Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they cut taxes by $100, are they raising fees by $100? More? Less?

It's not a zero-sum game. They're raising it more. That's what happened in KS. We have a real-life example of this shit in practice.

Tax cuts produce debt,
So you say. Even though they reduce my debt. Now where did I encourage individual debt? Post the link.

So you say they reduce your debt (taking your word for it seems to be your only approach in this debate, huh?), but why should I fucking believe you? It's easy to just make up shit about yourself on a message board to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. That's why you invoke personal anecdotes that aren't verifiable. You know that there's no actual facts or data to support your argument, so your argument rests on something you cannot even prove! This always happens with you guys. We reach a point in the debate where your academic arguments are exhausted, yet the debate continues. So to fill that void in your argument, you populate it with invented personal circumstances that just so happen to validate your argument. You can't do that on facts we can all see, so you invent things to bridge that gap. Tsk tsk. That's lazy and sloppy.

It's not a zero-sum game. They're raising it more.

The government cuts taxes by $100 and they raise fees by more than $100?
Sounds like another good reason to shrink government.

So you say they reduce your debt

Only because they do.

but why should I fucking believe you?

I guess you could post proof that my debt rose because I had more after tax income?
Or that yours did?
Now, back to your lie.

Where did I encourage individual debt? Post the link.

 

[The Derp]

The government cuts taxes by $100 and they raise fees by more than $100?
Sounds like another good reason to shrink government.

No, it's because there needs to be growth in spending that goes along with growth of GDP and population.

So you say they reduce your debt
Only because they do..

Ehhh, you can't prove that. Because it's your personal anecdote. So for all I know, you're just saying this to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have on the facts. I notice you do that all the time. You invoke personal stories and anecdotes because you have no actual facts to back up anything you're saying. That way, you don't have to be held to account for the fact that your argument and position doesn't align with the facts we all can see. It's a very lazy and sloppy way to go about life.

but why should I fucking believe you?I guess you could post proof that my debt rose because I had more after tax income?

How can I do that since you are in possession of those things? See the problem? Your argument boils down to "take my word for it". And my response to that is, why the fuck should I take your word for it? So you've set an impossible standard deliberately because that's the only way you can hang in this debate. I argue with facts, you counter those facts with unverifiable personal anecdotes. So why the fuck should I believe you when you say things about yourself? Why should anyone? You don't have credibility to make those claims and use them as the central pillar of your argument. Because that's what you've done. You've made yourself the argument, and that's just lazy and dishonest because there's no reason to believe you're being truthful about anything you claim about yourself. You get that, right?

 

[The Derp]

OK, but you realize this isn't about just you, right?
Your claim was everyone's debt increases when taxes are cut. So you were wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. The facts show household debt skyrocketing after every tax cut. Your unverifiable personal anecdote is not sufficient evidence to enter into this debate. So I'm going to come right out and say it; you're a liar. You're making things up about yourself to jury-rig the argument to fit inside the preconceived narrative you have. The only way your arguments make sense is if your unverifiable personal anecdotes are entered into the debate. Without them, you have nothing. So I don't even know if what you're saying about your personal debt is true or not. The internet provides you with the anonymity where you can make such wild claims without being held accountable. Outside of this message board, you wouldn't be able to get away with this shit. Or you could, but you'd just be a sociopath. Are you a sociopath? You do have many of the attributes of a sociopath such as uncontrollable lying and an inflated sense of self-worth. Which would explain why you are trying to make this whole thing about you, by using anecdotes and given circumstances from your personal history that you expect us to...believe? Why? Why should I believe you?

That you do not exist in a vacuum, and just because something didn't affect you personally,
The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

Again, we only have your word to go on...and since we are on an anonymous message board, that means nothing. Why should we take your word for it? Why should anyone? What have you done to prove you can be trusted in that regard? Is there anything you can do to prove that? Not on an anonymous message board. So why do you do it? The answer is simple; because otherwise your argument doesn't work.

When I say that people go into debt after a tax cut, that is supported by the increased household debt that spikes every time taxes are cut.
You still haven't shown that anyone increased their debt because their taxes were cut.

I just told you in one of the last posts exactly how tax cuts result in individual debt by using Kansas as an example; Kansas cut taxes, which cut revenue, which created deficits, which resulted in spending cuts, which resulted in less funding to KS State Universities, which caused the Board of Regents to raise tuition, which caused families and students to borrow more, which burdened those folks with debt, which delays them starting a family, owning a home, being an adult.

No one had to withdraw equity from their home.

They sure did if they had to pay medical bills (60% of all bankruptcies pre-ACA were medical related) or rising tuition costs for their kids. So why did so many people do that if the tax cut was supposed to give them all this extra income? Could it be that the tax cut was really for the rich and not everyone else, and that everyone else was expected to "do more with less", even if that meant using your home as an ATM to send your kid to State College?

An no, they do not help the economy grow, clearly:
The economy grows every time they're cut. Clearly.

Really? Show me here where that's the case, because without mortgage equity withdrawals, Bush the Dumber's economy looks a shitload weaker than it did during Clinton's preceding years, doesn't it? Also, I noticed how you shifted your argument slightly from saying tax cuts create growth to growth happens every time there's a cut. So you're not saying that tax cuts are the reason for that growth anymore. So you've moved to a correlation-is-causation argument. Just thought you'd want to know about that, and how you shifted your position again in this debate. Consistency isn't something I can expect out of you, is it? This speaks exactly to what I was saying earlier about trust. So if there's no trust in what you're saying, then why the fuck should I trust in anything you say about yourself? I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.

