ihollywoodchina.com

20 Comments für “Since lowering taxes has been proven to increase tax revenue, why are liberals against it?”

1. Dolemite sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 2:31 pm

   Less control over the people.
   References :

2. Dennis P sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 3:05 pm

   Without high taxes the people can’t be controlled.
   References :

3. Pro-Traditional American sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 3:52 pm

   Inability to understand economics.
   References :

4. Eugene sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 4:17 pm

   Lowering taxes on the rich is moronic. And yes, you are suggesting that because the poor and middle class pay trivial amounts of taxes to no taxes at all. The reason liberals are against it is because lowering taxes on your bread winner = less taxes, not more.
   References :

5. Sadcat sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 4:42 pm

   So if we had a 0% tax rate, would that increase tax revenue?

   There MUST be a point where your logic breaks down.
   References :

6. markie o sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 4:50 pm

   it’s a lie. cus in the end it causes a recession. but then you didn’t know when you were being trickled down upon. lol
   References :

7. It's That Guy sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 5:18 pm

   Reagan’s moderate revenue increases were caused by an ENORMOUS increase in the national debt. In two terms Reagan tripled the entire pre-existing national debt. We will be paying interest on that debt forever. We will end up paying that money over and over.

   In fact the increases in revenue were much more likely caused by huge increases in govt. spending.

   It’s just too easy for any president, of either party, to spend money we don’t have and to give away tax cuts. He can take credit for boosting the economy, but when the bill comes due he knows he’ll be out of office and it will be some other president’s problem.
   References :

8. Jo sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 5:43 pm

   Because by lowering taxes, businesses would begin to thrive and they would actually have to go get a job and work. Then they would actually be the tax payer that is being ripped off.
   It’s way more fun to spend someone else’s money.
   References :

9. Mr. Wolf sagt:
   05.February, 2010 um 5:51 pm

   President Obama signed the bill with the highest tax cuts in history. The individual amount was small because more people received the tax cut.

   The Obama tax cut was $282 billion over two years.

   Also Bush cut taxes and we still had two recessions.
   References :
   http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/12/is-obama-stimulus-plan-also-the-biggest-tax-cut-ever.html

10. Doc sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 6:31 pm

    What can be said? They are a perverse lot. They’ve a long and sorted history of deprivation: slavery, terrorism, civil rights violations, etc., etc., etc.. Good luck trying to get them to see the light. Seems they’re a little more than "slightly" slow.
    References :
    "Why tell the truth when a lie will suffice?" FDR

11. tribeca_belle sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 6:59 pm

    Reagan and Bush lowered taxes and ran up record-setting deficits. Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, had budget surpluses and even began to pay down the national debt.

    The actual facts don’t support con theories no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way.
    References :

12. Greg sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 7:20 pm

    Liberals will never understand it. If they can’t understand that revenue does increase with lower taxes…because hence more people work, buy things and pay taxes….they will never understand something like the Fair Tax.

    The liberal nightmare…getting your whole pay check to spend on goods and services. They just don’t see it. Tax people more, they cut back on things and if they own a business they cut back on jobs.
    References :

13. brown9500v15 sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 7:28 pm

    Got a link that isn’t a 404?
    References :

14. The Big A -- American Atheist sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 7:45 pm

    You can google your question and mostly what you will get is that is myth- – the question really is does it go up more and does gdp grow more — the answer to that is unobvious no — but stats to lean to no — this one and FDR prolonged the depression are the 2 republican lies I hate the most
    References :

15. beren sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 8:10 pm

    The heritage foundation did a study on it? And you believe it.

    That is like asking al qaeda to do a study proving that radical islamists are not responsible for 911.
    References :

16. delina_m sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 8:57 pm

    So how low do you want to go? I have an idea: let’s put the taxes at 0% and see how much revenue that brings.
    References :

17. Jesse sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 9:17 pm

    Two Reasons

    1. The law of diminishing returns. Lowering the highest marginal tax rate from 70 -39 percent will create more investment. Lowering it from 39-35 (2001-today) did not.

    2. New economic situations that didn’t exist in Reagan’s Era

    It is quite convienient that your graph (whose link doesn’t work) stops at 1999. Further tax cuts – especially with free movement of capital (something that was limited during Reagans era) – has been shown to not have the same effect. Nowadays, for every dollar in tax cuts 85 cents is shipped overseas in investment rather than staying here (like it did during Reagan/Bush/Clinton). So the dollar in tax cuts actually only gets the investment return on the 15 cents that stays here. Nevermind the incongruent interest rates on government paper between say Asia and the US, that was not there in Reagan’s Era. (Who would have invested in Indonesian or Thai bonds in 1985? an idiot.)

    In general we like rules that work all the time. Milton Friedman, a monetarist, once said that Keynes’ theories didn’t work all the time because the rules he assumed were not "general" but specific to his time and place. Late in life, Friedman realized the same was true for his own "general rules" from the 1960s and 1970s and that they were incorrect as we entered the new globalized era with more demand for capital OUTSIDE of the first world.

    Unfortunately, this new Globalized era has not been studied enough to have a new system of "general rules" that work in it.

    Free Movement of Capital
    Floating currencies
    Floating interest rates
    Three or four level international economy (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th worlds).

    In Reagan/Bush and most of Clinton’s era there were only the First and Third World (newly independent Communist nations were largely third world).

    There is now more demand for capital in places that aren’t US/Europe/Japan.

    This is something that Friedman had never accounted for and did not exist in the years of your graph.
    References :

18. skidmark_84 sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 9:51 pm

    Automatic fail for linking to the Heritage Foundation as a source. Double fail for linking to a 404′ed page.
    References :

19. correrafan sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 10:37 pm

    I don’t read right-wing "think tanks" take on something. Reagan started with a stable tax structure where those who got the most benefit paid the most in taxes. He turned it upside down to where those who got the most benefit paid the least in taxes. And conversely, those who got the least benefit, paid larger and larger portions of their incomes in federal income taxes. His massive tax cuts started a "race to the bottom" to see how far tax cuts to the wealthy could go until the economy started collapsing from falling demand. It took from 1983 to 1989 to begin the recovery. Bush-1 just continued the pain, and did little else.

    There is a temporary increase in tax revenues when taxes on the highest earners is cut, but that bulk comes from taxes collected from those who spend the most: The Middle- and Working Class. When demand begins to fall, recessions loom over the country. There is an ideal income tax level where both demand for goods and services remains high, and where tax revenues also remain high. I believe that is somewhere between the high of 91% marginal tax rate in the 50s and the 70% marginal tax rate in the 70s. Both eras were times of prosperity of the American people, and for the middle class in particular.

    Democrats have not been innocent in these happenstances. They are also in collusion with Big Business to crush the middle class and grab all the goodies for themselves and their benefactors. Mostly, the Democrats have forgotten why they are supposed to be the party of "the rest of us". While the Republicans have both hands in the pockets of the taxpayers, Democrats have one hand in the pocket of the taxpayer and the other in the pockets of lobbyists for the status quo. Remember the story about "the Goose that laid the Golden Egg"? The greedy weren’t willing to wait for the next egg to be laid. They had to kill the goose and cut her open to find out where the eggs were coming from. The eggs stopped coming, of course, and that is the moral of the story.
    References :
    Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but for other reasons entirely.

20. Not My Fault! sagt:
    05.February, 2010 um 11:16 pm

    They want to spend our money and hope that voters are naive and don’t understand that you can’t spend your way out of a recession.
    References :
    Obama is not my fault!

Respond