DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Each household in America owes $534,000.00 to pay this tab.

**inchaaruutaa** · 08-07-2011, 02:41 AM

I really don’t know why I am even trying to explain this again – this information has been linked to over and over. For anyone capable of logic the story told by the numbers is quite obvious. Tax cuts do not cost anything, they do not need to be 'paid' for, and the cost of Bush tax cuts on that idiotic chart is complete liberal fantasy.

First, the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts in 1964 & 1966. The pre tax cut federal revenue (1963) was $107 billion. The last year of the Johnson administration (1968) the revenue was $153 billion. I will repeat this slowly (and I hate typing slowly) – with a top tax rate of 91% revenue was $107B, and 5 years later at a tax rate of 70% revenue was $153B. The 1968 deficit is five times greater than the 1963 deficit, but that cannot possibly have ANYTHING to do with the tax cuts. How do I know this? Because 153 is more than 107 . . . significantly more. Revenue grew by 50% in the five years following the tax cuts, which means if the deficit grew, then it is the direct fault of too much spending.

The pre-‘Reagan tax cut’ revenue in 1981 was $599 billion. Revenue in 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, was $909 billion. During that same period income tax rates were lowered from 70% down to 28%. No matter what the deficit is you cannot possibly blame it on tax cuts because . . . are you still following . . . because 909 is more than 599. In fact, yet again, it is 50% more. What caused the big deficits? Well, possibly the fact that spending increased from $678 billion to $1.06 trillion over that same period. A 57% increase in spending.

The pre-‘Bush tax cut’ revenue in 2000 was $2.02 trillion. By the last year of Bush in 2008 federal revenue increased to $2.52 trillion. A less impressive 25% increase over 8 years, but still an increase. What happened to spending over those 8 years? Say it together. It increased faster than revenue. Spending increased from $1.8 trillion to $3 trillion, or a 67% increase.

I should not leave out the Clinton tax increases you are so proud of. The pre-increase revenue of 1992 was $1.1 trillion. In 2000 Clinton left us with a $2.0 trillion revenue. Another near 50% revenue increase over his tenure.

The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and the Clinton tax increases all had a near identical effect on federal revenue. Tell me, given those facts, how anyone can claim tax cuts have added a single dime to the deficit? To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton campaign, 'Its the spending, stupid!'

Source:
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

08-07-2011, 02:41 AM	#23
inchaaruutaa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	I really don’t know why I am even trying to explain this again – this information has been linked to over and over. For anyone capable of logic the story told by the numbers is quite obvious. Tax cuts do not cost anything, they do not need to be 'paid' for, and the cost of Bush tax cuts on that idiotic chart is complete liberal fantasy. First, the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts in 1964 & 1966. The pre tax cut federal revenue (1963) was $107 billion. The last year of the Johnson administration (1968) the revenue was $153 billion. I will repeat this slowly (and I hate typing slowly) – with a top tax rate of 91% revenue was $107B, and 5 years later at a tax rate of 70% revenue was $153B. The 1968 deficit is five times greater than the 1963 deficit, but that cannot possibly have ANYTHING to do with the tax cuts. How do I know this? Because 153 is more than 107 . . . significantly more. Revenue grew by 50% in the five years following the tax cuts, which means if the deficit grew, then it is the direct fault of too much spending. The pre-‘Reagan tax cut’ revenue in 1981 was $599 billion. Revenue in 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, was $909 billion. During that same period income tax rates were lowered from 70% down to 28%. No matter what the deficit is you cannot possibly blame it on tax cuts because . . . are you still following . . . because 909 is more than 599. In fact, yet again, it is 50% more. What caused the big deficits? Well, possibly the fact that spending increased from $678 billion to $1.06 trillion over that same period. A 57% increase in spending. The pre-‘Bush tax cut’ revenue in 2000 was $2.02 trillion. By the last year of Bush in 2008 federal revenue increased to $2.52 trillion. A less impressive 25% increase over 8 years, but still an increase. What happened to spending over those 8 years? Say it together. It increased faster than revenue. Spending increased from $1.8 trillion to $3 trillion, or a 67% increase. I should not leave out the Clinton tax increases you are so proud of. The pre-increase revenue of 1992 was $1.1 trillion. In 2000 Clinton left us with a $2.0 trillion revenue. Another near 50% revenue increase over his tenure. The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and the Clinton tax increases all had a near identical effect on federal revenue. Tell me, given those facts, how anyone can claim tax cuts have added a single dime to the deficit? To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton campaign, 'Its the spending, stupid!' Source: The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
	Quote