Obama's not President.
When he was President he cut taxes and said it would grow the economy. Grow jobs. Why would he lie?

Obama raised taxes and cut them. Conservatives only cut. Because they want to manufacture deficits. So they can feign outrage at those deficits and use that feigned outrage as an excuse to cut spending they lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. So you have to make up a reason to achieve that ideological goal. The reason is the deficit, and the reason is invented by cutting tax revenue.

It was better than Kansas
Prove it.

BEA Reports, Percent Change in GDP
KS 2012: 1.4%
IL 2012: 1.9%

KS 2013: 1.9%
IL 2013: 0.9%

KS 2014: 1.8%
IL 2014: 1.2%

KS 2015: -0.9%
IL 2015: 2.5%

KS 2016: 0.2
IL 2016: 0.9

TOTAL
KS 2012 - 2016: 4.4%
IL 2012-2016: 7.4%

So which is more? 4.4% or 7.4%?

Debt and pension issues have nothing to do with economic growth.
Illinois raised taxes to fix those issues. Did they get fixed?

Don't know and don't care. The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.

Because a 67% increase can mean the marginal rate going from 3% to 5%.
That's what they did. If they hiked it 100%, it would have gone from 3% to 6%. They hiked 67%.

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it? What did the rates start at and what did the rates go to? I mean, really...come on. Let's get some facts, OK?

Also, IL's household debt figures have declined following the tax hike:
You think debt figures declined because people had less after tax income, because taxes rose? LOL!

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education. It's the central theme of what I've been saying this whole time. When the State funds a public institution, that's less the people have to pay out of their own pocket. So you cut taxes, which results in funding cuts to things like health care and education, which causes the out-of-pocket costs for individuals to rise, and in order to afford those things, people have to go into debt. So not only do they have to pay more for those services that were cut, they also have to pay the interest on the loans that were needed to pay for those things. It's basically a tax, if not called as such. Health insurance tax. Tuition tax.

Let's follow your previous "logic" further.
After the Illinois tax hike, which other taxes, fees or tuition cuts took place to allow Illinoisans to cut their debt?
Or does your fee claim only work in one direction?

They don't need to cut their debt. All they need to do is have GDP grow faster than debt. Then the debt-as-a-%-of-GDP gradually declines, taking away a talking point from the right-wing.

Bush didn't see growth after the tax cuts.
View attachment 137297

LOL Indeed. So you're counting all the economic activity from mortgage equity withdrawals in your GDP growth, which is what I did too, only I wasn't dishonest; I showed the growth with people using their homes as ATMs and without. Your chart doesn't really sweat those details. Bush's economy was fueled by debt. That's what the facts shows.

Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".
No it didn't!
In 1996, before the cap gains rate was cut, the government took in $66.4 billion in cap gains taxes.
In 1997, the long-term rate was cut to 20%.
Capital gains receipts in:
1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion
Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2009 - Tax Foundation
How can this be? If you cut tax rates, the government gets less money, always.........DURR

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble, which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000. So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government cuts taxes by $100 and they raise fees by more than $100?
Sounds like another good reason to shrink government.

No, it's because there needs to be growth in spending that goes along with growth of GDP and population.

So you say they reduce your debt
Only because they do..

Ehhh, you can't prove that. Because it's your personal anecdote. So for all I know, you're just saying this to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have on the facts. I notice you do that all the time. You invoke personal stories and anecdotes because you have no actual facts to back up anything you're saying. That way, you don't have to be held to account for the fact that your argument and position doesn't align with the facts we all can see. It's a very lazy and sloppy way to go about life.

but why should I fucking believe you?I guess you could post proof that my debt rose because I had more after tax income?

How can I do that since you are in possession of those things? See the problem? Your argument boils down to "take my word for it". And my response to that is, why the fuck should I take your word for it? So you've set an impossible standard deliberately because that's the only way you can hang in this debate. I argue with facts, you counter those facts with unverifiable personal anecdotes. So why the fuck should I believe you when you say things about yourself? Why should anyone? You don't have credibility to make those claims and use them as the central pillar of your argument. Because that's what you've done. You've made yourself the argument, and that's just lazy and dishonest because there's no reason to believe you're being truthful about anything you claim about yourself. You get that, right?

No, it's because there needs to be growth in spending that goes along with growth of GDP and population.

Then Illinois can cut spending, because their population is shrinking.

Ehhh, you can't prove that.

And you can't disprove it.

You invoke personal stories and anecdotes because you have no actual facts to back up anything you're saying.

Only because you're pretending more after tax income forces people to go into debt.

How can I do that since you are in possession of those things? See the problem?

Yes, your claim of all is dashed on the rocks of me.

I argue with facts

And then you ruin it by misinterpreting the facts, confusing correlation with causation and a multitude of other errors.

 

[The Derp]

And you can't disprove it.

I can neither prove it or disprove it because it is your personal anecdote that you entered into the debate. So unless you are willing to break anonymity on a message board, your personal circumstances shouldn't even be a part of this. That's what I mean when I say this is about trust. In order for me to accept your premise, I have to trust that what you're telling me is the whole truth. And we know from experience, that folks often embellish in the anonymous environment an internet message board provides. You asking me to trust you on this is asking quite a lot. You wouldn't trust me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why should I trust you in this?

You invoke personal stories and anecdotes because you have no actual facts to back up anything you're saying.

Only because you're pretending more after tax income forces people to go into debt.

I'm not pretending it...that is what the facts show. Household debt skyrockets when taxes are cut. Nearly. Every. Time.

