I admit, I'm not an economist. I'm simple software engineer, so I let the people who knows about it to speak.
For example, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prise winner:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
Taxes and revenues — another history lesson
...
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth
...
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
Interesting article which deserves to be put whole:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
Reagan and revenue
Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
 
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
 
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
 
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
 
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
 
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
 
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
			
		
	
	For example, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prise winner:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
Taxes and revenues — another history lesson
...
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth
...
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
Interesting article which deserves to be put whole:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
Reagan and revenue
Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration. 
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
 
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
			Several basics facts about US Debt and Spending..... - 16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
	        1298 Views
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
	        1298 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
 - 16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
	        1298 Views
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
	        1298 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Guess we should have okay'd those death panels for old people then. Big money saver.  *NM*
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
	        425 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
	        425 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	     *NM*
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
	        425 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
	        425 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Balancing our budget would be easy.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 06:46:32 PM
	        764 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Several of those aren't as easy as you make it sound, but the import tax is a big no-no.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 07:34:30 PM
	        980 Views
	        
	    
	
		
	    
			Also on the buying drugs from Canada idea
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 08:17:26 PM
	        861 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			Funny you mentioned WWII and 1968. Can you put tax rates at these times as well?
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 07:50:09 PM
	        1234 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains. *NM*
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 08:25:26 PM
	        365 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Re: Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 09:19:40 PM
	        893 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Have you ever looked at those projections for a decade or two hence?
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:13:12 PM
	        858 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Yes I have
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:44:50 PM
	        987 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Erm, and you think total health care spending is not getting out of control? I'm a little confused.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 11:02:52 PM
	        921 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			Exactly.  Cutting back on fraud and waste doesn't really put much of a dent in those projections. *NM*
	    
	         - 17/04/2011 02:31:13 AM
	        344 Views
	        
	    
	
	    
			Sorry, but that is a stupid opinion.....
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 08:38:35 PM
	        825 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Sounds like another bull.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 09:31:05 PM
	        1074 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Dude, the data is the data.....tax revenue increased all three times.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 09:47:37 PM
	        1048 Views
	        
	
		
		
	
	    		
			As I suspected, it's a bull.
		
	         - 16/04/2011 10:02:05 PM
	        960 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Stop being a fool - read and react to the data provided, posting something.....
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:14:11 PM
	        712 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Response is
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:19:00 PM
	        927 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick.  I really hope you are 12 or 13.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:28:44 PM
	        932 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Re: Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick.  I really hope you are 12 or 13.
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:47:24 PM
	        888 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I take it you mean "rate of revenue growth decreases".
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 11:11:19 PM
	        814 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
	    
			It's not remarkable that revenue increased after the Reagan cuts.
	    
	         - 17/04/2011 07:21:47 PM
	        1119 Views
	        
	    
	
	    
			I've just noticed that you've provided charts from Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me?
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:13:46 PM
	        803 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:16:08 PM
	        818 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Re: All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:27:01 PM
	        929 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:35:44 PM
	        746 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Re: Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
	    
	         - 16/04/2011 10:49:33 PM
	        899 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
	    
	         - 17/04/2011 02:34:50 AM
	        760 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Re: Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
	    
	         - 17/04/2011 03:50:24 AM
	        981 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Some obesrvations by Republican economists
	    
	         - 18/04/2011 12:27:04 AM
	        1121 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
	    
	         - 18/04/2011 04:00:52 PM
	        762 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Re: You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
	    
	         - 18/04/2011 05:36:44 PM
	        747 Views
	        
	    
	
	    
			You use Krugman and then complain about the  Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me? *NM*
	    
	         - 18/04/2011 02:46:47 AM
	        381 Views
	        
	    
	
	    
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
