Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Cato Shrugged Promotes the Myth that Reagan was and Romney is for Tax Cuts

Romney admits that all he wants to do is shift taxes, not cut them. US New reports:
The catch is that Romney has insisted his tax plan will be "revenue neutral," meaning he would come up with other forms of revenue to offset money the government would lose if tax rates declined.
Here's Murray Rothbard on Reagan:
One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

1 comment:

  1. On balance, I like Reagan of the modern presidents. He could not wave a wand and make stuff happen, he didn't have that much power or that much of a mandate.
    Given what he had to work with, given what was do-able he does not come out so bad. True, it's not like he has to be compared with giants--Carter, Clinton, Bush-1, Bush-2 and Obama make anyone look pretty good.