So this is where we are at; You say that cutting taxes reduces debt, yet the facts show that debt increases when taxes are cut. Only one of us has actual data to support our argument, and only one of us can be right. Is it you who has only personal anecdotes as your support, or is it me who has only facts as my support? A personal anecdote is not equivalent to a fact. Anecdotes are informed by bias, facts are not.

How can I do that since you are in possession of those things? See the problem?
Yes, your claim of all is dashed on the rocks of me.

You made a claim about yourself knowing it's not something you can prove anonymously on a message board. I think that you did that deliberately because you are so desperate to maintain this facade of Conservatism Bullshit. What I can't figure out is why? I keep coming back to your own personal ego as being the reason because nothing else makes sense.

So unless you're willing to unmask yourself here, and thus open yourself up to personal scrutiny, you can't go around throwing anecdotes around and expect your argument to make sense.

I argue with facts
And then you ruin it by misinterpreting the facts, confusing correlation with causation and a multitude of other errors.

You are the one who made the correlation-is-causation argument when you said every time taxes are cut the economy grows. I backed myself up on the household debt growth as a result of tax cuts by invoking the example of the KS Board of Regents, who raised tuition in the state because of the drop in funding from Topeka. If you can't tell the difference between those two things, then you're either incredibly dense, or reprehensibly dishonest. So which is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, but you realize this isn't about just you, right?
Your claim was everyone's debt increases when taxes are cut. So you were wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. The facts show household debt skyrocketing after every tax cut. Your unverifiable personal anecdote is not sufficient evidence to enter into this debate. So I'm going to come right out and say it; you're a liar. You're making things up about yourself to jury-rig the argument to fit inside the preconceived narrative you have. The only way your arguments make sense is if your unverifiable personal anecdotes are entered into the debate. Without them, you have nothing. So I don't even know if what you're saying about your personal debt is true or not. The internet provides you with the anonymity where you can make such wild claims without being held accountable. Outside of this message board, you wouldn't be able to get away with this shit. Or you could, but you'd just be a sociopath. Are you a sociopath? You do have many of the attributes of a sociopath such as uncontrollable lying and an inflated sense of self-worth. Which would explain why you are trying to make this whole thing about you, by using anecdotes and given circumstances from your personal history that you expect us to...believe? Why? Why should I believe you?

That you do not exist in a vacuum, and just because something didn't affect you personally,
The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

Again, we only have your word to go on...and since we are on an anonymous message board, that means nothing. Why should we take your word for it? Why should anyone? What have you done to prove you can be trusted in that regard? Is there anything you can do to prove that? Not on an anonymous message board. So why do you do it? The answer is simple; because otherwise your argument doesn't work.

When I say that people go into debt after a tax cut, that is supported by the increased household debt that spikes every time taxes are cut.
You still haven't shown that anyone increased their debt because their taxes were cut.

I just told you in one of the last posts exactly how tax cuts result in individual debt by using Kansas as an example; Kansas cut taxes, which cut revenue, which created deficits, which resulted in spending cuts, which resulted in less funding to KS State Universities, which caused the Board of Regents to raise tuition, which caused families and students to borrow more, which burdened those folks with debt, which delays them starting a family, owning a home, being an adult.

No one had to withdraw equity from their home.

They sure did if they had to pay medical bills (60% of all bankruptcies pre-ACA were medical related) or rising tuition costs for their kids. So why did so many people do that if the tax cut was supposed to give them all this extra income? Could it be that the tax cut was really for the rich and not everyone else, and that everyone else was expected to "do more with less", even if that meant using your home as an ATM to send your kid to State College?

An no, they do not help the economy grow, clearly:
The economy grows every time they're cut. Clearly.

Really? Show me here where that's the case, because without mortgage equity withdrawals, Bush the Dumber's economy looks a shitload weaker than it did during Clinton's preceding years, doesn't it? Also, I noticed how you shifted your argument slightly from saying tax cuts create growth to growth happens every time there's a cut. So you're not saying that tax cuts are the reason for that growth anymore. So you've moved to a correlation-is-causation argument. Just thought you'd want to know about that, and how you shifted your position again in this debate. Consistency isn't something I can expect out of you, is it? This speaks exactly to what I was saying earlier about trust. So if there's no trust in what you're saying, then why the fuck should I trust in anything you say about yourself? I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.

Obama's not President.
When he was President he cut taxes and said it would grow the economy. Grow jobs. Why would he lie?

Obama raised taxes and cut them. Conservatives only cut. Because they want to manufacture deficits. So they can feign outrage at those deficits and use that feigned outrage as an excuse to cut spending they lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. So you have to make up a reason to achieve that ideological goal. The reason is the deficit, and the reason is invented by cutting tax revenue.

It was better than Kansas
Prove it.

BEA Reports, Percent Change in GDP
KS 2012: 1.4%
IL 2012: 1.9%

KS 2013: 1.9%
IL 2013: 0.9%

KS 2014: 1.8%
IL 2014: 1.2%

KS 2015: -0.9%
IL 2015: 2.5%

KS 2016: 0.2
IL 2016: 0.9

TOTAL
KS 2012 - 2016: 4.4%
IL 2012-2016: 7.4%

So which is more? 4.4% or 7.4%?

Debt and pension issues have nothing to do with economic growth.
Illinois raised taxes to fix those issues. Did they get fixed?

Don't know and don't care. The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.

Because a 67% increase can mean the marginal rate going from 3% to 5%.
That's what they did. If they hiked it 100%, it would have gone from 3% to 6%. They hiked 67%.

