JohnStOnge wrote:This article is a little old but the information is important:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/busi ... venue.htmlIn the inaugural year of the tax cuts — with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low — federal revenues from corporate, payroll and personal income taxes actually fell.
That’s true whether you adjust revenues and growth for inflation — or not.
This is not surprising. It's what every serious analysis I ever saw reported said would happen. But Republicans in Congress and the President looked everyone in the eye and lied to them with glittering generalities.
This is one thing that has bothered me about Republicans for years. I am not against Tax cuts per se. But I am against this thing where they claim the Reagan tax cuts improved the revenue situation and that people can have their cake and eat it too. You know, we can cut taxes and we will actually get MORE money!
It's a lie. And it's a lie that Republicans have told repeatedly.
Reagan didn't. Reagan referred to tax cuts in the context of cutting government's "allowance." But those who have come after him repeat the lie over and over again.
Tax cuts are fine. But don't tell people you're going to cut taxes and get more money under current circumstances. Yes, it is true that there is a point at which further increasing tax rates would result in lower revenue and there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting tax rates would increase revenue. But we are not in that realm.
Don't make flipping claiming that tax cuts won't result in less revenue than there otherwise would have been part of the argument for tax cuts.
It’s not a lie. It’s an assumption and any (repeat—ANY) revenue projection includes assumptions just like that. It’s entirely possible it could happen—you CAN cut taxes and generate more revenue in many cases. The lie is in insisting that it DID happen when in this calendar year it didn’t.