It isn't misleading to ask a question as a basis for discussion. What a trivial thing to bitch about. You then come in expecting a formal mathematical proof of the affirmative because of your preconceived notions.
Like I said, you're too much of a pussy to admit it, but you have already repudiated your own thread title by saying you're making a correlational argument about tax cuts and higher revenue, despite your causational thread title linking tax cuts with higher revenue. You won't change it because you don't even have this minimal amount of courage, it seems. No mathematical proofs necessary. Meh.
That is an assertion. Support it and we may be getting somewhere.
For one, you made the assertation in the thread title, backing it up with as close to nothing as it gets. I'm sorry you wasted an hour on a spreadsheet btw.
Two, the evidence has already been provided:
Page 1 post 9. Reposted below since you're still woefully confused:
This brief by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzes the macroeconomic effects of a simple tax policy: a 10 percent reduction in all federal tax rates on individual income. Because there is little consensus on exactly how tax cuts affect the economy, CBO based its analysis on a number of different sets of assumptions about how people respond to changes in tax policy, how open the economy is to flows of foreign capital, and how the revenue loss from the tax cut might eventually be offset. Under those various assumptions, CBO estimated effects on output ranging from increases of 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent over the first five years on average, and from a decrease of 0.1 percent to an increase of 1.1 percent over the second five years. The budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years.
Let me know if you have any questions about the report.
Support the assertion with evidence. CBO isn't evidence, especially since we can't even see their assumptions.
The CBO report is the most authoritative evidence out there and has withstood public scrutiny. We already know their assumptions quite well, their reports list them quite clearly in the footnotes; e.g. on page 5 of
this report, footnote 8 lists the assumptions for consumer behavior in reacting to gov't spending/tax cuts, saying that people prepare differently for tax cuts/increases. I am sorry you are literally too stupid to read reports and bolded sentences as regurgitated for you above.
All I have done is shown that the revenues have gone up faster than the rate of inflation during Reagan's tax cuts and for Kennedy's tax cut. For Bush's tax cuts it requires some extra "massaging".
Again, you're not that intelligent if this is your conclusion. Hate to break it to you.
I say in the OP that not all tax cuts will lead to increased revenue. If you want to talk about relative stuff instead of the title of the thread then I would welcome that.
It has already been discussed, analyzed and debunked with CBO reports and from posters like shira, eskimospy and Bowfinger in this thread, all on the first two pages. I have already linked and bolded the explanations for you. Time for you to man up on some references and research or you will continue to be laughed at. No, your own Excel spreadsheet, as already explained to you before, does nothing to take the full impact of the economy on revenues, like various tax hikes, higher or lower gov't spending or higher/lower economic activity during various time periods over the past 30+ years into account.
I have no idea how the CBO came up with their models or what they are.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not well informed. Their models were constructed using data compiled from the BLS and Treasury among other sources.
Also they look at a 10% cut where the effects on people's behavior may just be too weak to make up the difference. Maybe a cut of 10% won't be "stimulative" enough to make up the difference.
Huh? You wrote out two sentences side by side, but they don't actually make any sense.
Plus the two major tax cuts that were enacted that show a clear revenue increase were when rates were dropped from 91% to 65% on the top and 70% to 50% then to 28%. The CBO was looking at a modest tax cut from (their example) 25% to 22.5%. I don't think they have anything at all to say about the two tax cuts I've outlined in the OP.
As has already been baby fed to you, nothing you just said is actually that simple or actually occurred in reality, though, because rates didn't "just" decline from 91% to 65%. They went up in your timeline of examined revenue. It's why your original point about tax revenues was shit.
Where do I challenge the veracity of their assumptions? Where do I even mention any specific assumption?
Jesus, I just quoted it for you in the statement of mine you're quoting, lol. Read your own tripe below:
They used assumptions they didn't look at the effect of past tax cuts. This is a projection, I'm looking at past actual results. Their analysis is good only in so far as their assumptions are sound. They used assumptions that had a wide range of effects.
