Ex-IRS whistleblower says middle class targeted under inflation bill

NO CREDIBLE ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUTS OVER THE PAST 60+ YEARS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES THAN IF TAX RATES WERE LEFT ALONE. None


Would an income tax cut foster so much economic growth that tax revenues would actually go up? In other words, can tax cuts pay for themselves? A new poll of 40 of America’s foremost economic experts was unable to find a single one in agreement with the assertion.

That's a Laffer! Top economists unanimously reject that tax cuts will yield higher revenue
https://okpolicy.org/thats-a-laffer...ject-that-tax-cuts-will-yield-higher-revenue/

 

Of course credible economist KNOW that the tax rates cuts grew the economy and brought in record tax revenue increases, you can't deny the facts. I have already shown them to you.

In Actual Dollars, Tax Cuts Boost Revenue Time After Time
From the Kennedy legislation in 1964 to the Trump package in 2017, the naysayers are proven wrong again and again





https://www.discoursemagazine.com/e...llars-tax-cuts-boost-revenue-time-after-time/

 

I stick to the facts and hard numbers and not liberal excuses and maybe's and could have's and might have's and cherry picked couched numbers and all the other noise you post.

 

LMAOROG, Oh I forgot you use constant dollars

WHY DOES EVERY TAX CUT HAVE A COST TO JUSTIFY IT THEN? Why did Trumpanzi only get a 10 year (like Dubya) tax cut for the working man?'

First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. WITH RONNIE'S 6 TAX INCREASES


But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ed-more-revenue-and-tens-of-millions-of-jobs/

Treasury Department Study Finds the Bush Tax Cuts Will Pay For Less Than 10 Percent of Their Cost
https://www.cbpp.org/research/claim-that-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves-is-too-good-to-be-true

 

That is a lousy way to compare it. Our goal should be to grow the economy faster that we grow government so that the governments take of GDP is less and less and less leaving that capital in the market to expand the economy.

And year to year comparisons when inflation is minimal is perfectly accurate.

More could have, might have, possibly etc etc etc. and doesn't even account for the double-dip recession

"Anyhow, Rattner also wants us to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy.

…the plan immediately made a bad economy worse.​

This is remarkable blindness and/or bias. The double dip recession of 1980–1982 was the result of economic distortions caused by bad monetary policy (by the way, Reagan deserves immense credit for having the moral courage to wean the country from easy‐money policy).

But even if one wants to ignore the impact of monetary policy, how can you blame the second dip of the recession, which began in July 1981, on a tax cut that was signed into law in August 1981?!?


Moreover, while Reagan’s tax cut was adopted in 1981, it was phased in over several years. And because of previously legislated tax increases, as well as inflation‐driven bracket creep (prior to 1985, households were pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation even though their real income did not rise), the economy did not enjoy a tax cut until 1983. Not coincidentally, that’s when the economy began to boom."
https://www.cato.org/blog/lessons-reagan-tax-cuts

Here are the ACTUAL results from the OMB historical tables

Year Increase
1982 3%
1983 -3%
1984 11%
1985 10%
1986 5%
1987 11%
1988 6%
1989 9%

Year Revenue
1982 617,766
1983 600,562
1984 666,438
1985 734,037
1986 769,155
1987 854,288
1988 909,238
1989 991,105

$337B increase

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.[/QUOTE]

Treasury Department Study Finds the Bush Tax Cuts Will Pay For Less Than 10 Percent of Their Cost
https://www.cbpp.org/research/claim-that-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves-is-too-good-to-be-true[/QUOTE]

Again estimates, projections, STATIC projections not ACTUAL RESULTS. They were DEAD WRONG

1990 1,032.0 4.1% <- Democrats tax increase agreed to by Bush for spending cuts the Dems never passed
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 however

"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf​

1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <- Even with the differed tax revenues revenue growth slow
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8% -> RECORD tax revenue increase
2001 1,991.1 -2% -> Recession and Bush tax rate cut passed to slowly phase in through 2006
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts begin implementation
2004 1,880.1 5% Bush tax rate cuts accelerated and fully implemented
2005 2,153.6 15% - RECORD tax revenue increase
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7% <- Dems take back the Congress
2008 2,524.0 -2% -> Recession and Dems huge spending increase taking deficit to $1,400B, Obama wins WH with pledges for huge tax rate increases
2009 2,105.0 -17%
2010 2,162.7 3%
2011 2,303.5 7% <- Republicans take back the house
2012 2,445.0 6%
2013 2,775.1 13%
2014 3,021.5 9% Obama Capital Gains tax increase and surcharge, revenue growth slows
2015 3,249.9 8%
OMB Historical Tables

 

Yes there are wingnutters, like the Anti Tax Foundation, AEI, etc willing to lie, but NO credible economists says you get more revenues unless your effective rate is high enough. The numbers I've seen to get more revenues are about 70% EFFECTIVE rates

Your entire premise is garbage

 

Well that settles it, DAMN them numbers is hard to debate with lololol

 

Debate what? Static numbers, the opposite of what Ronnie, Dubya and Trump's own admin said would be the costs of tax cuts?

Sorry credible people understand cutting taxes cost revenues, unless the effective rate is high enough. No one in RR, Dubya or Trump's admin ever said any of their tax cuts would make up for lost revenues, outside of their media BS. I'm talking official estimates from CBO, Treasury, OMB, etc. NOT ONE TIME

Many quotes from Reagan and Dubya's advisors saying they never expected to create more revenues, but of course you ignore them

 

Once more


Feb 28, 2018 — But his own department's analysts now peg the 10-year cost at $2.3 trillion
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781


Tax cuts under the Trump Administration increased the deficit and debt

The (ANTI) Tax Foundation analysis stated that the tax cuts would cost $1.47 trillion in decreased revenue while adding only $600 billion in growth and savings

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trump-tax-cuts-4586645

 

You put too much in to what Grubmint tells you to think, instead you should take a more personal view of the economy and how well the grunts in the trench's are doing..

There is one constant with the DNC, if they're talking they are LYING!

 

Yes, Gov't ran by GOPers will lie about not getting more revenues with their tax cuts right?

GOP for 40+ years hasn't done ANYTHING but to try to break Gov't from within

 

LOL! If it is a government ran by democrats it is already broken.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted. I gave you OMB numbers refute them.

 

See I found the worry already! You clearly think it's just the GOP

***PRO TIP***

I pray this bit of reality reach's the sleeping logic center and a sort of enlightenment is sparked from it..

 

Static numbers not adjusted for population growth or inflation, which is why economists use GDP...