From: Brett Kottmann Subject: Re: They Balanced the Budget! Andrew Hall wrote: > > >>>>> Brett Kottmann writes: ... > Brett> Of course there was. Most notably, the across the > Brett> board 5,10,10 percent cuts (23% total) phased in from > Brett> 1981-3. > > Mr. Kottman is referring to only one tax, the Federal Income > tax. It's finally sinking in, eh? > Yes it was cut, and stayed cut. However, many other taxes > were raised, and the percentage of GDP taxes by the Federal Government > barely went down. From 19.3% of GDP to 19.1%, if memory > serves. So the overall tax cut was only 1.0%. There you go again, displaying your innummeracy. The cut in rates for taxpayers for Federal income taxes was 23%, as noted. Not a stream of numbers followed by some silly claim of 1%. By the way, since GDP grew by a third, taxes falling from 19.3% to 19.1% is the same as taxes falling 5% of GDP (static economy), not 1%. > Real federal income tax revenue plunged, and did not recover It grew by 28% in real terms during the Reagan expansion (which lasted for over seven years). > until 1987, after many income tax deductions were eliminated. Income taxes were growing from the start. The net decreases in the years when the tax rate cuts were being phased in were less than the amount of the cuts, indicating that more revenues were already being garnered that static analysis would predict. > But the biggest tax hike in US history, TEFRA, made up a lot > of the difference, as did the hikes in SS taxes. Andrew, please explain how an increase on taxes for buinesses is a tax increase on wage earners. Go ahead, we'll wait.... ... > Brett> Of course there was. You need to ask which taxes were > Brett> changed in 1982. The 1982 changes were to correct problems > Brett> with the tax rate cuts on businesses passed in 1981. That > Brett> is, closing loopholes and shelters. > > Brett> That's why Reagan's rate cuts on taxpayers are the > Brett> biggest change during the decade. The other changes were to > Brett> business and SS taxes. > > As shown above, the other hikes made up all but 1% of the income tax > rate cuts. Overall, is was virtually a wash. You are a some piece of work. Did you even graduate high school? Where did you learn to reason and count? Did the GDP grow by a third during the Reagan Expansion? Having done so, what is the real difference between tax totals for an economy that is a third higher? You have seen the information at the Reagan Home Page. Effective rates for taxpayers down across the board, revenues up, and the richest paid 99% of the increased revenues. What, exactly, is your complaint? Brett> Check out the Ronald Reagan Home Page http> www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html Brett> Cato also just released a study on the Reagan Years Brett> that comes to the same conclusions we do. Brett> (http://www.cato.org) > Interesting report. Considerably more honest than your stuff, but Heh, you are _such_ a sore loser. It's virtually the same thing. > still with some problems. They lump Bush's years with Clinton's, Of course they do, to compare a period of higher taxes and regulations with a period of fewer taxes and regulations. You, who claim to be libertarian, are going to suggest that divisions have to be Republican/Democrat? > after deriding (correctly) a similar method that lumped come of > Carter's with Reagan's --- I consider this intellectually > dishonest. You didn't read carefully. When speaking of Reagan, you can only consider Reagan. When comparing lower taxes vs. higher taxes, you need to compare periods of lower taxes vs. higher taxes, not Republicans vs. Democrats. > They use a 12 point scale to compare economic performance > that ignores completely the deficit. Hardly. The deficit "exploded" was the term used, I believe. > They do later bring up the > debt explosion, but use funny numbers (They claim that the final > Debt/GDP ratio as only 42% and that the current one is only 52%, > in fact, Reagan's final Debt/GDP ration was 55.4% and now is in > the low 70's --- I do not know where their numbers came from). You have heard of the new chain-weighting GDP measure, haven't you? No funny numbers, just the latest and greatest way of measuring GDP. > They do mention that overall taxes were only cut 1.0%, confirming No, tax revenues, as a %GDP were 1% lower. Do you not understand what this means? Tax revenues are not tax rates. If GDP grows faster than revenues, then the %GDP number will shrink. Let me draw you a picture: GDP up a lot Revenues up, not as much as GDP Rates down Get it? > my memory above, but do not assign proper significance to that > fact (Taxes were not really cut much at all). What will it take for you to understand that tax rates and tax revenues are two different things, and comparing revenues to GDP yet a third thing. > It, while being fairly biased, was a far more credible defense > of Reagan than you offer. Once again, I'll note that it's virtually the same line of reasoning, with the same data sources in most cases. Admit it, you have a huge chip on your shoulder. > For example, it admits up front > that tax cuts do not raise revenue. There you go again, lying. "Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, they expanded by 24.1 percent. Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990-97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases, real federal revenues will have grown by 19.3 percent (see Table 5). The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s is consistent with the supply-side theory that there are behavioral and investment responses to changes in tax rates."--Cato's report. What kind of scum are you that you think lying is going to get you anywhere? Don't you think we can read and pull the relevant material from the report? Just in case you'd like to try and misrepresent the conclusion here it is (again): Conclusion The 1980s were years of economic progress, not decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years. The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war. Most significantly, the economy of the 1980s outperformed that of the 1990s in virtually every measurable category. Economic growth was higher, job creation was faster, incomes rose much faster, and productivity climbed at a healthier pace. Almost to a word what we say on the Ronald Reagan Home Page. How long are you going to live a lie? ______________________________________________________________________ Brett Mmmmmm...software