No. of Recommendations: 71
cjb44: "If you think facts are stubborn things, why not mention how tax revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003...."

Summary of Receipts, in constant FY2005 dollars:

2000 - $2,310
2001 - $2,215
2002 - $2,028
2003 - $1,901
2004 - $1,949
2005 - $2,153
2006 - $2,324
2007 - $2,414

Summary of receipts, as % of GDP:

2000 - 20.6%
2001 - 19.5%
2002 - 17.6%
2003 - 16.2%
2004 - 16.1%
2005 - 17.3%
2006 - 18.2%
2007 - 18.5%


Using the first set of figures, you could make a case that it took 6 years from 2000 to 2006 in order to actually see revenue be increased ($2,310 vs. $2,324). But that might have just been because the size of the US economy grew and you're comparing apples to oranges.

Using the second set of figures, revenue never "increased" above what it was as a % of GDP after the tax cuts in 2001 - 2003: 18.5% is less than 20.6%. The data shows similar figures for the Reagan era (1980 to 1988).

In either case, if the tax cuts were to spur so much economic growth that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, that is completely debunked.

Do you have other "facts" you can point to (like, actual real-life numbers) that show revenue increased???

Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.