Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (133592)	2/26/2001 11:10:31 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570341

That was my point. Reagan-Laffer math says that no matter how much you cut taxes, growth will more than compensate for the reduced tax rates. I don't believe that to be true but I am fairly certain the federal tax revenue will go up under Bush. This doesn't even depend on additional growth caused by the tax cuts, just the normal growth combined with bracket creep. n order to have kept even, Reagan would have needed a 20% growth rate, which I'm sure the Fed would have been totally agreeable to. Reagan more then kept even. Federal tax revenue climbed greatly while Reagan was president. Also your statement about a 20% growth rate doesn't make sense. Reagan was president for 8 years. A 20% growth rate for 8 years would have resulted in an economy at the end of the eight years that was over 4 times the size at the beginning. Reagan did not cut taxes 75%. Tim