In the years after 1950, there have been only nine years when we didn’t have “the highest tax revenues in our history.” (Four of those happened under the current administration.) That’s 46 of the last 55 years.

Something tells me there’s a little more at work here than George Bush’s tax cuts.

We are currently experiencing some of, if not the highest tax revenues in our history. Kind of blows that talking point to bits, huh ?

That depends.

In how many previous years did we “experience the highest tax revenues in our history”?

Were all of those earlier record highs preceded by tax cuts? If not, what were the causes of the record highs and how do we know those forces aren’t causing the current record high?

If you don’t know the answer, then you’re just playing “X happened before Y, therefore X caused Y” without understanding how X and Y are related.

Essentially, you are ignoring spending and its role, and blaming this all on tax cuts.

Thanks for the translation and Am not! Am not! Am not!

I’m blaming this on the difference between money in and money out.

I believe it was drpedro who only wanted to look at half of the equation when he wrote:

if one action is perceived as bad (raising taxes) and one good, both leading to the same result,

He was looking only at the upward direction of revenues. (Of course, we haven’t even begun to debate what the current level of tax revenue would be without the tax cuts. Another topic for another day.)

You will get no arguments from me that the Republicans have been horrific with spending, but that it another thread altogether.

tax increases/decreases DO NOT EQUAL spending increases/decreases. Does the price of milk change if you get paid for 40 hours one week and 32 the next?

Wuzzuh?

And what taxes did Reagan enact?

Here’s a good summary.

it is just that if one action is perceived as bad (raising taxes) and one good, both leading to the same result, why not avoid the bad action?

I’m still speaking in the context of the Laffer curve, which Farris introduced into the discussion. From that perspective, the only “good” action is finding the tax rate that optimizes government revenue.

As for your question, the two actions don’t lead to the same result. The Clinton tax increase allowed the government to pay its bills out of current revenues. The Bush tax cuts require borrowing from future taxpayers to pay for current expenditures.

Deficits didn’t explode…they went up and during that time (without the benefit of an artificially inflated stock market, a la Clinton) we had the longest period of non-wartime growth in the history of this country. And what taxes did Reagan enact?

nice of you to notice revenue and spending are two entirely different subjects. Now if you can just tell Oliver….

Either we’re simultaneously on both sides of the Laffer curve, or else it’s a too simplistic model of the real world.

Pure revisionism.

Reagan did cut taxes…initially. Deficits exploded and Reagan was forced to enact the highest tax hikes in US history.

However, as Quaker points out, this is not a zero sum game. Improving efficiencies also increases production and output, which increases profits and yes, everyone wins. This happened during the Reagan years as well.

I don’t ignore the fact that setting taxes too low is also a problem, I just note that we are not there yet, as evidenced by the fact that tax receipts are the highest in history.

Correlation and causation are very familiar to me. Go back and look at tax receipts after the marginal tax rate was lowered at any point in the last fifty years and you will get the point. Correlation does not prove causation, but when you get 100% concordance between an action and an effect, you have a pretty good indication I would submit.

Quaker and Ryland, it s called the Laffer Curve. Those of us who passed Econ 101 already know it.

Then you must also know that the Laffer curve illustrates that setting the tax rate to high, or too low, results in lower government revenues. The curve suggests there’s one magical point at which revenue is maximized. Any deviation from that point lowers revenue.

drpedro’s boast ignores this inconvenient fact.

Something about apples.

Oooh, SaveFarris is a college boy. Lookit you with yer fancy book-learnin’.

I know what the Laffer Curve is, but even if tax cuts result in overall increased tax revenue, the government is still spending more than it’s taking in. When that happens, those of us who passed Econ 101 refer to it as deficit spending, which is what my little attempt at humor was referring to.