Your answer was both incorrect, and a very lame attempt to dodge.
New York Federal Reserve economist Gauti Eggertsson stated in his paper, "Can tax cuts deepen a recession?"
Source
Not only do you fumble in your response, but then make another error in neglecting to factor the difference between our current environment (zero bound interest rate environment) and the early 1980's (double digit interest rates). So pay extra attention to pages 7 and 10 in the sourced PDF. It helps to illustrate your error.
The reasons tax cuts were helpful in the 1980s does not apply in the current; therefore you should be a good champ, and refrain from mentioning the 80's when discussing the current economic environment. Such an error is actually quite embarrassing.
While i do agree that tax cuts
can have an impact on increasing future revenue; the fact of the matter is the market does possess a lag in how consumers internalize the tax incentive. The initial result (without cutting spending; negative GDP determinant) is increased deficits as has been shown in any post war data you care to examine.
Yet there is research that shows the Bush tax cuts were not only inefective, they substantially increased the deficit by nearly $920 billion.
Source
Pay extra attention to page 10 figure K. Do you have any partisan bull**** which can explain the under-performance of the post 2003 recovery?
Irrelevant. This recession is the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. You still cannot explain how the economy grew despite the massively progressive tax rates from 1945-1970.
Incorrect once again. How many is this in a row? You are aware that over $280 billion of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts/breaks?
The only one in this thread that has typed those words is you.
Are you obtuse? The statistic (government revenues as a percentage of GDP) allows us to analyze the real revenue effects of the Reagan tax cuts. If the tax cuts boosted government revenue in the fashion you claim, we would witness an increase in government revenue as a percentage of GDP. In reality, we watched massive government spending (Keynesian!) combined with deficits even during growth years. The tax cuts a minimal effect on inducing increased tax revenue.
Nope! I am simply analyzing the situation on the basis of reality and objectivity. Quite a shame you lack both the desire and ability to do the same.
Incorrect once again. Actually, the revenues/GDP % had been declining since 1978, signifying the makings of a recession. The fact that they continued to fall (even in the stages of recovery) negates the fantasy world you live in. Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot look up tax revenues and state that because they happened in the same time frame as tax cuts, state with any accuracy it's those very tax cuts that is the cause. Poor economic analysis, and a juvenile argument style. Time to pick it up a notch.
I reserve judgment based on the facts and circumstances surrounding them. Now, my generation will be forced to foot the bill for your generations inability to accept any sort of fiscal responsibility (except for the Clinton era).
Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.
Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:
Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Already acknowledged the positive effects in regards to the stagflationary environment.
Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right:2wave: You do not even understand supply side theory :lamo
We have already addressed how you mis-analyzed the data. Perhaps something a bit more suited to your abilities:
here.
Sad truly sad.... I don't know why i should have to explain such a simple notion. Productivity increases during recessions because firms are forced to do with less. Due to price rigidities and "labor hoarding" (might want to look it up), productivity spikes during recessions (you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone) then diminishes, giving a positive effect to labor demand. The question i have is: will you even admit your error?
You are in no position to make such a judgment about me. I have displayed superior understanding and familiarity regarding the subject matter, where as you have struggled on a consistent basis to develop any real cause in your statement.