revenue. Taxes are not a partisan issue anyways all politicians raise taxes, all politicians cut taxes. It was a republican who raised them and in the same uear doubled his presidential salary. (Richard M. Nixon) \

The most logical solution is the simplest tax cuts for individuals and families did not have enough impact to lower tax revenues because of our every increasing GDP (though its slowed to 1% a quarter) and the taxes we have on industries.
therefore at the most:
Tax cuts lessen the increase in tax revenue we have but not enough to cause a loss in tax revenue because of other tax sources.

Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 7:42 PM

Well since we are on macro economics and taxes:

Politically driven taxes for example include the high tariff on imported steel. The domestic steel industry (rust belt) has been on life support only surviving because we have this tax. Meanwhile the nations effected simply raise their taxes on other goods that we export to them.

The liberal (aka progressive) analysist must remember that the rise of the President's salary is confirmed by the congress, and in Nixon's day we know who the majority was. Clinton actually raised it as well, but not to take effect until the next administration.

We hand down the second highest corporate tax rate on earth, and that stiffles domestic revenue as corperations seek better ground overseas, including escaping enormous enviromental restrictions and regulations that climate folks seem to allow a pass for everyone else.

Cheap labor is the typical drum beat of libs on why overseas goods and services, but that is barely the tip of the iceburg.

We could easily afford more tax cuts, as the govt. gets zero sympathy from the public that is asked to cut back, while stealing from the general fund for EVERYTHING from bridges to nowhere to Woodstock museum funding.

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 7:52 PM

Dead wrong and about as crazy as one can get ! Import tax makes up LESS than 2% of total federal revenue ...Blue Boy here has to go back to Nixon to find a Republican who raised taxes , your not even sharp for a liberal ! Reagan raised taxes (how slow are you anyway) , next you say taxes go up with the GDP really ? Explain 1993 to 97 to me then ? Why did gross federal revenue fall behind the rise in GDP (1/10 of a % but that is still a decline !)
But I will make this simple enough for a socialist democrat like you to understand , corporate tax cuts always 1 create jobs 2 raise the GDP and 3 raise Federal revenue...in the case of the “Bush” tax cuts they beat the budget projections by 23% !
Fun Fact the federal gas tax generated 17.76 billion dollars in revenue last year kind a cool hu 1776 LOL this year it will be less but much like Clinton GDP short falls (6 years in a row!) I am sure the Fed will raise the tax !

pcarpenter read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 8:11 PM

Hey man i/m not a liberal. I Dislike clinton i was making a simple point lowering taxies on people whether it is right or wrong does not increase revenue. Read an economics book. Read my lips bush raised taxes. Clinton was an idiot who got lucky because of an economic fluke in american history. Who care if you liberal or republican anyways. What exactly does blue boy mean is that some sort of predjudice remark. Well revenues increase no matter how we cut taxes unless we get rid of them because we have MORE THAN ONE TAX BASE. I'm sorry you are so informed that you think the tax cuts you so deserved are great for the economy. They are neither good nor bad because they were so insignificant and didn't effect revenue at all. your 2% figure well that i would need to see a source to believe you i have one infront of me and i doubt you do. You just made a mess of statements with not logic or facts behind them. Tell me why they creat jobs, then tell me how they raise GDP (which hasn't fallen since the 1930's) then please please explain how collecting less taxes gives us more tax revenue.... i doubt you cant no one has yet.

thewizard read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 8:14 PM

Yes

If you can invest $100 and make $110 in a month, you'd do it, right?

If you can invest $100 and have a 50% chance of making $150, you'd likely do it.

If can invest $100 and have a 50% chance of making $150, but the Fed would then take 50% of your profit, and not be willing to absorb any of your loss, you'd NEVER do it, or at least be a lot less likely.

Thats how lowered capital gains taxes work. It encourages more turnover in stock trade, meaning that you'll trade more because you keep more, meaning that you make more trades, and you pay more taxes than you would have, but on a larger return

Get it?

Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 8:35 PM

Tell me why they creat jobs, then tell me how they raise GDP (which hasn't fallen since the 1930's) then please please explain how collecting less taxes gives us more tax revenue.... i doubt you cant no one has yet.

