| akuma587 said:You are making two fatal assumptions:
1) The economy was generating the same amount of gross, pre-tax revenue as it was every year, when in actuality it wasn't, because an economy grows every year. So a lower rate in the next year could actually bring in more revenue. But government budgets grow also. Under Bush they skyrocketed, which is why we are broke as a country. 2) As steven brought up, you are ignoring inflation as well, which means that even if the Bush Administratin earned more revenue that it did not necessarily earn more "real" revenue when adjusted for inflation. You also have not established where would be the appropriate tax level for our economy, and have failed to differentiate between the various levels of tax brackets in our economy and how the people in those tax brackets have different behaviors and attitudes towards spending and taxes. So in reality there would be multiple different Laffer curves for multiple different sections of the economy. Each Laffer curve would have a different optimum tax rate for the highest amount of revenue. Without accounting for all of the things mentioned above, you cannot draw a sound conclusion. Issues and facts come before a conclusion, not after. |
Again, this is all great, but where does it discredit what I have said? All you have said is I did not show due diligence in my assertions, thus they are wrong.
prove to me they are wrong.
Have we not collected more taxes in the years we lower taxes then in the years we have raised them? If you think not, show me.
What's in red, is what I said at the start of this thread. Our issue is spending. Can you show me where Obama plans to spend less?
