Comments on: It’s The Tax Cuts, Stupid, Part 7: The Forgotten Campaign Theme

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:59:07 +0000

You guys are right about the diminishing return point. But at the rate the dems bloviate about the evil tax cuts, we’re never gonna find it. Classic kill the goose laying golden eggs. Rich people have cash? Tax ‘em for the poor.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:28:15 +0000

I’m disappointed at the 7.3% spending increase. Much of the increase in tax receipts comes from corporate taxes. Once those nasty oil companies, and other mercenary businesses, stop making obscene profits and the economy cools down a bit we will be left with increasing deficits because spending hardly ever recedes.

I much rather see the deficit reduced through reduction of the real culprit, spending, rather than through higher tax receipts.

By: mtl

mtl — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:11:55 +0000

got a disagree with the ‘tax cuts don’t pay for themselves’.

The increase in tax revenue accounted for a 40% reduction in the deficit, in one year. Since expenditure is a fixed/known number the only number that could possibly change is revenue. clearly the cbo was way wrong in their projection, despite their ‘short-term’ prediction.

Reducing taxes continuously would lead to a point of diminshing return, and a skeptic could argue that revenue might have been larger had the reduction in taxes not been so large, but the only way to know for sure is to keep playing with the number.

Since Rangel favors completely doing away with the tax cuts, he should be at the front explaining that the tax cuts had no effect, and that is was the strength of our economy that accounts for the increase in revenue.