OK answer this: How is it Obama pulls down more money in donations than McCain....

McCain brings in money from large donations but from fewer people. Obama brings in smaller donations but from a much larger pool of people. Results... more money overall.

Reaganomics 101... Lower taxes on EVERYONE, but have EVERYONE pay. You bring in more revenue. Lower tax rates on capital and small business affords a business to put that savings into their company, growing it, and thus more employees. More money in the consumer's pocket breads more spending. Doing it over a long period of time provides a slow, but STABLE growth. Growth too fast (more than 5%) can trigger higher interest rates, too slow and you might get inflation.

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 9:56 PM

...blue boy is a “racist” statement juts like your unfounded idiocy in your first post about neocons...you FILTHY LIBERAL BLUE BLIND DEMONRAT ! FACT the US has the lowest import tax in the world and I clearly stated that the GDP has grown under the corporate tax cuts implemented by THIS Bush Georg W an average of 4% per quarter (That BOY is a record!) and that is up against an average of LESS THAN 2% per YEAR under Clinton's higher tax base!
And be darned if I am going to do your home work for you , just keep reading Moveon.org and calling it an economic “source” ...what is really really funny is that Democrats are not mad that “trickle down economics don't work” they are infuriated that they DO WORK and they are terrified that if average Joe figures this out their little tax and buy votes with hand outs (but always keep the people down) scam will be at an end.

dks75 read my blog
Jul 3, 2008 | 11:19 AM

Rc I meant the amount governments can re-borrow to repay previous loans against SS.. I need to keep my bookmarks in better order :P.. Government should be considered a business when it comes to profitability and repaying loans .. The more we borrow and the less we make the less we can borrow to repay other loans.

Ive seen what your saying about import tariffs to be true. Even in great Britain and Canada they make up less than 3% of their government incomes and ours is less.. In the olden days before income taxes it may have been a different story.

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 12:12 PM

I think the problem is that the word “Tax” is a bit misleading if you say tax or tax cut every one thinks of something different...and I am real real made about ore government being so far behind on using import tax to regulate our trade deficit ! Just this week alone there is a fight brewing on the hill over the south American trade bill ...and you guessed it it is partisan : The right wants to move forward and sign a bill that will make our trade tax with Peru “Equal”* while the Left is strongly opposed to talking about it AT ALL until after the election..
So Democrats what is your “big idea “ on this one ? What make now a GOOD time to do nothing about this ?

Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 1:09 PM

Democrats won't budge on it for fear that they will upset the Unions. Nancy Pelosi of course has already done this anyways, but thats beside the point. Trade will not be allowed to threaten the vote.

We now are only about 2 full terms away from SS going into the tank too, but nobody wants to deal with it. I'm sorry but I have no sympathy when Obama sneaks global poverty bills past committee debate, and lets Joe Biden sneak it into some other bill and take .7% of our GDP and use it in the name of "global poverty" to flash money to dictators, and others around the world! They complain the Iraq war cost is too high but it is only 1% of GDP. Yet here they are, snatching up hundreds of Billions up to 2015 and blowing it like global spending money!

pcarpenter read my blog
Jul 3, 2008 | 2:25 PM

Man Seriously how does lowering the taxes you take in increase revenue... The money is spent on goods that are not spend solely on american products. The Fed controls intrest rates and the flow of money which controls speding between banks which in turn creates more liquidity increasing investment and greating profit. The fed is seperate from politicians.. they are highly educated think tank members who do what they know how to do control what our economy does. Republicans traditionally like this idea (even though roosevelt came up with it) Maybe eventually econmic stimulous will come from direct checks more often that this outdated method.. Over all most of the world has figured something out higher taxes lead to a better society. much higher taxes. people need healthcare, they need jobs, they need paid vacation from the government, they need a living wage, they need social programs to better the art, they need investments in technologies in order to compete in a nonpolar. with the decline of americas power in the 21 century we will face challenges that no one can even think about, our dollar is in decline, our heath care system is 24 in the world. (Cuba is 26) The issue is raising taxes on the rich is a good idea. Raising taxes on gasoline is a good idea. Raising taxes on in vestment is a bad idea. The iraq war is stupid who cares how much it costs, we have no business there. No one wanted us there. Oh yeah and the budget for the iraq war is being borrowed from china too... we owe them some money now good job Bush Administration way to run the country like you did the te

Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 10:40 PM

OK.. FIRST.. you are injecting senarios of speculation when you say "american products" That kind of comments smells of MoveON.org

As to Iraq and no business being there. I suggest you go back to schools and slap your teacher for failing to educate you! There are 17 different resolutions that call for coalition forces to intervein if breached! Iraq war is a CEASE FIRE that FINALLY ended but only after Clinton refused to do his job and let it fester!

Countries ALWAYS bid and buy each others debts! Ours is much lower than most. Some are as much as 75% wrapped up in debt against their GDP (southamerican countries)

Our healthcare system is NO.1 in the world!!! Where did you get that number! Michael Moore?

Raising taxes on ANYONE is wrong! Its time Government stopped spending for a change and had to pick and choose like the people do!

You most certainly are a victim of some very liberal talking points! Try thinking on your own! You fall for the big oil is the bad guy scam yet never realize that our liberal college system is making more money than any of them! Harvard in just ONE endowment fund stand to make 7 figures in INTEREST alone! They can on interest put every student they have oncampus though and afford another 2000 more!! Profit margins better than 75%!!!

But you libs only think about what you are told to think, and then are told what to think!

You are gonna have to step out of that in these blogs friend, or you will get chewed up and spit out! RNC08 has already debunked most of your previous posts, and likely will finish this one to

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 8:55 AM

Riley - based on “statistics” and “facts” per the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, the 2001 tax cuts did NOT generate more tax revenue.
Over the 20 year period of 1981 to 2000 (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton), the average yearly increase in IRS gross revenue was 7.2%. For 2001, this increase was 1.5%. For 2003 & 2004, the revenue decreased. It was not until 2006 that the IRS gross revenue exceeded the 2001 revenue.
If the revenue had continued to increase at the 7.2% rate, 2001 to 2006 would have generated $3.3 TRILLION more revenue.

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 9:01 AM

Everyone like to remember the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, but conveniently forget the corrections he made when he was smart enough to realize he went overboard.

From a National Review article written by Bruce Bartlett who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush..

"In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconcili

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 9:02 AM

cont
And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 9:17 AM

As for results of 2001 to now with the tax cuts being a part of the equation:

1) The stock market (DJIA) - the average yearly increase during the bush administration is less than 1% per year. Going back to Roosevelt, this is better than only Carter (-1%) & Nixon (-2%)

2)The unemployment rate was 3.9% in December 2000, the month before bush took office. It is now 5.5%.

3)Total employment has grown at a slower pace than under any President since Eisenhower, except for one President - bush #1.

4)The GDP has increased an average of 5.9% annually. During the Clinton years it was an average of 6.9% annually.

All this information is easily calculated from information on historical DJIA charts, BLS.GOV, & BEA.GOV

Truthguys read my blog view my photos
Jul 5, 2008 | 11:47 AM

YES everysingle time. Dont let the left tell you different.

Truthguys read my blog view my photos
Jul 5, 2008 | 11:50 AM

YES everysingle time. Dont let the left tell you different. DEOP stats are out of context. Its like saying NY Yankees stink most of the time, when they lose a bit, but they dont show the World Series championships.

The stats he uses, as one example, is bogus.

If Bush didnt do the Tax cut to save us from the Clinton 2000 recession we would be in trouble. Clinton did not have a better economy... it was all fake Internet bubble stuff. Most did well in spite of Clinton not because of him. Business owners dont like the clinton years of the highest taxes since WW2 when we fought a war.

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 5, 2008 | 12:37 PM

Yeah, how dare the IRS statistics show how wrong you are? Obviously IRS.GOV must be a dreaded liberal site with a left wing conspiracy that hasn't learned yet just to blindly believe whatever the wacko zealots on the far extreme end of the right wing claim, right?

