Sklein1033

Why Economic Dogma Threatens Our Future Prosperity

Top marginal tax rates in the 1950s and 1960s were meaningless because very few people had the income subject to those rates. For those taxpayers with high incomes there were numerous tax shelters and other tricks to get around the system. That's what prompted congress to pass the alternative minimum tax in the late 1960s

During the Reagan years total government receipts nearly doubled from 517 billion in 1980 to 991 billion in 1990. The reduction in marginal tax rates could not have caused to increase in national debt because total tax receipts increase substantially during the Reagan years. Rather, it was the inexorable increase in spending over and above the increase in tax revenue that cause the increase in the national debt during the Reagan years.

Why Economic Dogma Threatens Our Future Prosperity

I think there is strong evidence that the tax cuts do, in fact, pay for themselves. Let's look at numbers.

According to tax policy facts, total federal tax receipts in 1980 were 517 billion. This of course was before the Reagan tax cuts. At the end or Reagan's term in 1989, total federal tax receipts were 991.2 billion. Therefore, federal tax receipts almost doubled during the Reagan administration.

Also, there Reagan tax cuts were not just for wealthy as millions of American families had their taxes cut.

So, when you look at the facts, it appears that there was nothing immoral about Reagan tax and they did pay for themselves.

Now let's look at the Bush tax cuts.

According to the tax policy center, total government receipts in 2002 were 1.853 trillion. The Bush tax cuts were initiated in May 2002. Total government revenue at the end of Bush's term was 2.524 trillion, a total increase of $671.00 billion. So, based the facts, it appears again that the Bush tax custs paid for themselves.

The tax policy facts can be viewed at www.taxpolicycenter.or...


On Jul 11 03:57 PM Washburn University Market Commentary wrote:

> "We owe the government all of our wealth . . . " I don't believe
> those words, or any combination of words that could be construed
> to have that meaning, appear anywhere in the article. But, thank
> you for illustrating an extreme form of cognitive consonance. Your
> mind read what I wrote and overwrote it with what you think.
>
> On Jul 11 03:55 PM CLH wrote: