Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 30 Aug 2004 07:21:50 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:05:16 GMT, Chris Wood wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

Myth, not fact. Look here for the facts:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0.

No, fact, not myth.
From your own reference. Table I, revenues, the Reagan tax cuts started
in 1982. The following are the revenues for just prior to following:

Year Revenue ($B)

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3
1989 991.2

Now, you will note that in 1983, the year after the tax cut, revenue did
go down, however, in subsequent years, revenue continued to increase even
in 1986, the year that there was a recession.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation, the last pre-tax cut year
was 1981, and payroll taxes are included (whose rates went up). Real
(inflation-adjusted) income tax revenues were lower in each of the
first five years after the tax cut (1982-86) than they were the year
prior to the tax cut (1981).

You are correct, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, these are raw
revenue numbers.

Which means they aren't valid for assessing the impact of the tax cut
on revenues (Econ 101).

The Inflation rate decreased after the 1982 tax cuts.
The poster I was responding to contended that there was a devastating loss
of revenue after the 1982 tax cuts. As shown above, with the exception of
1983, which makes sense because that was the first full year for tax-cut
induced growth to ramp up, revenue continued to increase.

Repeating, inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each
of 1982-86 than they were in 1981.

Josh Rosenbluth