And all those darn sites that show a history chart of the DJIA? And the Bureau of Labor Statistics along with the Bureau of Economic Analysis? Must all be controlled by those darn leftists whose main reason for existing is just to show how crappy this economy is, right? Yep, it all must be a leftist conspiracy when reality doesn't agree with what you've been told to believe, huh?

Thanks for a good Saturday laugh!

For another laugh, why don't you show me where any of the numbers I posted are "bogus". Please take your time, A Sunday laugh is always good too.

khazzi read my blog
Jul 5, 2008 | 2:09 PM

The proportionate difference in taxation is the issue. Right now the wealthy is reaping the benefits of our tax laws, and the middle and lower income families are shouldering the burden of taxation percentages. While the wealthy industrialist are shipping out jobs, importing cheap labor, and holding money off shore, the citizens of the US are getting whacked economically. Under the present set up, the wealth disparity has significantly widened. Today’s tax laws, job lost recession, and high prices of oil, sets up a recipe for social unrest. America can’t think with narrow greedy minds, and refocus on the US as a whole. The selfishness that has driven the US into this hole in the ground still has sharp shovels to dig even deeper.

jfore read my blog
Jul 5, 2008 | 8:10 PM

Lowering taxes means there is more money left over to invest and hire people. It also means more spending money in the pockets of consumers. So the economy grows. More workers means more taxpayers. More sales means more profits to tax. A lower percentage of a bigger pie nets more in the treasury than a higher percentage of a smaller pie. JFK tried it and it worked. Reagan tried it and it worked. W tried it and it worked. It has worked every time it has been tried but Democrats never saw a tax increse they didn't like. There is a point where you can't cut taxes any more and have revenues grow but we have never come close to that level. Remember, no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. I really believe that one reason the economic growth is slowing is that companies are anticipating Democrats regaining power in the White House and increasing their majorities in the Congress and they're preparing for the hit. If that happens the Bush tax cuts expire and new taxes are added. The latest estimate is $3,000 more per year per household. Charlie Rangel is already working on the new taxes. To say that "wealthy industrialists are shipping out jobs" doesn't take into account all the jobs that wealthy industrialists are sending to the U.S. How about Nissan, Toyote, Honda and Mercedes just to name a few. The gate swings both ways you know.

DEOP read my blog view my photos
Jul 7, 2008 | 8:33 AM

jfore - your words sound great, now let's look at reality. To repeat what I posted above:

1) The stock market (DJIA) - the average yearly increase during the bush administration is less than 1% per year. Going back to Roosevelt, this is better than only Carter (-1%) & Nixon (-2%)

2)The unemployment rate was 3.9% in December 2000, the month before bush took office. It is now 5.5%.

3)Total employment has grown at a slower pace than under any President since Eisenhower, except for one President - bush #1.

4)The GDP has increased an average of 5.9% annually. During the Clinton years it was an average of 6.9% annually.

All this information is easily calculated from information on historical DJIA charts, BLS.GOV, & BEA.GOV

As for revenue growing after tax cuts:
It was not until 2006 that the IRS gross revenue exceeded the 2001 revenue.

GRAYWOLF read my blog view my photos
Jul 7, 2008 | 12:43 PM

funny, statistics are only good for artificially boosting the argument trying to be made...then taking them out of context makes them even less valuable.

jfore read my blog
Jul 7, 2008 | 6:34 PM

DEOP = What you wrote is interesting too. It's a real shame that it had absolutely nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. You also need to look at the statistics in context and not just spout numbers with no explanation. For example. Clinton was riding the creat of the Dot-com bubble. When it burst we headed for a recession real fast. Bush had to deal with that recession plus the hit we took after 9/11 plus the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, historically, GDP fluctuations have been more of a function of which party controls Congress than who was in the White House. I also noticed that you quoted unemployment numbers from December for Clinton -- a month when unemployment is usually at its lowest due to Christmas -- and then compare to to May for Bush -- which is right after we've added the recent graduates to the unemployed rolls untiul the find work. That's real honest. I do find it amusing that liberals will quote the Clinton years' stats and say how great they are and then quote the Bush years' stats, which are very close, and say how bad they are.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Riley34470

I'm a very opinionated blogger bringing you news that I feel is worth talking about.

Member Since: 3/1/2007