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 - $2,3102001 - $2,2152002 - $2,0282003 - $1,9012004 - $1,9492005 - $2,1532006 - $2,3242007 - $2,414Summary 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%From http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...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???MotleyFooley
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<