View Single Post
Old Nov 9, 2006 | 09:04 AM
  #41  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DVPGSR
Thank you for NOT reading the articles.

From the first article, second sentance...



For the first time means it was never done before which means it is the highest it has ever been, during a period of time when taxes were lowered.
Yearly growth. Remember those record high profits the oil companies made? Guess what, they pay taxes on that.

The budget agency, in its monthly review released Friday, estimated that corporate receipts would exceed $330 billion in fiscal 2006, up 18% from 2005. That is double the increase that the agency estimated at the beginning of the government's fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
More than was estimated, but still less than you would have had if the tax rate had been higher.


You're preaching to the choir DVP, I am a fiscally conservative economist and believe that tax rates should be as low as possible to stimulate the economy, but the plain fact remains that lower tax rates = lower tax receipts in the short run. Reagonomics is factually wrong.
Reply