EyeSawYou

You need to use "quote reply" so we all know who it is that you are addressing.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

So where is your evidence that such a thing was even thought of while creating these secret tax bills. If they are so good, why the need for so much secrecy? Why did lobbyists have access to it and even help create it while many in congress had no access to it? Why was the turtle so afraid of "regular business"?

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

Bravo-

EyeSawYou

What secrecy are you referring to?

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Such a cheap retort! Can’t y9u think of your own?

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

The Laffer curve is a real Laffer. Ninety-six percent of economists laugh at it.

EyeSawYou

LOL liar.

EyeSawYou

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

From Wikipedia....

There is a consensus among leading economists that a reduction in the US federal income tax rate would not raise annual total tax revenue.[3]

(snip)

In 2012, economists surveyed by the University of Chicago rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to federal US income taxes of the time in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut”, none of the economists surveyed agreed and 71% disagreed.[12]

(Snip)

In their economics textbook Principles of Economics (7th edition), economists Karl E. Case of Wellesley College and Ray Fair of Yale University stated “The Laffer curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. Supply-side economists use it to argue that it is possible to generate higher revenues by cutting tax rates, but evidence does not appear to support this. [38][39] The lower tax rates by the Reagan administration decreased tax revenues significantly and contributed to the massive increase in federal debt during the 1980s.”.[40]

(Snip)

During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[47] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[48]

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Not cheap, just simple and truthful. When criticizing others should choose words more carefully so your words do not describe your own behavior.

EyeSawYou

"From Wikipedia"?? ROTFLMBO

Tell me, what exactly does "annual total tax revenue" mean? Utilizing trick keywords are we? The reduction of federal income tax does in fact raise gov revenue, you can deny it all you want...it happened when Kennedy cut taxes across the board, the same effect happened when Clinton lowered the cap gain tax from 28% to 20%, it happened when G Bush Jt lowered the cap gain tax from 20% to 15%. When the cap gain tax was raise..the government took in less revenue. It's a fact no matter what you want to believe what Wikipedia says lol....I will rely on real facts not wikipedia opinion posts. LOL the national debt alone does not have anything to do with the effects of lowering tax....it has to do with spending more than you take in....the spending in the 80's under Reagan did skyrocket because of him building up the military...has nothing to do with tax cuts in these cases.....nice try but no cigar.

Here's the proof that you conveniently ignored..

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

Even Charlie Gibson challenged Obama and Hillary on this issue....eat it and weep.


https://youtu.be/54jr3Ceu894

EyeSawYou

LOL I love how you challenge FACTS with fictional opinions.


These are the facts...it's documented.

(Download)

EyeSawYou

"…Tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now…. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."- JFK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=X_jk-CCq3HA

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Except it Never works.

Professional economists know.

It’s like Republicans hating deficits except when they are doing the spending....

EyeSawYou

LOL I just gave you empirical evidence from history that it works and wells well, denial is not a fact. lol you lose. By the way, you are implying that JFK is lying?