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it? What did the rates start at and what did the rates go to? I mean, really...come on. Let's get some facts, OK?

Also, IL's household debt figures have declined following the tax hike:
You think debt figures declined because people had less after tax income, because taxes rose? LOL!

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education. It's the central theme of what I've been saying this whole time. When the State funds a public institution, that's less the people have to pay out of their own pocket. So you cut taxes, which results in funding cuts to things like health care and education, which causes the out-of-pocket costs for individuals to rise, and in order to afford those things, people have to go into debt. So not only do they have to pay more for those services that were cut, they also have to pay the interest on the loans that were needed to pay for those things. It's basically a tax, if not called as such. Health insurance tax. Tuition tax.

Let's follow your previous "logic" further.
After the Illinois tax hike, which other taxes, fees or tuition cuts took place to allow Illinoisans to cut their debt?
Or does your fee claim only work in one direction?

They don't need to cut their debt. All they need to do is have GDP grow faster than debt. Then the debt-as-a-%-of-GDP gradually declines, taking away a talking point from the right-wing.

Bush didn't see growth after the tax cuts.
View attachment 137297

LOL Indeed. So you're counting all the economic activity from mortgage equity withdrawals in your GDP growth, which is what I did too, only I wasn't dishonest; I showed the growth with people using their homes as ATMs and without. Your chart doesn't really sweat those details. Bush's economy was fueled by debt. That's what the facts shows.

Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".
No it didn't!
In 1996, before the cap gains rate was cut, the government took in $66.4 billion in cap gains taxes.
In 1997, the long-term rate was cut to 20%.
Capital gains receipts in:
1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion
Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2009 - Tax Foundation
How can this be? If you cut tax rates, the government gets less money, always.........DURR

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble, which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000. So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.

No, I'm not wrong. The facts show household debt skyrocketing after every tax cut.

That's awful! You still haven't shown the economic law that forces people to add debt simply because their tax rate was cut.

Perhaps you can go back in history and examine periods when household debt has fallen?
Then we can try to figure out what was different than those periods when debt rose.

So I'm going to come right out and say it; you're a liar.

You're lying.

The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

Again, we only have your word to go on

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) - Tax Foundation

Don't take my word for it, plug in your income in 2000.
Put that same number in for 2003. Let us know how much you saved.

No one had to withdraw equity from their home.

They sure did if they had to pay medical bills

The Bush tax cuts caused medical bills? Are you drunk?

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it?

Well, I guess you could claim taking 67% more out of my paycheck wasn't dramatic.
I'd have to disagree.

Obama raised taxes and cut them.

When he cut taxes, he said that would help the economy and jobs. Was he a dirty liar?


KS 2012: 1.4%
IL 2012: 1.9%

KS 2013: 1.9%
IL 2013: 0.9%

KS 2014: 1.8%
IL 2014: 1.2%

Thanks for the data!
In 2011, when Illinois hiked my taxes 67%, the GSP grew 1.3%
In 2011, Kansas GSP grew 0.9%

In 2011-2014, Illinois grew 5.4%
In 2011-2014, Kansas grew 6.1%

TOTAL
KS 2012 - 2016: 4.4%
IL 2012-2016: 7.4%

So which is more? 4.4% or 7.4%?

Not sure why you'd include 2015-2016, when the Illinois tax hike expired Jan 1, 2015.
I'll go with 6.1% is more than 5.4%.

KS 2015: -0.9%
IL 2015: 2.5%

KS 2016: 0.2
IL 2016: 0.9

Did Illinois have it's best growth in that entire period in the year their personal income tax rates were cut by 25%?
That is so weird.

Illinois raised taxes to fix those issues. Did they get fixed?

Don't know and don't care.

I'll end your suspense. The Dems hiked taxes by 67% to fix those problems, the problems got worse.

The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.

That's funny. And wrong.

They don't need to cut their debt.

Tax cuts that give people more money causes their debt to increase but tax hikes don't cause their fees, tuition or debt to decrease?

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education.

The problem with your claim is that while taxes rose, so did health care and education expenses.

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble

Dotcom bubble? We were talking about your claim that the tax cut didn't "pay for itself".
Usually that means that revenues fall after a cut. Clearly they rose. Clearly, your claim was wrong.

which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000.

So much for Bubba's surpluses that were gonna eliminate the debt, eh?

So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.

When the bubble burst, the government returned all those cap gains revenues? I don't believe you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you can't disprove it.

I can neither prove it or disprove it because it is your personal anecdote that you entered into the debate. So unless you are willing to break anonymity on a message board, your personal circumstances shouldn't even be a part of this. That's what I mean when I say this is about trust. In order for me to accept your premise, I have to trust that what you're telling me is the whole truth. And we know from experience, that folks often embellish in the anonymous environment an internet message board provides. You asking me to trust you on this is asking quite a lot. You wouldn't trust me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why should I trust you in this?

You invoke personal stories and anecdotes because you have no actual facts to back up anything you're saying.

Only because you're pretending more after tax income forces people to go into debt.

I'm not pretending it...that is what the facts show. Household debt skyrockets when taxes are cut. Nearly. Every. Time.

So this is where we are at; You say that cutting taxes reduces debt, yet the facts show that debt increases when taxes are cut. Only one of us has actual data to support our argument, and only one of us can be right. Is it you who has only personal anecdotes as your support, or is it me who has only facts as my support? A personal anecdote is not equivalent to a fact. Anecdotes are informed by bias, facts are not.

