That is the convoluted, misleading and vague argument of someone trying to wish away the reality that after all 4 major tax cuts... tax revenues went up.
So what are the ills of supply side you speak of? Is it your claim that borrowed money causes the massive inflation we experienced.
as far as income tax revenues to the government... look at how they grew...
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
The economy grew impressively during Reagan’s presidency. The economic expansion of the Reagan years is particularly impressive when we remember that Reagan inherited a weak and staggering economy. In January 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4% and was on its way to climbing to over 10%. Double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates into the high double-digit range. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and after-tax income was falling even faster. With these facts in mind, the Reagan economic record seems especially praiseworthy. Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
So what are the ills of supply side you speak of? Is it your claim that borrowed money causes the massive inflation we experienced.
as far as income tax revenues to the government... look at how they grew...
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
The economy grew impressively during Reagan’s presidency. The economic expansion of the Reagan years is particularly impressive when we remember that Reagan inherited a weak and staggering economy. In January 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4% and was on its way to climbing to over 10%. Double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates into the high double-digit range. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and after-tax income was falling even faster. With these facts in mind, the Reagan economic record seems especially praiseworthy. Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
this is a point we have never disagreed on despite your insistence that we have. What we have always disagreed on is the cause of the revenue increase.
I would point out that after the drastic Reagan tax cuts -- and can you believe the man had the nerve to raise the tax rate in the lowest bracket!!!? -- the nation transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. This was caused by tremendous spending on stimulus, military and domestic, and lower revenue than the administration had predicted,** despite a rise in revenue due to the stimulus spending. The marvelous revenue increases caused by, in your opinion, the tax cuts were not sufficient to prevent a gigantic, super colossal deficit. But what is extremely odd, but only if one reasons as you do, is why did the same administration undue some of the cuts and raise taxes. If these cuts were so effective in raising revenue, why would they kill, or in this case wound, the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't suppose you have ever thought about that.
By the time of the drastic Reagan cuts the top marginal rate was obviously --we know from the results-- below the maximum in Art Laffer's curve --malattributed to him, by the way-- and the brackets below, that were collapsed into one ridiculously low bracket, were therefore nowhere near the maximum! (By the way, one, but not you obviously, can make an argument that these drastic tax cuts produce less of a revenue loss when combined with other supply side initiatives, but it seems a hollow argument. For the excess money left with the already wealthy is not spent, but invested. Whereupon its returns are taxed at a lower rate than had the money been left in the middle class as regular income to be spent!)
The overall long term effect of supply side economics is very, very damaging to an economy. And you see the ironic evidence of THAT in the Trump victory!
___________________________
** Hayek, who was smarter than all of them combined, said it was unwise to spend the 'extra' money expected from your tax cuts before it materialized! They should have listened to Hayek.
this is a point we have never disagreed on despite your insistence that we have. What we have always disagreed on is the cause of the revenue increase.
I would point out that after the drastic Reagan tax cuts -- and can you believe the man had the nerve to raise the tax rate in the lowest bracket!!!? -- the nation transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. This was caused by tremendous spending on stimulus, military and domestic, and lower revenue than the administration had predicted,** despite a rise in revenue due to the stimulus spending. The marvelous revenue increases caused by, in your opinion, the tax cuts were not sufficient to prevent a gigantic, super colossal deficit. But what is extremely odd, but only if one reasons as you do, is why did the same administration undue some of the cuts and raise taxes. If these cuts were so effective in raising revenue, why would they kill, or in this case wound, the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't suppose you have ever thought about that.
By the time of the drastic Reagan cuts the top marginal rate was obviously --we know from the results-- below the maximum in Art Laffer's curve --malattributed to him, by the way-- and the brackets below, that were collapsed into one ridiculously low bracket, were therefore nowhere near the maximum! (By the way, one, but not you obviously, can make an argument that these drastic tax cuts produce less of a revenue loss when combined with other supply side initiatives, but it seems a hollow argument. For the excess money left with the already wealthy is not spent, but invested. Whereupon its returns are taxed at a lower rate than had the money been left in the middle class as regular income to be spent!)
The overall long term effect of supply side economics is very, very damaging to an economy. And you see the ironic evidence of THAT in the Trump victory!
___________________________
** Hayek, who was smarter than all of them combined, said it was unwise to spend the 'extra' money expected from your tax cuts before it materialized! They should have listened to Hayek.