Reason.com
New at Reason
Reason friends and associates weigh in on what may go right and wrong between now and next Leap Year.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|2.3.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Now I a have a new a reason to a check out Hit and a Run!
|2.3.05 @ 3:04PM|#
I fear ... Bob Barr will get his itchy mitts on a handgun again.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/08/07/national0943EDT0545.DTL
|2.3.05 @ 4:47PM|#
It's always fun to hear Grover Norquist's prescription for fiscal policy: Deficit a problem? Cut taxes! Social Security and health care costs out of control? Cut taxes! Oh, and somehow we'll cut spending, but it's not a priority.
There was a governor of Kansas in the 1960's who was re-elected to 4 consecutive terms by promising, in each election, to cut taxes and increase government services. The Republicans discovered this winning strategy in 1980, and have used it (with intermittent success) ever since. That is as effective a condemnation of democracy as I can think of.
|2.3.05 @ 6:24PM|#
Actually, during Reagan's terms many departments incurred real cuts. And, the rate of growth of total spending slowed down. In at least some congressional sessions, the cuts that Reagan asked for were more than congress approved. Reagan was far more fiscally frugal than the big spender, Bush.
Also, cutting tax rates often generates more revenue than the higher old rates.
|2.3.05 @ 8:19PM|#
Rick-
"Also, cutting tax rates often generates more revenue than the higher old rates."
I am genuinely curious, is there any evidence that this happened after the Bush-enancted tax cuts?
I understand the theory and all, but there has to be a point in the marginal tax rate where additional revenue created by economic growth exactly equals the revenue forgone. I assume it's higher than 0. You couldn't abolish all taxes and expect revenues to be higher, after all.
|2.3.05 @ 9:57PM|#
dlc,
I don't know of evidence that it's worked that way ( more revenue) with the Bush cuts. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't any because of the recession that was going when the cuts were initiated and also, they were pretty miniscule cuts.
There is certainly evidence that in the past, rate cuts have stimulated economic growth and thus engendered more revenue- the Reagan rate cuts for sure and also there is good evidence that cutting the capital gains tax has and will yield a similar effect.
That's the Laffer curve that you're talking about and I think that when you consider all the taxes that currently burden the economy, it's a good wager that we're at a place on the curve where tax reductions, especially rate reductions, would produce more prosperity and more revenue as well.
Of course you're right, abolishing all taxes would make for zero tax revenue, but also one heck of a lot of prosperity.
|2.3.05 @ 10:07PM|#
...of course, you might consider the fact that we came out of the recession to be evidence that the Bush tax cuts have worked.
drf|2.4.05 @ 11:46AM|#
dlc and rick:
since a big chunk of time with the bush cuts was when the cuts were temporary, economic theory would predict that nothing would happen with the cuts.
|2.4.05 @ 11:49AM|#
Rick: One thing I have always wondered about the Reagan years-- Has anyone done an analysis to determine what role the steep drop in oil prices in the early 1980's played in the economic boom, as opposed to the Reagan tax cuts? I have heard anecdotally that the economic impact of lower oil prices was vastly more significant to the economy at the time than the tax cuts were. I was in Houston back then, where the economy was devastated, and the "economic prosperity" of the Reagan era didn't start to manifest itself there until after George Sr. became President (and taxes had gone back up).
Also, I wasn't aware that the overall growth of government spending decreased during the Reagan years (and compared to what, Carter's last year in office?). I thought that the domestic spending cuts were largely offset by defense spending increases, or did I listen to too much left-wing propaganda back then? Surely there is some hard data on all this by now.
And you can't tell me that Reagan got elected by talking about spending cuts?