- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"the smaller portion of the bigger pie is at least as big as the previous bigger portion of the smaller pie"
Yes - this is the basic theory.
I should have corrected: "tax cuts are necessarily a decreased percent of GDP" - a tax cut is a reduction in government revenue, not necessarily GDP.
"I don’t see how a tax cut is itself the definition of paying for itself"
The definition is a tax cut that results in greater future tax revenue.
"On the whole, were taxes cut or increased?"
On the whole, individual income revenue went from 8.2% of GDP to 8.3%, so it increased.
Corporate income taxes went from 1.5% to 1.0% of GDP - more than the total deficit to GDP decline of -.3%
"So how much of the 1.6 percent decline in revenue is is because of tax cuts?"
The reduction in real corporate income tax revenue (-$98.45B) was nearly double the total real decline (-$54.76B); this was paid for in part by a $63.64B real increase in individual income taxes.
"will this years increased revenue counter your position"
Revenue as a % of GDP is estimated to fall again in 2019 (from 16.5% to 16.1%)
The important part is the "Fiscal Stimulus Bang for the Buck" table which shows some tax cuts/credits which can be stimulative:
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.01
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.22
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.24
Job Tax Credit 1.30
Across-the-Board Tax Cut 1.02
Stimulative meaning that there is more than a $1 increase in GDP per $1 of cut/credit. For it to fully "pay for itself" from a tax revenue perspective, the cumulative revenue collected from the additional GDP (sales taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, etc.) would still need to exceed $1 - this will be exceedingly rare but possible, so I thought it should be mentioned for completeness.
This might be a simpler link for the site to handle:
It is the testimony of Mark Zandi (Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics) before the Senate Finance Committee on April 14, 2010
"That doesn’t seem reasonable."
As far as the definition goes, it is the definition. As to whether it is reasonable to assume that a tax-cut will pay for itself - I think we should generally assume that most will not. The reason Republicans generally try to make the case that tax cuts pay for themselves is to avoid the follow-up question - if it does not pay for itself, are we ok with increasing the debt, or what spending will we reduce?
"Individual taxes account for 48 percent of federal revenue while corp taxes account for 9 percent"
2017 Individual: 47.9% - 2018: 50.6 17Corporate: 9.0% - 2018: 6.1%
"tax revenues rise and fall"
Economies are all complex, but that doesn't mean we can't know anything about a given policy.
you’re saying that tax cuts to individuals increased revenue
Individual income revenue went from 8.2% of GDP to 8.3% and, it should be noted, the tax plan increased taxes for million by eliminating some deductions (ref)
"It’s not even clear that revenues are the appropriate concern rather than spending."
as far as deficits go, we should consider both of course.