The reality is that during the Reagan years, for instance, we doubled the amount of revenue that we were sending to Washington, D.C. after the tax cuts took effect.
The amount of money coming into Washington is not a factor when the Democrats start spending it. Witness Obama. National debt doubled in eight years. It didn't matter what the tax revenue was. Didn't matter. He was gonna spend the money anyway.
Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.
Using static scoring, tax cuts are broadly assumed to 'cost' a raw amount of reduced revenue. With dynamic scoring, the new revenue likely to flow from increased economic activity produced by a tax cut is considered, improving the accuracy of the projection.
His presidency ended more than a decade ago, but politicians, Democrat and Republican, still talk about Ronald Reagan. Al Gore has an ad noting that in Congress he opposed the Reagan budget cuts. He says that because Bill Bradley was one of 36 Democratic Senators who voted for the cuts. Gore doesn’t point out that Bradley also voted against the popular Reagan tax cuts and that it was the tax cuts that piled up those enormous deficits, a snowballing national debt.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Reagan tax cuts turned the deepest recession since the Great Depression into the largest 20-year economic boom in American history. The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and '86. And the same thing can happen here again. Democrats just cannot let it.
After 25 quarters of so-called recovery under Obama, it has increased a total of only 14.3 percent. Compare this to earlier periods. After the JFK tax cuts of the early 1960s, the economy grew in total by roughly 40 percent. After the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, the economy grew by a total of 34 percent.
After 2003, we lowered taxes across the board. And by 2004, revenue to the federal government grew. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically. And by the end of the decade, revenue coming in the federal government had doubled.
Democrats in Washington predicted that tax cuts would not create jobs, would not increase wages, and would cause the federal deficit to explode. Well, the facts are in. The tax cuts have led to a strong economy. Real wages were on the rise, and deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule.
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
Notably, the Trump tax cuts also doubled the child tax credit, reducing the tax burden on working families so that they have more resources to devote to their children.
I'm in favor of doing tax reform, but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the [Ronald] Reagan years. We've resolved this issue.
Well, I think the reality is that as you study - when President Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, when President Bush imposed those tax cuts, they actually generated economic growth. They expanded the economy. They expand tax revenues.
President Trump has doubled the Child Tax Credit and added thousands back into the average Americans' paycheck through tax cuts and wage growth.
All my adult life, I have lived with Labour lies about tax cuts. Their cry is always the same. Tax cuts are impossible in a civilised society. They mean less revenue for the state, which means sacked teachers, unemployed doctors, fewer nurses. I am amazed anyone still takes such arrant twaddle seriously.
We can have tax cuts, but when we have tax cuts and do not have a surplus, the amount of the tax cut goes straight to the bottom line, adds to the deficit, and the deficit adds to the national debt, and sooner or later, the debt has to be paid.
Everything [Ronald Reagan] got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere. There were certain realities that he faced. But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton.