I looked at your link, here is a chart from it:
.jpg)
And here is a quote from the link you provided:
Quote:
|
Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
|
There is no doubt that tax policy has an impact on economic behavior. There are many other factors that have an impact on economic behavior. When an economist or anyone attempts to tell us the impact of tax policy, they have to make certain assumptions, just as Viard does here (on one level he has to make assumptions on the timing of the impact of the tax cuts and to the degree the recession had an impact on taxes collected) . If you would like we can look at some of the fact check items you list in more detail looking at the assumptions and understanding the real findings. I have no problem with that approach. The reality is taxes collected are up, the percentages paid by the top wage earners are up and we have empirical information on how people would behave given certain tax conditions. So, on it face, I think my position is correct until proven wrong. To do that we need to do a detailed analysis.
Also, I am not really clear on the issue you are responding to. My main point here is that regardless of what many have said, the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" has not resulted
in them paying less. The data you give seem to be regarding the "supply side" argument.