Best paper that proves tax cuts contribute to the deficit??

[antigop]

Can anyone provide a link?

Is the CBPP the best source for this?

TIA.

[Warpy]

1. The CBO has a chart showing that the deficit would disappear

if the tax cuts lavished on the richest 1% were rescinded.

[ticktockman]

2. Evidence that tax cuts contribute to the deficit.

Can anyone provide a link?

There's a short and long analysis at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html . I've shown it to supply-siders over the years and none have yet been able to point out any problem with it.

Is the CBPP the best source for this?

They are often a good source. I just noticed that they have an article at http://www.cbpp.org/10-6-05bud3.htm titled "DROP IN DEFICIT IN 2005 DOES NOT MEAN TAX CUTS ARE SPURRING ECONOMIC AND REVENUE GROWTH; NEW IRS DATA CONFIRM TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE".

Also, the CBO recently posted "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2007 to 2016" at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7027/01-26-BudgetOutlook.pdf . It projects that the tax cuts, if extended, will increase the deficit. You can find graphs derived from that report at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/01/25/national/20050126_deficit.html and in the Democratic Underground thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x19248 .

In any case, following is the short analysis in the aforementioned analyses at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html :

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUT ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

[antigop]

3. Thanks -- I appreciate it

Lots of good stuff.