Posted 14 July 2004 - 07:32 PM
Hi Ogami. I think you might be confusing the economic upturn with better handling of the books. Reagan's election win over Mondale was secured by a stronger economy, not a better fiscal balance.
Ogami, you realise that makes no sense, right? Let's look at the numbers, shall we?
Personal Income tax revenues, in billions of dollars...
As I said before, the economic slowdown was depressing the rate of growth, without the tax increase in 1991, 1992 and 1993 would likely have never been able to grow that quickly.
Sadly, Ogami, I don't understand your point, so I guess it's assured I won't be a conservative supply sider. I also doubt your point, perhaps you can prove it?
Hi Delvo. You're tying two completely different points, in the first, I'm arguing that by not maintaining spending growth levels, with the increases in need for services, more people will have to do with less, this is why it's mischaracterised as a cut, especially against the poor. In the second, I'm commenting on your point that you can revert spending to a couple of years ago, which I argue is impossible, with the greater needs of the larger population, not to mention the wars. As to your point about increasing returns, you're right, of course, a growing economy will produce those results, but after Bush's tax cuts, it will be years before revenues match pre tax cut levels.
Perhaps, but Bush has only himself and his right wing Repulblicans to blame for their fiscal ineptitude. Didn't they ever learn how to budget? If they lack the fiscal discipline to run the books, hopefully they are booted out of office and perhaps their replacements will do better.
Indeed, more often than not. I'm not against Reagan's tax cut, his was a much different situation. At that time, tax rates were choking the economy, the same cannot be said for Bush's tax cuts. Compared to Reagan, his was a wasteful indulgence.
The whole principle of progressive taxation is so that those with more ability to pay taxes pay more in taxes. If you're against this principle, there's nothing I can say that would change your mind on that one, but think of it this way, if you're required to pay an additional $500 a year in taxes when you make $10 000 per year, you're going to much harder hit than if someone making $100 000 is required to pay another $5 000. And as for lightening their tax burden, why not wait until you've restored some fiscal discipline, and can actually afford it? Look at Canada, after balancing the books and getting surpluses, the government cut our taxes by $100 billion over 5 years, which would be equivalent to slightly smaller than a $1 trillion tax cut in the US. We did it when we could afford it, it didn't hurt our financial position, something that certainly can't be said about Bush's tax cuts.