When Lower Tax RATES Produce Higher Tax Revenue
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, July 4, 2019 03:19
VIEWED: 9588
PAGE 1 of 8
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.
The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.
I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They don't know what they actually think JSF.
Half of the time they're saying that lower taxes are bad, half of the time they're flipping out because of ridiculous figures they put out about how much taxes are going to go up.
The only thing they know for sure is that whatever Trump does, it is bad.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We have a 4.1% unemployment rate. Goldman Sacks predicts 4% growth next year. Trump tweeted "there is a 10% rise in home ownership and the stock market is performing at record levels."
Why would tax breaks for the rich that would add one and a half trillion dollars to our deficit, be good for the economy at this time? They are not going to stimulate anything positive. What it will do is negatively affect the incomes of small business owners slowing growth. It will also negatively affect the amount others can spend. Spending that would stimulate the economy in a positive way.
As I've said in other posts, this is purely a giveaway to the donor class that will decimate small business.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.
So you have zero good things?
==============================
Jack has zero forethought G. He is unable through careful consideration to determine what will be necessary, or may happen in the future.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the history of the USA, lower tax rates have never lead to higher revenues. I can link the Treasury's "revenues" tables, if you like.
And while Reagan may have cut the tax RATES, his "reforms" eliminated a lot of deductions for the middle class (such as interest rate payments on loans in general, not just mortgages) and actually INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class by subjecting more of their income to taxes.
The concept (lower tax rates/ lower taxes = higher growth = higher revenues) is a valid theoretical one, but it's on the SAME CURVE where higher tax rates = higher revenues. This connection only comes into play when the taxes and tax rates are SO high (90% across the board) that they reduce consumption and therefore demand, and only in a closed economy where that increased demand does not translate to more jobs ...in China.
We should have this discussion with data on the table, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. But I can tell you from a historical standpoint that as far as I can tell, for the USA and for every European nation that I can think of, this concept remains theoretical.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the history of the USA, lower tax rates have never lead to higher revenues. I can link the Treasury's "revenues" tables, if you like.
And while Reagan may have cut the tax RATES, his "reforms" eliminated a lot of deductions for the middle class (such as interest rate payments on loans in general, not just mortgages) and actually INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class by subjecting more of their income to taxes.
The concept (lower tax rates/ lower taxes = higher growth = higher revenues) is a valid theoretical one, but it's on the SAME CURVE where higher tax rates = higher revenues. This connection only comes into play when the taxes and tax rates are SO high (90% across the board) that they reduce consumption and therefore demand, and only in a closed economy where that increased demand does not translate to more jobs ...in China.
We should have this discussion with data on the table, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. But I can tell you from a historical standpoint that as far as I can tell, for the USA and for every European nation that I can think of, this concept remains theoretical.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
The tax rate was over 70% when Reagan took office. It made sense to lower it. He lowered them to 28%. He then raised them 11 times in the form of doing away with deductions.
What the republicans are attempting to do now, is what they've always done. Take care of those at the top who fund their campaigns.
I would note, most of wall street funds democrats. They speak out on occasion about the bullshit the Republicans pull concerning taxes. It's the ones who fund the lobbyists for these tax breaks that hold the most power in Washington. They are the Republican donor class.
It's like the racists and bigots that are now controlling the Republican Party. They only represent 30 or so percent of the Republican Party, but if they withdraw their support the party is doomed. It's the same when it comes to the Republican donor class.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.
==============================
That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.
Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If there were any kind of remotely plausible way to generate an analysis that said this tax plan would pay for itself — or even come close to paying for itself — the Republican Party would find some way to produce the actual analysis. They haven’t produced such an analysis.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has been saying that his team will release a “dynamic” analysis of the Republican tax plan that will reveal its growth-boosting effects to be so incredible that they put deficit worries to rest.
Guess what? Mnuchin was lying:
www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html
?_r=0
Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.
Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If there were any kind of remotely plausible way to generate an analysis that said this tax plan would pay for itself — or even come close to paying for itself — the Republican Party would find some way to produce the actual analysis. They haven’t produced such an analysis.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has been saying that his team will release a “dynamic” analysis of the Republican tax plan that will reveal its growth-boosting effects to be so incredible that they put deficit worries to rest.
Guess what? Mnuchin was lying:
www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html
?_r=0
Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.
Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.
On the money SECOND. This, as the health care plan, is being done without regard to due process. It is being done behind closed doors by a few without the input of the Senate or the house.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME