Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Bizarro World: ‘Every Major Tax Cut In History Has Created More Revenue’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the budget released today, the Obama administration announced that it would end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, as well as shut off loopholes that effectively eviscerate corporate tax revenues, all in an effort to fuel a robust domestic agenda and start lowering the deficit.

Predictably, the right wing is up in arms over the small tax increase for the richest businesses and families. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) complained to a friendly crowd at CNBC this morning that Obama's tax increases would harm the economy, and insisted the best way to raise revenue is to cut taxes:

HUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we've done it in the past that has been so successful in the past and that is tax cuts…

Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue.

The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a

myth that won't die

. "The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that

revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s

, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious fact that "we can't have

both lower taxes and fatter government coffers

."

"[E]verything you've heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong," economist Paul Krugman wrote, noting that government revenues climbed steadily through the Clinton administration,

then plunged dramatically

following the 2001 Bush tax cuts. And falling revenues during tax-cutting Republican administrations means growing debt:

Hutchison must be looking at a different "history" than

everybody else

.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/26/kbh-tax-cuts-revenues/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's exactly the face of today's GOP....lost and confused.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's exactly the face of today's GOP....lost and confused.

I was trying to get you an article of the new GOP wunderkid, some 13 year, but the Huffington Post is being a little too invasive for my tastes. Let me find a better link.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

That's exactly the face of today's GOP....lost and confused.

I was trying to get you an article of the new GOP wunderkid, some 13 year, but the Huffington Post is being a little too invasive for my tastes. Let me find a better link.

i once linked a pic from huffington, steven's favorite website. he denounced the source

[monagoz 2]

I trust the grand old regional party. Bereft of ideas and sapped of any sense of direction, what else do you expect, throw in any theory factual or not, idiotic or fable, just do something because this country is changing and the grand old regional party is still relishing the past. Tax cuts.... please.

[dalegg 143]

The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious fact that "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers."

This comparison is utterly flawed. Tax revenues during the 90s increased because there was a good economy and more revenue.

Do it now. Go ahead. The argument will be over once and for all and we can stop referring to the crazy notions of that staunch Republican- John F Kennedy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious fact that "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers."

This comparison is utterly flawed. Tax revenues during the 90s increased because there was a good economy and more revenue.

Do it now. Go ahead. The argument will be over once and for all and we can stop referring to the crazy notions of that staunch Republican- John F Kennedy.

The one tax cut that is a sure fire revenue raiser is cutting capital gains tax, but that only works when there is capital worth selling. In a severely down market like this, it won't work, I am afraid.

Structured tax cuts would work toward increasing revenues by increasing production. That is the whole theory behind the stimulus package, grease the wheels, and get industry moving. However, most of our production and industry are overseas, so who are we really helping, unless you can capture all that foreign income.

Small business is the real engine of the US economy, and that is where the investment is needed. Investing in infrasture is a quick way to kick start the engine, but creates larger problems down the road with increased maintenance costs. That is the major problem with the infrastructure as it stands in the US today, and why much of it is collasping, and will continue to deteriorate at an exponential rate.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious fact that "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers."

This comparison is utterly flawed. Tax revenues during the 90s increased because there was a good economy and more revenue.

Do it now. Go ahead. The argument will be over once and for all and we can stop referring to the crazy notions of that staunch Republican- John F Kennedy.

In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.

....

• Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent "dynamic analysis" of the impact of making the President's tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost. (See box on page four.)

In addition, economists from across the political spectrum — including economists who have held top positions in the current Administration — reject the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves (see the discussion of this issue on page five). In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no "free lunch."

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

Edited February 28, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[dalegg 143]

The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious fact that "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers."

This comparison is utterly flawed. Tax revenues during the 90s increased because there was a good economy and more revenue.

Do it now. Go ahead. The argument will be over once and for all and we can stop referring to the crazy notions of that staunch Republican- John F Kennedy.

In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.

....

• Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent "dynamic analysis" of the impact of making the President's tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost. (See box on page four.)

In addition, economists from across the political spectrum — including economists who have held top positions in the current Administration — reject the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves (see the discussion of this issue on page five). In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no "free lunch."

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

The good news here is that we will no longer have to theorize. We have a congress and willing President- and good citizens like yourself who seem to be in love with higher taxes, so we will know once and for all. Very soon California will show the world whether or not you can tax yourself out of a problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The good news here is that we will no longer have to theorize. We have a congress and willing President- and good citizens like yourself who seem to be in love with higher taxes, so we will know once and for all. Very soon California will show the world whether or not you can tax yourself out of a problem.

Dale, don't mischaracterize my position here. I don't think we can simply tax our way out of the problem. However, on the flip side, you have many Republicans who think we can simply tax cut our way out of this Recession. That's all they wanted for a stimulus.

.....

As for Obama's plan - he wants to limit deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000. For most families, we'll be getting an even bigger tax cut.

[dalegg 143]

The good news here is that we will no longer have to theorize. We have a congress and willing President- and good citizens like yourself who seem to be in love with higher taxes, so we will know once and for all. Very soon California will show the world whether or not you can tax yourself out of a problem.

Dale, don't mischaracterize my position here. I don't think we can simply tax our way out of the problem. However, on the flip side, you have many Republicans who think we can simply tax cut our way out of this Recession. That's all they wanted for a stimulus.

.....

As for Obama's plan - he wants to limit deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000. For most families, we'll be getting an even bigger tax cut.

I don't know man. Every other post I see from you is a gleeful rejoicing that taxes are finally going to be raised.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The good news here is that we will no longer have to theorize. We have a congress and willing President- and good citizens like yourself who seem to be in love with higher taxes, so we will know once and for all. Very soon California will show the world whether or not you can tax yourself out of a problem.

Dale, don't mischaracterize my position here. I don't think we can simply tax our way out of the problem. However, on the flip side, you have many Republicans who think we can simply tax cut our way out of this Recession. That's all they wanted for a stimulus.

.....

As for Obama's plan - he wants to limit deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000. For most families, we'll be getting an even bigger tax cut.

I don't know man. Every other post I see from you is a gleeful rejoicing that taxes are finally going to be raised.

Do you think that you will be hurt personally by the proposed tax increases or will you benefit from the tax cuts?

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

I don't know man. Every other post I see from you is a gleeful rejoicing that taxes are finally going to be raised.

or that the republicans did something he disagrees with.

[Waldo 0]

This message has been brought to you by the letter K and the Americans Department for tax cuts.