Hmmm

[Vince]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Thanks for the links. We should forward them to Obama, MOM and forestool.

Why? None of them will listen or believe it anyway.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

Very interesting article. I'm wondering though when it mentions revenues, are theymean all revenues, as in borrowing? I know that when the Fed budget comes out, revenue ussually includes taxes coming in plus any cash flow from borrowing. So it's possible to see an increase in total revenues when part of that total actually comes from borrowing. That wasn't covered on the article.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Vince

Why? None of them will listen or believe it anyway.

Who said "All it takes to ruin a beautiful theory is one ugly fact" ?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Very interesting article. I'm wondering though when it mentions revenues, are theymean all revenues, as in borrowing? I know that when the Fed budget comes out, revenue ussually includes taxes coming in plus any cash flow from borrowing. So it's possible to see an increase in total revenues when part of that total actually comes from borrowing. That wasn't covered on the article.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

It looks to me like it talks about it a lot, even in just the part I quoted.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by This_person

It looks to me like it talks about it a lot, even in just the part I quoted.

But you're talking logically to folks who either know the facts and support the tax rate cut policies or those who know the facts but believe taxation is a form of social behavior control. Spend money on how we want you to spend money and you get rewarded with a tax deduction.

And then again, there are those highly educated, but ignorant fools who believed Bubba when he said in Buffalo, "We could give you a tax refund, but you might not do the right thing with it."

Like hire a hooker?