OK, so the official White House spokesnetwork (FAUX) announced with glee today how tax revenues increased this year, which they then slobbered all over to show how "Bush and the Republicans" were right all along, supply side works, you cut taxes and revenue grows, yada yada.Now IIRC, the same thing happened around 1984 after the Reagan tax cuts of '81, BUT it was because that was when Reagan actually DID raise taxes - Social Security and all that. Gee, what a strange concept - you raise taxes, and revenues increase!So what's the "gotcha" this time? Did some of Dimson's tax cuts expire, thus increasing gov't revenues? Corporations delaying tax payments until now? Who knows the REAL story?The big "gotcha" is that revenues have just partially recovered from the very deep hole they fell into after 2000. The following graph shows receipts as a percentage of GDP:
The actual numbers and sources are at
http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc.html. As can be seen, individual income tax revenues dropped from 10.34% of GDP in 2000 to 7.01% of GDP in 2004. In 2005, they just partially recovered to 7.54% of GDP. Corporate income tax revenues dropped from 2.13% of GDP in 2000 to 1.22% of GDP in 2003. They have totally recovered, reaching 2.26% of GDP in 2005. Part of this is likely due to the tax "holiday" on overseas corporate profits mentioned in reply 2 by thoughtanarchist.
Hence, if you want to "prove" that some policy increases revenues, all you have to do wait for a recession and then start implementing that policy, over and over again if necessary, until the inevitable recovery occurs. It doesn't matter whether that policy is to cut taxes three times as Bush did or simply to do a "revenue dance" each year. Eventually, the recovery will occur and, like a rooster taking credit for the dawn, you can trumpet the vindication of your policies.