I admit, I'm not an economist. I'm simple software engineer, so I let the people who knows about it to speak.
For example, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prise winner:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
Taxes and revenues — another history lesson
...
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth
...
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
Interesting article which deserves to be put whole:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
Reagan and revenue
Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
For example, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prise winner:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
Taxes and revenues — another history lesson
...
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth
...
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
Interesting article which deserves to be put whole:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
Reagan and revenue
Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
Several basics facts about US Debt and Spending.....
16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
- 1128 Views
Guess we should have okay'd those death panels for old people then. Big money saver. *NM*
16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
- 332 Views
Balancing our budget would be easy.
16/04/2011 06:46:32 PM
- 584 Views
Several of those aren't as easy as you make it sound, but the import tax is a big no-no.
16/04/2011 07:34:30 PM
- 805 Views
Also on the buying drugs from Canada idea
16/04/2011 08:17:26 PM
- 695 Views
Funny you mentioned WWII and 1968. Can you put tax rates at these times as well?
16/04/2011 07:50:09 PM
- 1074 Views
Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains. *NM*
16/04/2011 08:25:26 PM
- 291 Views
Re: Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains.
16/04/2011 09:19:40 PM
- 738 Views
Have you ever looked at those projections for a decade or two hence?
16/04/2011 10:13:12 PM
- 680 Views
Yes I have
16/04/2011 10:44:50 PM
- 810 Views
Erm, and you think total health care spending is not getting out of control? I'm a little confused.
16/04/2011 11:02:52 PM
- 739 Views
Exactly. Cutting back on fraud and waste doesn't really put much of a dent in those projections. *NM*
17/04/2011 02:31:13 AM
- 272 Views
Sorry, but that is a stupid opinion.....
16/04/2011 08:38:35 PM
- 644 Views
Sounds like another bull.
16/04/2011 09:31:05 PM
- 917 Views
Dude, the data is the data.....tax revenue increased all three times.
16/04/2011 09:47:37 PM
- 856 Views
As I suspected, it's a bull.
16/04/2011 10:02:05 PM
- 788 Views
Stop being a fool - read and react to the data provided, posting something.....
16/04/2011 10:14:11 PM
- 547 Views
Response is
16/04/2011 10:19:00 PM
- 772 Views
Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick. I really hope you are 12 or 13.
16/04/2011 10:28:44 PM
- 763 Views
Re: Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick. I really hope you are 12 or 13.
16/04/2011 10:47:24 PM
- 723 Views
I take it you mean "rate of revenue growth decreases".
16/04/2011 11:11:19 PM
- 622 Views
It's not remarkable that revenue increased after the Reagan cuts.
17/04/2011 07:21:47 PM
- 949 Views
I've just noticed that you've provided charts from Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me?
16/04/2011 10:13:46 PM
- 647 Views
All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
16/04/2011 10:16:08 PM
- 654 Views
Re: All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
16/04/2011 10:27:01 PM
- 772 Views
Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
16/04/2011 10:35:44 PM
- 583 Views
Re: Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
16/04/2011 10:49:33 PM
- 714 Views
Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
17/04/2011 02:34:50 AM
- 595 Views
Re: Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
17/04/2011 03:50:24 AM
- 822 Views
Some obesrvations by Republican economists
18/04/2011 12:27:04 AM
- 958 Views
You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
18/04/2011 04:00:52 PM
- 586 Views
Re: You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
18/04/2011 05:36:44 PM
- 580 Views
You use Krugman and then complain about the Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me? *NM*
18/04/2011 02:46:47 AM
- 305 Views