How can I do that since you are in possession of those things? See the problem?
Yes, your claim of all is dashed on the rocks of me.

You made a claim about yourself knowing it's not something you can prove anonymously on a message board. I think that you did that deliberately because you are so desperate to maintain this facade of Conservatism Bullshit. What I can't figure out is why? I keep coming back to your own personal ego as being the reason because nothing else makes sense.

So unless you're willing to unmask yourself here, and thus open yourself up to personal scrutiny, you can't go around throwing anecdotes around and expect your argument to make sense.

I argue with facts
And then you ruin it by misinterpreting the facts, confusing correlation with causation and a multitude of other errors.

You are the one who made the correlation-is-causation argument when you said every time taxes are cut the economy grows. I backed myself up on the household debt growth as a result of tax cuts by invoking the example of the KS Board of Regents, who raised tuition in the state because of the drop in funding from Topeka. If you can't tell the difference between those two things, then you're either incredibly dense, or reprehensibly dishonest. So which is it?

I'm not pretending it...that is what the facts show.

All you've shown is correlation, not the force you claim.

So this is where we are at; You say that cutting taxes reduces debt,

I said cutting my taxes reduced my debt.

yet the facts show that debt increases when taxes are cut.

I don't notice debt decreasing on your chart when taxes were increased. Maybe tax rates aren't the only factor?

You are the one who made the correlation-is-causation argument when you said every time taxes are cut the economy grows.

So you won't be showing proof that the economy shrank when LBJ, Reagan and GWB cut taxes?

I backed myself up on the household debt growth as a result of tax cuts by invoking the example of the KS Board of Regents, who raised tuition in the state because of the drop in funding from Topeka.

How much was the total tax cut, how much was the total tuition hike?

 

[The Derp]

That's awful! You still haven't shown the economic law that forces people to add debt simply because their tax rate was cut.

I just told you three times now exactly how people go into debt after tax cuts, and I used the example of the KS State Board of Regents hiking tuition in the state because of cuts to education funding. So that means tuition costs rise, which means more borrowing, which means more debt. If you want to call that a law, go ahead. But I gave you a perfect example of the failure of tax cuts in real-time in Kansas. At this point, you're in denial about it. I couldn't make it any clearer for you.

Perhaps you can go back in history and examine periods when household debt has fallen?

I did go back in history, actually. 35 years to be precise. This is something I've posted a dozen times that you have yet to reconcile with your argument:

So I'm going to come right out and say it; you're a liar.
You're lying.
The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

I don't believe you. I think you're lying about your own personal circumstances just so you can remain in this debate. You do that frequently; lean on personal anecdotes to carry your arguments when the facts don't. It's a really bad habit you should break.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's awful! You still haven't shown the economic law that forces people to add debt simply because their tax rate was cut.

I just told you three times now exactly how people go into debt after tax cuts, and I used the example of the KS State Board of Regents hiking tuition in the state because of cuts to education funding. So that means tuition costs rise, which means more borrowing, which means more debt. If you want to call that a law, go ahead. But I gave you a perfect example of the failure of tax cuts in real-time in Kansas. At this point, you're in denial about it. I couldn't make it any clearer for you.

Perhaps you can go back in history and examine periods when household debt has fallen?

I did go back in history, actually. 35 years to be precise. This is something I've posted a dozen times that you have yet to reconcile with your argument:

So I'm going to come right out and say it; you're a liar.
You're lying.
The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

I don't believe you. I think you're lying about your own personal circumstances just so you can remain in this debate. You do that frequently; lean on personal anecdotes to carry your arguments when the facts don't. It's a really bad habit you should break.

just told you three times now exactly how people go into debt after tax cuts, and I used the example of the KS State Board of Regents hiking tuition in the state because of cuts to education funding.

How much did the citizens save on their taxes?
How much was tuition hiked?

I did go back in history, actually. 35 years to be precise.

Bush raised taxes in 1990, Clinton raised them in 1993.
I don't see debt shrinking after either.
Perhaps you can go back in history and examine periods when household debt has fallen?


The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket

I don't believe you.

You believe tax cuts cost me money? You're even dumber than your first appeared.
Give me an AGI number and I'll show how the tax owed went down in 2003, compared to 2000.

 

[The Derp]

Don't take my word for it, plug in your income in 2000.
Put that same number in for 2003. Let us know how much you saved.

LOL! Dude, you realize of course that by using this argument you are arguing in support of deficits, right? You are arguing that tax cuts create deficits because I can do your exercise, but what I can also do is look at the federal deficit over the same period:

Deficit/Surplus
2000: $236B surplus
2001: $128B surplus (Bush Tax Cuts passed)
2002: $158B deficit
2003: $377B deficit (Record high)
2004: $412B deficit (Record high, start of mortgage bubble)
2005: $318B deficit
2006: $248B deficit
2007: $160B deficit (Mortgage bubble pops)
2008: $458B deficit (Record high)
2009: $1.4T deficit (All-time record high)

And did those tax cuts do anything to help the economy? NOPE!

And what about household debt? What happened then? Well, it shot up from around 90% of GDP up to about 130% of GDP. That's not indicative of economic growth, it's indicative of debt growth. Which seems to be the only growth tax cuts produce. So you're right in a sense that tax cuts produce growth, you're just wrong about what it is that grows.

