Really? so 17 million new taxpayers didn't have an effect? Interesting logic on your part. If you are married ask your spouse what happens when you have more money in your pay check. Further stop with the payroll tax increase as it has absolutely nothing to do with Federal income tax revenue. You can easily get the income tax revenue from the Treasury website but apparently you are too buried in liberal rhetoric to do that which makes you a waste of time
Of course they make a difference. But two points - the new jobs aren't all attributable to changes in tax rates, and 2) what changes are the result of the tax cuts aren't large enough to pay for the tax cuts. I said it, you ignored me.
Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and a consumer driven GDP is affected by that revenue. You just don't get it and never will
I accept that entirely. But all that means is $1 in nominal tax cuts will reduce tax revenue by some amount less than $1. The estimates are broad based tax cuts "cost" only about 80cents to 99cents if the tax cut is offset with spending cuts - i.e. not financed by higher deficits. If deficit financed, the $1 in tax cuts might cost MORE than $1.
But for tax cuts to pay for themselves, a $1 in nominal tax cut costs less than ZERO. It allegedly RAISES revenue.
Wrong, I am talking only about FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No you're not, which I knew because I've looked at the numbers. Total nominal revenues, including individual income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate income taxes went up by 60.4%. Individual income taxes increased by
49.7%. And to put more perspective on it, payroll taxes increased by 177 billion over those 8 years, individual income taxes by only 160 billion. Payroll taxes were fully 45% of increased revenues during the Reagan years.
Nominal Individual income taxes increased by
83.1% during the Clinton years. Clinton added more jobs, but payroll taxes only accounted for 32% of total increases in revenues.
See Table 2.1
Historical Tables | The White House
Without economic activity growth yes, but Reagan's tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, and JFK tax cuts created more taxpayers, a concept that you will never understand
There's nothing difficult to understand. If the tax rate cuts of Reagan had so large an effect on the economy that they RAISED revenues, then income tax increases should harm the economy and LOSE revenue, but that didn't happen. Clinton raised rates and the economy created more jobs in those 8 years than during the Reagan years. Bottom line is income tax rates have a significant but minor effect on economic growth, and that's why they do not pay for themselves.
Only in the liberal world does the govt. need the money more than the people. Ever figure out why that is?
Not the point. Either we can or cannot pay for spending with more tax cuts. People in the reality based world know spending increases require tax increases, such as occurred with ACA.