I would rather pay more taxes then belong to the Axis.

[Ben Kenobi]

Given that Bush's tax cuts must have been the reason tax revenues went up, and Clinton's tax hikes must have been the reason tax revenue went up in the 90's, we can infer that any adjustment of taxes causes revenue to increase. Congress should raise taxes by 2%, then lower them back to where they were, and repeat that an infinite number of times. Unlimited tax revenues!

So, you're in favour of raising taxes into the teeth of the longest downturn since the great depression. Brilliant.

You raise taxes, you'll get less revenue, and you'll extend this recession.

Or you can cut SPENDING, and actually recover. The good thing is that despite not having a budget for 2 years, the fiscal insanity will end once BO is turfed. Finally.

[loinburger]

Revenue went up from 2002-8.

Where's the beef?

Are you stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Apparently your own chart disagrees with you. So much for the "lie".

Hey how about cutting out some SPENDING? Maybe that will fix the massive 2 trillion dollar deficit.

[giblets]

So, you're in favour of raising taxes into the teeth of the longest downturn since the great depression. Brilliant.

You raise taxes, you'll get less revenue, and you'll extend this recession.

Or you can cut SPENDING, and actually recover. The good thing is that despite not having a budget for 2 years, the fiscal insanity will end once BO is turfed. Finally.

don't be silly. Tax revenues increased after Clinton raised taxes, so we know that raising taxes must cause revenues to increase. And since we know tax revenues increased after Bush cut taxes we can also be certain that cutting taxes will increase revenue. So let's fix the deficit by raising taxes, then immediately lowering them back to where they were.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tax revenues increased after Clinton raised taxes

Great, let's go back to FDR days. You with me here? Yes or no?

[giblets]

I'm pretty sure tax revenues went up under FDR. I know some silly people think that it had something to do with a war or something, but let's get real. Only changes in tax policy can cause tax revenues to change.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only changes in tax policy can cause tax revenues to change.

So where's your evidence that increasing taxes today will automatically increase revenue?

[giblets]

So where's your evidence that increasing taxes today will automatically increase revenue?

Tax revenues increased under Clinton and he raised taxes. This is very rational.

[Ben Kenobi]

I remember the recessions in the clinton years.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Revenue went up from 2002-8.

Where's the beef?

The chart is more than a bit misleading. Firstly it is a chart of all government revenues, federal state and local. A change in federal rates to overall government revenues is not an apples apples comparison. Secondly the y axis is a revenue as a percentage of GDP not absolute or even present day dollars. Thus increases in revenue as expressed in terms of GDP percentage are meaningless as well without knowing the GDP of the given years.

Point of fact (thirdly) is that federal revenue as expressed in terms of GDP has been relatively constant hovering in the 18 -20 range since the 50's. The largest driver for federal revenues therefore follows is the growth of GDP itself as the federal taxation rate has had little effect on revenues.

See second chart.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Only changes in tax policy can cause tax revenues to change.

No.

[giblets]

I remember the recessions in the clinton years.

That's cool. I remember recessions in the Bush years too. In fact it's surprising how many two term presidents have recessions at some point in their presidency. Maybe two-term presidents cause recessions.

[Ben Kenobi]

So where's the evidence that raising taxes generates revenue?

[giblets]

So where's the evidence that raising taxes generates revenue?

After Clinton raised taxes, tax revenue increased. There is nothing silly about assuming that if something happens after tax rates were changed, then the change in rates caused it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

There is nothing silly about assuming that if something happens after tax rates were changed, then the change in rates caused it.

Yes there is.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...nd-effect.html