Notice those spikes in the early 00's? What's that all about? Tax cuts creating growth? What about jobs, did the tax cuts create jobs? NOPE! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. If tax cuts create growth, then there shouldn't have been any job loss! But OK, let's say for the sake of your weak argument that the tax cuts didn't really start until they were accelerated in 2003. So what's the net job gain/loss from then? Negative 460,000. So at no point did Bush ever net out positive job growth that wasn't due to MEW's or the housing bubble. So the claim that tax cuts create growth is supported by what? Nothing. No jobs = no growth.

The Bush tax cuts caused medical bills? Are you drunk?

Come on now, you're being deliberately obtuse for no good reason. It wasn't just Bush the Dumber who cut taxes, many states did as well. Those states that cut taxes ended up raising health care costs because of a lack of funding. So your co-pays, co-insurances, deductibles, drug costs (something Bush the Dumber and the Conservatives actually did cause to rise with their Medicare Part-D they all supported at the time, but strangely don't today). It's no coincidence that after the ACA, medical bankruptcies drop like a rock as the uninsured rate plummets to an all-time low. Bush and the COnservatives in DC may not have cut spending when they cut taxes, but all they did was transfer that burden on the states and onto the federal deficit, which Conservatives were strangely silent about for 8 years as Bush ran up four record deficits and erased a surplus in that time while doubling the debt.

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it?
Well, I guess you could claim taking 67% more out of my paycheck wasn't dramatic.
I'd have to disagree.

So right here is what I'm talking about when I say you're being dishonest! The marginal rate is not 67%. The marginal rate increased by 67% from (what?) to (what?) I've asked you for what those rates are three times now, and three times you avoided answering. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean the marginal rate was raised to 67%, but you meant the rate was raised by 67% to (insert actual rate here). One word makes alllllll the difference to your post. Like I said, I know mistakes happen so I'm going to go against my better instincts and give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct what you meant. I don't do that for just anyone.

Obama raised taxes and cut them.
When he cut taxes, he said that would help the economy and jobs. Was he a dirty liar?

Well, if you listen to Conservatives he was because they all claim no jobs were created by the payroll tax cut Obama passed. And let's be clear, it was a payroll tax cut, not an income tax cut. So you're conflating tax cuts together. But the result of the payroll tax cut was "the worst recovery in 80 years" according to you guys. So doesn't that just then prove what I'm saying? BTW - I thought then and still believe today that Obama never should have cut the payroll tax, even temporarily, because it takes from earned benefits.

I'll end your suspense. The Dems hiked taxes by 67% to fix those problems, the problems got worse.

First of all, I never claimed raising taxes fixes anything. I am only claiming cutting them doesn't. Secondly, the tax hike expired in 2015, and yet, you all are bleating about IL's current fiscal troubles. So letting the tax hike expire didn't seem to solve any of the state's fiscal troubles, did it? That's why you all continue to invoke IL today, so your argument kind of eats itself. Well not kind of, it definitely does. You argue that lower taxes somehow results in less debt, yet Conservatives are screeching about IL's fiscal troubles, even after the tax hike expired as you say. So what does that mean? That letting the tax hike expire did nothing to change the fiscal outlook for the state. So why would lowering the taxes further have any different effect?

The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.
That's funny. And wrong.

No, it's 100% correct. We just went through this 7 years ago with Rogoff/Reinhart's "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. That paper concluded that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Paul Ryan even cited that paper in his Roadmap to Nowhere budgets that all Conservatives voted to support and approve. Only thing is, that study is a load of shit. Why is it a load of shit? Multiple reasons, but the most predominant three were that 1) It deliberately omitted data that disproved the preconceived conclusion, 2) It had "spreadsheet errors" by Harvard economists who should know how to use Excel since they're, you know, Harvard economists, and 3) It wasn't peer-reviewed (which would have caught #'s 1 and 2). That paper was the only thing Conservatives were using to argue that high debt has a negative effect on growth. Without it, what do you have? Nothing. Hence, why we are where we are in this debate.

They don't need to cut their debt.
Tax cuts that give people more money causes their debt to increase but tax hikes don't cause their fees, tuition or debt to decrease?

So I don't know if you're playing at being obtuse or what, but I was referring to the State cutting its debt, not individuals. And IL's Household debt did decrease during the period of its tax hike! I posted a chart that showed that very thing happening in Post #818. Maybe you missed it? No, cause you responded to it. So did you forget about it?

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education.
The problem with your claim is that while taxes rose, so did health care and education expenses.

Ah, but the State could better fund it with higher taxes, which meant folks didn't have to fork out as much, or borrow as much.

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble
Dotcom bubble? We were talking about your claim that the tax cut didn't "pay for itself".
Usually that means that revenues fall after a cut. Clearly they rose. Clearly, your claim was wrong.

Since the end result of the tax cut is a bubble burst and recession, then it doesn't pay for itself at all. How you can ignore the consequences of that is just wilfull ignorance at this point. What do you think caused the dotcom bubble? Because Business Insider, and NYU researchers Zhonglan Dai, Douglas A. Shackelford and Harold H. Zhang say it was the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997. The chickens came home to roost, it just took a few years for them to get there. But they got there. Do you think the dotcom bubble burst happened in a vacuum outside the Capital Gains Tax Cut? That the two had nothing to do with one another? Is that really the position you want to stake?

which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000.
So much for Bubba's surpluses that were gonna eliminate the debt, eh?

Well, hold on a second. You posted that the Capital Gains Tax Cut produced the following revenue:

1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion

And here are the surpluses with and without those revenues:

1997 - $21B deficit ($100B deficit w/o CGTR)
1998 - $69.3B surplus ($23B deficit w/o CGTR)
1999 - $125.6B surplus ($14B surplus w/o CGTR)
2000 - $236.2B surplus ($109B surplus w/o CGTR)

So they didn't really do a whole lot. Clinton still ran surpluses in his final two years without the Capital Gains Tax Cut Revenue.

