Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 which immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues exacerbated by a slumping economy. It wasn't until 2005 that tax receipts were higher than when Bush took office. We all know that the 2005-2008 run up was being fueled by a credit bubble and not real organic growth.
-spence
|
It's funny that after 3 years the economy is worse than the one Obama "inherited," but we must be patient because it takes time to fix these things. But because the Bush tax cuts "immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues," that somehow contra-indicates the idea that they led to higher revenues. The fact that revenues rose in 2005 is somehow too late to be connected to tax cuts. And that we "all know" the three year growth rate that followed was due to a credit bubble--not "real organic growth."
Actually, it makes sense that revenues would immediately fall after a tax cut which was made to stimulate job growth. It takes time for the growth to occur. It doesn't occur "immediately." And the revenue will fall because the "immediate" taxes are being collected before that growth. Higher taxes will always "immediately" create more government revenue than lower taxes. But if the effect of the higher taxes is to stunt job growth and create job loss, the longer, non-immediate, effect could well be decreased revenue. Higher taxes will always garner more revenue, ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING THE SAME. But if the the higher taxes create smaller markets at the expense of bigger government, all other things do not remain the same, and the "economy" may shrink, and revenues may dwindle.
And, no, we don't "all know" the three year growth was due only to a credit bubble. And, by the way, is the government credit bubble of a raised deficit ceiling going to create "real organic growth," especially if there is more "stimulus" spending?
Threaded Mode