| >> |
08/03/11(Wed)09:20:06 No.345110341As
Michael Griffith notes in his well-documented “Facts About Tax Cuts,
Revenue, and Growth,” every major tax cut over the last 60 years has
more than paid for itself. All have been followed by substantial
economic growth and increases in revenue.
* John F. Kennedy’s
tax cuts, proportionally larger than Reagan’s and slightly larger than
George W. Bush’s combined tax cuts, were followed by a 30% increase in
federal revenue, while they were in effect, and led to the rich paying a
larger share of income taxes, up from 11.6% to 15.1%.
*
President Reagan? Despite signing two tax increases, inheriting a
stagnant economy and double-digit inflation, Reagan left taxes a lot
lower than he found them. The result? Though he lowered the top tax rate
from 70% to 28%, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% climbed from 17%
to 27%. The Reagan cuts ignited a boom that defied recessions for 92
straight months, reduced double-digit inflation to 1%, and grew the
economy 35%.
* Bill Clinton? He signed a tax cut for the rich in
1997, advanced free trade, and adopted a hands-off tax policy for the
Internet. The tech industry boomed. The economy grew for 116 straight
months and created 22.5 million jobs, both the most in our history. As
the original Man from Hope might say: “Go, baby!”
* And the
much-maligned Bush tax cuts? They were followed by 52 consecutive months
of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007 federal tax revenue increased by
$780 billion, our country’s largest four-year increase. Worker
productivity grew faster under Bush than under Clinton and, even,
Reagan. George Bush left President Obama an economy 19% larger than the
one he inherited from President Clinton. And after the Bush tax cuts,
the rich paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had
in 40 years. |