So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.
When the bubble burst, the government returned all those cap gains revenues? I don't believe you.

No, it means the revenues from the tax cut were from the bubble created by the Capital Gains Tax Cut. And bubbles pop.

 

[The Derp]

All you've shown is correlation, not the force you claim.

No, you're the one making the correlation argument. You did so quite explicitly when you stated "every time taxes are cut, the economy grows". That is purely a correlation-is-causation argument. You can't find a better example of it. Also, you didn't even prove it with facts. I have facts that support my position. Facts I've posted countless times that for some reason never seem to make it to your posts. It's not difficult to figure out that by cutting taxes, you are also forcing cuts to spending which then causes fees to rise, which forces people to go into debt. Which is exactly what they did. How come household debt levels spiked so dramatically after the Bush Tax Cuts? How come Bush's economic growth was due almost entirely to debt and credit? Tax cuts shouldn't produce those things according to you, right? Yet that's what happened. So....

So this is where we are at; You say that cutting taxes reduces debt,
I said cutting my taxes reduced my debt.

A claim which you cannot prove. Particularly if you leave out the fact that you have a child who is attending college, whose tuition rates were jacked up because the State cut taxes. Or if you leave out the fact that you have a medical condition, pre-existing, that requires high medical expenses to treat, because the State cut taxes which cut health care funding. So I mean, the thing about what you're doing on these boards is that you're trying to craft a set of controlled circumstances, in a vacuum, that you can then use as the basis of your argument. Unfortunately, since nothing you claim about yourself can be verified, we are left with the question of why should I believe anything you are saying about yourself? My statements are not anecdotal, and are a reflection of what the facts show. I cite pretty much everything I post here. You may or may not have gone into debt during Bush the Dumber, but plenty of people did for the reasons I stated before. There's no reason to believe you weren't one of them, but are just pretending otherwise on a message board because you're more about your ideology than you are about the truth. So your imaginary friends or fanciful stories are met with a shrug and dismissal by me because unless I can see it with my own eyes, I can't believe it...particularly from a Conservative whose base ideology compels dishonesty, even if that's not your malicious intent.

yet the facts show that debt increases when taxes are cut.
I don't notice debt decreasing on your chart when taxes were increased. Maybe tax rates aren't the only factor?

I never made the claim that they did. So nice try with your attempt at diversion and straw men. Let's stick to what you're claiming...that tax cuts create growth and not debt. The figures don't back up that claim. So why are you making it?

You are the one who made the correlation-is-causation argument when you said every time taxes are cut the economy grows.
So you won't be showing proof that the economy shrank when LBJ, Reagan and GWB cut taxes?

They increased spending, didn't they? LBJ by 50%, Reagan by 69%. Wouldn't spending have more of a direct effect on economic growth than tax cuts that may or may not, maybe, kinda, somewhat could if all the controls in the environment were perfect and aligned as intended, not taking human condition of greed into account, etc.? You gloss over the huge spending increases by those Presidents as if they didn't happen, and had no effect on the economy. When we know that direct government spending does have a positive economic multiplier, whereas tax cuts don't.

I backed myself up on the household debt growth as a result of tax cuts by invoking the example of the KS Board of Regents, who raised tuition in the state because of the drop in funding from Topeka.
How much was the total tax cut, how much was the total tuition hike?

Everything you need to know about this specific case is right here.

 

[The Derp]

How much did the citizens save on their taxes?
How much was tuition hiked?

Again, here's the tuition hikes for the state of Kansas.

And here's how much the tax cuts cost (SB 30 is the repeal of the tax cuts):

So we can safely assume that from 2013 - 2017, Brownback's Tax Cuts cost between $400M - $500M a year. That's about $2-$2.5B. And it wasn't dollar-for-dollar between education cuts and the tax cut. All of KS' institutions were cut, including its Highway Fund. Now, how is that supposed to happen if people suddenly have more of their own income to spend? Wouldn't that generate enough tax revenue to make up for the drop from the income tax cut? But it didn't. So tax cuts don't pay for themselves and only create deficits and debt.

I did go back in history, actually. 35 years to be precise.
Bush raised taxes in 1990, Clinton raised them in 1993.
I don't see debt shrinking after either.
Perhaps you can go back in history and examine periods when household debt has fallen?

I never said household debt shrinks when taxes are raised. So you're trying to build a straw man argument. Let's stick to the argument you were making; that tax cuts don't create debt, even though the facts show they do at all levels; Federal, State, individual. Looking at the chart, though, household debt seems to have plateaued-to-slightly-increase when taxes were raised. In the decade of the 90's, household debt seems to have grown by just 10% vs. the 40% growth in just 7-8 years of Bush. So debt grew 4 times faster during Bush the Dumber than Clinton/Bush the Elder.

So raising taxes didn't increase household debt, but cutting them did. We can debate whether or not higher taxes mean lower debt. But we cannot debate that lower taxes mean lower debt, because that's just not the case when looking at the actual data.

I don't believe you.
You believe tax cuts cost me money? You're even dumber than your first appeared.
Give me an AGI number and I'll show how the tax owed went down in 2003, compared to 2000.

I don't accept personal anecdotes, so you're gonna have to do the hard work of making an argument based on facts. Laziness isn't something I tolerate.

 

[OnePercenter]

Non-answer for there aren't any.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for.

