Re: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

<gjohns01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:51715033-4613-429f-a967-ff8c07d4dc58@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  No amount of evidence will ever convince usenet Republicans that you
> can't get something from nothing, but here's more evidence proving
> that wrong anyway.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
>
> If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that
> sla****ng taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and
> the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year.
> Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent
> interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government."
> Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax
> cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani
> couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more
> revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.
>
> If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims
> are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every
> economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush
> Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past
> six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.
> Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic
> Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling
> economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase
> revenues.


Birmingham Alabama granted tax abatements to Home Depot to convince them
to 
build a new distribution center there.  States routinely grant companies
tax 
abatement deal to attract them to build.  If your assertion is true, then 
the correct thing to do would be to promise prospective builders that they

will enjoy ever increasing taxes and will pay more to build "here", than 
there.  Reduced taxes stimulate building, which increases hiring, which 
increases economic activity, which increases taxes collected.

And, if your economic prowess is correct, putting a 50% tax on vehicles 
would stimulate the automotive industry and help General Motors recover
from 
a $39 billion dollar loss.  Huh?

If every purchase is taxed, how many transfers of money does it take to 
completely consume a dollar out of circulation?