So you accept the fact that you overstated your case when you wrote that tax revenues doubled under Reagan.
Thanks for clearing that up.
First, let's establish a baseline. Generally speaking, all things being equal, federal tax revenues go up every year. They went up this year, they'll probably go up next year. That's because of our growing economy and growing population. A long recession may result in a year in which tax revenues go down, or tax cuts might result in a year in which tax revenues go down. Years in which tax revenues do not increase are the exception, not the rule.
It's true that overall, tax revenues went up during the Reagan years. I believe this is also true of every president since WWII. So when you write "Regardless of which set of numbers you choose, the indisputable fact is, revenue went up," you really aren't saying anything.
But then you wrote: Taxes went down... revenue went up. This is reality."
Not really. Taxes went down. Taxes also went up. In 1981 taxes went down. In 1982 TEFRA was passed. In was passed in part in reaction to the disasterous reduction in tax revenues experienced in 1981-2. TEFRA was a tax hike. A big one. In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history". In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in the National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history." In 1983 there was a big Social Security tax hike. In 1984 was another big tax hike. source here
So some taxes were cut, some were raised. What were the effects on tax revenue of the various tax bills? Here's a study done by the Department of the Treasury in 2006:
REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)
......................................Number of years after enactment
...................................................................................2-yr........4-yr
Tax bill...........................1..........2..........3..........4..........avg..........avg
ERTA of 1981..............-1.21.....-2.60.....-3.58....-4.15......-1.91........-2.89
TEFRA of 1982..............0.53......1.07.......1.08.....1.23........0.80.........0.98
Hiway Act of 1982.........0.05......0.11.......0.10......0.09.......0.08.........0.09
SSA of 1983.................0.17......0.22.......0.22......0.24.......0.20.........0.21
IDTCA of 1983.............-0.07.....-0.06.....-0.05.....-0.04.....-0.07........-0.05
Deficit Red Act 1984......0.24.......0.37......0.47.......0.49......0.30.........0.39
Omnibus Act of 1985......0.02.......0.06......0.06......0.06.......0.04.........0.05
Tax Reform of 1986........0.41.......0.02.....-0.23....-0.16.......0.22.........0.01
Omnibus Act 1987..........0.19.......0.28......0.30......0.27.......0.24.........0.26
TOTAL.........................0.33......-0.53....-1.63.....-1.97......-0.10.......-0.95
source (pdf)
So you can see that the big Reagan tax cut that conservatives remember so fondly, according to George W Bush's own Treasury Department cost the treasury 4 percent of GDP over four years. This is not good. This causes deficits. If tax revenues went up overall during the Reagan years, it was in spite of his massive 1981 tax cut, not because of it, and also because of a number of tax hikes passed during his tenure.
On page 19 of the study you can see the effects on revenue of all the major pieces of tax legislation. Look at the positive effects of the 1993 Clinton tax hikes on the rich. Very impressive.
You write: "So why didn't Clinton's tax hike harm the economy? Because rich people wisely didn't pay it."
Well, apparently somebody did. Tax revenues fairly exploded in 1993 and the years following: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