How did the middle class pay for it? Their taxes were cut as well.

Which taxes?

Reagan cut income taxes for everyone.

It was in all the papers.

Reagan cut MY taxes from 70% to 26%.

Reagan raised YOUR taxes (FICA).

It was in all the papers.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'll bet the 'ridiculous taxes' started in the early 70's when payroll fell behind cost of living.

Once again you claim your a millionare business owner I. Always claimed I. Was just a middle class guy who enjoyed freedom more then money , but out taxing me I will always move..

I never moved back North and now you understand why..

Democrats never had my back since the 1970s ..they did when JFK was in power..they got confused when the world caught up to the USA

Another non-answer.

I'll bet the 'ridiculous taxes' started in the early 70's when payroll fell behind cost of living.

I get started to get bored of this, we all saw it coming that imports we're going to over take exports in the 1980s and it did , you always want to deny the world didn't catch up after WWIi and they finnaly did.

It happened in the early 1980s

Nixon opened the door and Reagan put us in the world economy.

What choice did they have to.be an isolationist like China?



When you see it coming.you have to adabt

We were 'isolationist' BEFORE Nixon allowed Japan to product dump?

 

[OnePercenter]

The article in the 2nd link actually lists lots of reasons for the 60 restaurants closings and NOT the new minimum wages...?


Why are Bay Area restaurants closing?

While new restaurants have further solidified the Bay Area as a foodie destination in recent years, many others have succumbed to a perfect storm of economic challenges that shows no sign of abating.

Upward of 60 restaurants around the Bay Area have closed since the start of September alone, with many citing difficulties like the cost of finding and keeping good employees, rising rents, new requirements for providing health care and sick leave, and doing it all while competing with the slew of new dining options.

The restaurant industry has always been among the most competitive and challenging to navigate, and failures are nothing new, but the current struggles have left some wondering if the traditional dining model might be headed for an overhaul.

“We’re at this precipice where the model of the full-service restaurant is being pushed to the brink,” said Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

Seattle is a different animal not like Des Moines Iowa.

More people talk in complete sentences in Seattle.

 

[OnePercenter]

Since 1970, name one Republican sponsored bill that helped the middle class without giving a huge boost to the rich.

Easy peasy. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act promised by Newt Gingrich and after two Vetoes by former President Bill Clinton, he signed the bill knowing Republicans then had the votes to override another veto.

What was attached to the welfare reform act? Also, how did that help the working class?

 

[OnePercenter]

'there was one person overseeing everything to answer questions and handle the customers who, for what ever reason, refused to use the kiosks.'

That would be two.

One = two? Interesting. Tell me, how long have you been convinced of that?

The issue is reducing employees. You haven't proven your point.

When there's only one employee behind the counter where there used to be multiple employees, head count has been reduced. In math, one =/= two or more.

They haven't cut any employees. Isn't that the basis of this entire thread?

They have behind the counter and will reduce total headcount. That's the point. Where do you think the excess employees will go? Extra mopping shifts?

You posted two front house employees. How is that a reduction?

 

[OnePercenter]

I'll bet the 'ridiculous taxes' started in the early 70's when payroll fell behind cost of living.

Once again you claim your a millionare business owner I. Always claimed I. Was just a middle class guy who enjoyed freedom more then money , but out taxing me I will always move..

I never moved back North and now you understand why..

Democrats never had my back since the 1970s ..they did when JFK was in power..they got confused when the world caught up to the USA

Another non-answer.

I'll bet the 'ridiculous taxes' started in the early 70's when payroll fell behind cost of living.

I get started to get bored of this, we all saw it coming that imports we're going to over take exports in the 1980s and it did , you always want to deny the world didn't catch up after WWIi and they finnaly did.

It happened in the early 1980s

Nixon opened the door and Reagan put us in the world economy.

Nixon opened the door to China. We already were in the world economy since WWII. As Bear stated, what happened was the world caught up to us. Europe was a great economy but they were shattered by WWII. It took decades for Germany to catch back up. Remember when "made in Japan" meant it was cheap junk? Then they caught up with Sony and others. Remember when "made in Korea" was cheap junk? "GoldStar" VCRs? Now they are world-class electronic and auto manufacturers.

Fareed Zakaria's "the Post-American World" is a great book on this very subject. We haven't fallen behind as much as the world as caught up to us. Our problem is a government system which spends too much and taxes too little; hence our huge debt and deficit. That isn't the "world's" problem, it's ours.

We had an international exchange of goods and services from WWII to Nixon? How so and what products/services?

 

[charwin95]

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

But that's what it comes down to, though...if you make food no one likes, no one will go to your restaurant. Restaurants fail all the time, and not because of the wages of the kitchen staff.

most restaurants make a tiny tiny profit if they are profitable at all because it is very very competitive and there is no way to underprice the competition. A tiny uptick in wages can bankrupt half of them and encourage the other half to use robots.

If you are right -------- then we should see lots of these restaurants closed because of MW hikes. So far I have not seen this in Seattle or San Francisco.
Most restaurants increase their menus almost every year.
As I mentioned many times I have extended relatives that own seafood restaurants in Seattle. They increased their prices 3 times in last 24 months places are still pack as always.

 

[OnePercenter]

Since 1970, name one Republican sponsored bill that helped the middle class without giving a huge boost to the rich.

Why would you ignore bills that help the middle class and the rich?

Non-answer for there aren't any.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind. GHW Bush was right; "trickle down economics" is Voodoo economics.

How is raising FICA a tax cut?