Why can Parados not answer this question:

Possibly because the question itself, and the inability or unwillingness to answer same are two different subjects.

"Warrants' is a kinda funny word. Did I miss the installation of some stringent do's and dont's on A2K?

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

Did tax revenues go down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

I don't know, but why post it on a thread of its own if he won't answer it on another thread?

Is this the thread where we get our unanswered questions answered? Because I have a bunch of questions that flaja has never answered. I'll start with this one, from the "Huckabee's Fair Tax Proposal" thread:

joefromchicago wrote:

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

Did tax revenues go down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

I thought that was a pretty easy question to answer, much easier than the ones flaja is asking parados -- a simple "yes" or "no" would have been sufficient. For some reason, though, he can't seem to come up with an answer. Strange, very strange.

joefromchicago wrote:

Is this the thread where we get our unanswered questions answered? Because I have a bunch of questions that flaja has never answered. I'll start with this one, from the "Huckabee's Fair Tax Proposal" thread:

joefromchicago wrote:

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

Did tax revenues go down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

I thought that was a pretty easy question to answer, much easier than the ones flaja is asking parados -- a simple "yes" or "no" would have been sufficient. For some reason, though, he can't seem to come up with an answer. Strange, very strange.

You answered this question with information that you provided in the other thread: Long term tax revenue went up following both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. If given enough time and providing that all else stays equal, tax cuts always stimulate the economy and thus always cause tax revenue to increase. Even with the hit the economy took with 9-11 federal tax revenue is higher now than it was before Bush's tax cuts were implemented.

You answered this question with information that you provided in the other thread: Long term tax revenue went up following both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. If given enough time and providing that all else stays equal, tax cuts always stimulate the economy and thus always cause tax revenue to increase. Even with the hit the economy took with 9-11 federal tax revenue is higher now than it was before Bush's tax cuts were implemented.

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Is this the thread where we get our unanswered questions answered? Because I have a bunch of questions that flaja has never answered. I'll start with this one, from the "Huckabee's Fair Tax Proposal" thread:

joefromchicago wrote:

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

Did tax revenues go down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

I thought that was a pretty easy question to answer, much easier than the ones flaja is asking parados -- a simple "yes" or "no" would have been sufficient. For some reason, though, he can't seem to come up with an answer. Strange, very strange.

You answered this question with information that you provided in the other thread: Long term tax revenue went up following both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. If given enough time and providing that all else stays equal, tax cuts always stimulate the economy and thus always cause tax revenue to increase. Even with the hit the economy took with 9-11 federal tax revenue is higher now than it was before Bush's tax cuts were implemented.

That doesn't seem to be an answer to the question. Maybe somebody should emphasize the fact that you won't answer by starting a new thread.

Before Joe had asked his "question" I had already said that tax cuts lead to higher tax revenue and said that no one has ever been able to document otherwise regarding the Reagan or the Bush tax cuts. So far such documentation has yet to be produced.

I didn't ask if "long-term" tax revenues went down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I asked if tax revenues went down.

flaja wrote:

Before Joe had asked his "question" I had already said that tax cuts lead to higher tax revenue and said that no one has ever been able to document otherwise regarding the Reagan or the Bush tax cuts. So far such documentation has yet to be produced.

No, you asked:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I just provided that documentation -- again. So it should be really, really easy for you now to answer my question.

It seems parados prefers to answer a couple of some twit's points, get a good nights sleep, spend some time with his wife, walk his dog, check out a post by gustavratzenhofer, and go do some work as opposed to answering all the questions in what some twit thinks is a timely manner.



Yes gus, this does mean you are a step above a twit in my estimation.

So the answer to your question is effectively no. Tax cuts do not lead to lower government tax revenue.

You are asking me to admit that government revenue went down right after tax cuts were implemented, when you are failing to take into consideration that government revenue went down before either the Reagan or Bush tax cuts were fully in place.

joefromchicago wrote:

flaja wrote:

Before Joe had asked his "question" I had already said that tax cuts lead to higher tax revenue and said that no one has ever been able to document otherwise regarding the Reagan or the Bush tax cuts. So far such documentation has yet to be produced.

No, you asked:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I just provided that documentation -- again. So it should be really, really easy for you now to answer my question.

You did not provide documentation showing that tax revenue goes down in consequence of a tax cut. When all else is equal and when given enough time to take effect a tax cut always leads to greater tax revenue.

Reagan's tax cuts were passed (but not totally implemented) just before a recession began. Once they had been fully implemented, tax revenue went up.

Bush's tax cuts were passed (but not totally implemented) just prior to 9-11. Once the bulk of Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented, tax revenue went up.

You are asking me to admit that government revenue went down right after tax cuts were implemented, when you are failing to take into consideration that government revenue went down before either the Reagan or Bush tax cuts were fully in place. Delaying tax cuts has the effect of making people avoid income until the lower tax rates apply. If you had a house in 1981 and wanted to sell it and your tax rate was going to decline every year for 3 years, why would you sell it in 1981 or 1982 when your tax rate on the profit from the sale was going to be at its lowest level in 1983? You would wait until you could maximize your after-tax income before you would bother to earn the income. But once everyone could maximize their after tax income, people will go out of their way to earn income and tax revenue goes up. Once the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented, tax revenue went up. Revenue for 1981 and 1982 did not fully reflect Reagan's tax cuts.

Supply-side Spin
June 11, 2007

Sen. John McCain has said President Bush's tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.
Summary

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That's highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It's unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.