[net.politics] supply-side: Income Taxes

dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/15/85)

[]

In article: <808@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>Apparently supply-side advocates have difficulty understanding
>basic categories of government revenues and expenses.
>To wit Dave Olson responds to my figures:
  >> > tim      > Dave Olson
>> >I have posted this before so I will simply summarize the *facts* as
>> >presented in a New York Times article, Sept. 18,1984:
>>   
>> >  1)Tax revenues have *not* gone up.  Here are the facts:
>> >     1981                      1982
>> >    $284.1 billion,        $276.9 billion
>> 
>> Uh, Tim.  Revenues were *only* $200 and-some-odd billion?  Double those
>> figures, and you will have the approximate figure for 1980.  For last
>> year it was something like $750 billion.  Point of fact: according to
>> the _Information_Please_Almanac_ of 1985, federal receipts for 1981 was
>> $663.9 billion and for 1982 was $690.4 billion.
>> 
>> David Olson

>The 1981 tax cuts which were expected to produce the supply-side miracle
>of increased revenues from lower taxes only involved INCOME TAXES.
>The figures cited by the New York Times (quite properly!)
>are therefore for actual revenues
>from INCOME TAXES as tabulated by the Internal Revenue Service.
>Since these were the taxes which were reduced, this should be the
>category which increases in revenues according to supply-side theory.  

Tim, I wouldn't lead you astray :-).  Again to quote my favorite source,
the 1985 _Information_Please_Almanac_:

                          (In Billions)
Year                   1981          1982
Individual income
and profits taxes     $322.8        $352.6

Income tax only       $285.5        $298.1 (This was listed in the
                                            1985 _World_Almanac_)
Corporate taxes       $73.7         $65.9

Indeed this is a drop in corporate taxes, but look at corporate profits
in that same time (there was a recession going on then):

Corporate profits     $203.3        $165.9

>Thus as logic would dictate those taxes which were decreased (namely
>income taxes) led to *reduced* revenues and those taxes which
>were increased (namely Social Security) led to *increased* revenues.

Read my lips Tim, B-U-L-L.  Tax *rates* (not tax revenues) were cut.

>      tim sevener  whuxn!orb

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo