“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

Source: "Radio and Television Address to the Nation on the Test Ban Treaty and the Tax Reduction Bill" (18 September 1963) http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9413

Source: 1962, Address and Question and Answer Period at the Economic Club of New York

Source: 1962, Address and Question and Answer Period at the Economic Club of New York

Source: The Economic Illusion (1984), Chapter 5, Taxes, p. 208
Context: The total impact of the Reagan tax cuts on capital lowered the effective cost of capital to American industry by an estimated 1.2 percent. Unfortunately, the Laffer curve did not work as advertised. Lower tax rates did not produce more tax revenues. They produced deficits.

Speech given on Apr. 7, 2010 to the Dallas Regional Chamber of Commerce, "Economic Challenges: Past, Present and Future" http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20100407a.pdf. (See pages 13-14 of the speech transcript).

Variant: EU countries lose approximately €1,000 billion with tax avoidance. If Finland would receive of this €1,000 billion 1 % in relation to its population in the EU, it would be €10 billion. The famous deficit would be fixed up. If tax avaidance is not restricted we continue to have deficits and budget cuts.
Source: Satu Hassi: Veronkierto vai hyvinvointivaltio, Voima 10/213 In Finnish: EU-maiden arvioidaan menettävän veronkierron vuoksi 1000 miljardia euroa. - Jos Suomi saisi tuosta 1000 mrd eurosta prosentin, eli väestöosuutemme EU:ssa, se olisi 10 mrd. euroa. Kuuluisa kestävyysvaje olisi hoidettu. Ellei veronkiertoa suitsija, vajeista ja budjettileikkauksista päästä eroon.

Source: Theory of Economic Dynamics (1965), Chapter 3, The Determinants of Profits, p. 51

March 10, 2005 http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050310/default.htm. <br class="br">2000s

2000s, 2002, State of the Union address (January 2002)