ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to Titus Pullo
Re: Wow
The gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them.
That is what happened during the 1980's. Unfortunately Congress being the drunken sailors they are, spent all of that increase in revenue and then some. The last Congress did the same. The tax cuts resulted in significant economic growth and thus increased tax revenue, but the pseudo-Republicans spent it all on bridges to no where, farm aid to super corps like ADM, the war and the huge mistake of a prescription drug program. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget.
The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| said by ColorBASIC  :The gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget. The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. Logically true to a fault, but rarely -- if ever -- realized in this day and age, and that was my point. Also, reduced taxes leads to a reduction in services which serves to mitigate net job growth from any economic growth since most of this so called 'growth' is vapor money in the form of finance capital in our economy while real jobs go elsewhere when capital investment occurs in earnest. And again, many people don't acknowledge (or accept) that social security taxes went up while general tax rates went down in the 80s. Reagan's deficits were obscene (though Bush 2's are triple x rated) and would have been worse if not for robbing the till of SS. Hell, when he needed currency for really underhanded sh*t he simply traded guns and then forgot about it.
Our elected musketeers are the bidders for their corporate masters, so it's no wonder they spend money on roads to nowhere. Our departed leader of the House earmarked money for just such a road on a vast parcel of property HE owned in nowhere, increasing its value by untold amounts.
As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection 
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde |
|
rgillis70
Premium
join:2002-12-30
Herndon, VA
| said by Titus Pullo :As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection That may be, but that is an issue with SPENDING not with TAXES. It is a fact that tax cuts lead to increased revenue. That was what you asked. Look at the figures for collection, not the spending figures, and you will see it always works this way.
Spending is ridiculous no mater who is in office.
By the way - for reference, the country had record growth quarter after quarter during Reagan years...and it did so under Clinton as well. But lower taxes do lead to increased revenue. Just got to teach people not to spend it, and 2x more than it, every second of the day. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26 | I recall some inflationary issues during those great years of growth as well. I also remember something in Econ class about 'chasing dollars' ...
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde |
|
rgillis70
Premium
join:2002-12-30
Herndon, VA
| I agree inflation played a role. As did the artificial growth caused by the "dot-com" during Clinton's growth.
But I was just looking at numbers...as the statement was - lower taxes do not lead to higher revenue - they do...however, there are always outside influences that can play havoc on a system, like a war, inflation, unexpected market crash, artificially high energy pricing, speculation...etc.
If - and this is the IF that is so huge it will never happen - if the government could hold spending to the inflationary rate for just a year or 2 while revenue increased, we would see surplus. But that I doubt will happen as everyone has a special "project" they'd like to get done. |
|
