1. Home
  2. General Toyota Forum
  3. Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

> > Mike hunt wrote: >> >>> >>>SMS wrote: >>>>Peaceful Bill wrote: >>>> >>>>>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start >>>>>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start >>>>>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues >>>>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. >>>> >>>>You've fallen for the big con. >>>> >>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. >> >>>The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of >>>the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as >>>it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate >>>was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform >>>plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a >>>percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did. >>> >>Your source is? >> > My tax returns, my tax lawyer, and a little left-wing rag known as > INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY. Everyone older than McCain, as you and I > are, knows Reagan raised taxes when it was apparent the supply-side > magic wasn't working as advertised.
Reply to
Mike hunt
Loading thread data ...

As usual, you're wrong and drunk.

One of the biggest selling points of supply side economics was that they were not like traditional trickle-down or demand-side economics that required tax cuts to be accompanied by some spending cuts in order to reduce deficits. Instead supply side cuts would RAISE government revenue so much that not only would no spending cuts would be needed, but spending could continue to rise because tax revenue would increase even more. This was said by all the major supply side advocates, including Alfred Laffer (of the Laffer curve), Jude Wanniski, William F. Buckley, and Jack Kemp. And when the Reagan 30%,

3-year tax cut did not result in surpluses, some of those advocates, including Buckley and Laffer, reasoned that the 30% cut should have been implemented in a single year rather than spread out over three years. However, the Reagan administration's own econometric models, except those designed by radical supply siders, had predicted big deficits, a fact leaked by Budget Director David Stockman, in a rather famous Atlantic Monthly article. That wasn't the first time that supply side economics had made a wrong prediction. Back when Alfred Laffer was an economist in the Nixon budget office and Nixon was displeased with all the pessimistic revenue projections, Laffer came up with a grossly simplified econometric model, consisting of 90% fewer equations than the other economists used, and it gave the revenue projection that Nixon wanted, but it turned out to be the only model that was grossly wrong.

So for you to claim that Congress had caused the deficits is wrong according to the very economics theory you've believed in. That shouldn't have been unexpected because the supply siders had basically promised a free lunch, and in real life there's no such thing. OTOH conventional economics, both Republican and Democratic, have been right.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Actually it is always the Dims that promise the "free" lunch, but those that want the free lunch never understand the government does not have any money, they first need to take it from THEM.

The Republicans understand that if they cut you tax RATE you will have MORE of YOUR money to help you pay for the lunch. In the mean time the money you spend on the lunch will generate MORE taxes to the various governments since the money you spend is taxed every time it changes hands in the production of the lunch just like the last tax RATE cut provided more mony to the federal treausry than at any time in history LOL

That

Reply to
Mike hunt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.