Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation". Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis.

I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.

 

[The Derp]

National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation". Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis. I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.

Not a bad idea. I actually would support a government program that mandated all federal buildings get 100% their energy from renewable sources by a certain date, and those sources have to be made in America. Of course, I also think the tax rate on the top is way too low. It should be between 50-75% and should apply to all forms of income. I also think that we should seriously start considering a wealth tax, as well as a universal basic income as automation removes more jobs by the day.

I would also support doing away with income tax entirely and putting a Carbon Tax in its place. Taxation is best used to influence societal behavior. If we made it expensive for polluters, the "free market" will naturally find solutions to reduce waste. The larger your carbon footprint, the more you pay in taxes for the waste you produce.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

Did it, though?

Yes.

Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term.

By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?

No.

Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.

Real Disposable Personal Income

It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something,

No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.

when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students.

Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!
When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees.
Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?

(how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?)

When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?

and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders".

Link?

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact.

So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?

I don't believe you when you make these wild claims.

Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?

The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth.

Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.
And walk thru the steps.....

1) Cut taxes...
2)???
3)???
4)???
5) Jobs are cut...

Feel free to show more steps if you need them.

We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One thing at a time.

But they're intrinsically linked. A worker increasing their productivity should result in a wage increase, right? Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant. So to where are all those profits going?

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

Actually, a tax cut for the rich is a tax increase for the poor. The reason is because tax cuts result in revenue drops, and those revenue drops result in deficits. To close deficits, spending is cut or excise taxes are raised. In the case of spending cuts for example, the first thing always on the chopping block is education. So a state misses revenue projections because of tax cuts, then the state has a BBA that requires them to balance the budget, so they do that by cutting finding to education and health care, and/or they raid the welfare block grant, or they raise excise and sales taxes. So that's how the poor end up paying for tax cuts for the rich, who are supposed to trickle-down, right???

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.Correct?

That's exactly correct.

Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant.

Liar!!

 

[The Derp]

Yes.

No, it didn't. Unemployment numbers would contradict that claim. As would the poor economy prior to 1983. We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn;t.

By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?

As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980. And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway? Wasn't cutting taxes supposed to create all this revenue there would be no need for spending cuts? Isn't that what "tax cuts pay for themselves" means?

Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.

Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised, plus there's inflation...all of which puts more of a burden on the middle and lower classes who must spend the money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy, on things that aren't a part of the consumer economy (education, health care), or go into debt (which is why household debt always seems to skyrocket after tax cuts are passed). Household debt doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts. Most of that debt growth occurred before the bubble even popped. So by cutting taxes, all you do is force most workers to go into debt to afford things they previously could afford because they were well-funded (like colleges, for example). You get that, right? Tax cuts are just a transfer of wealth to the top 1%, as is evidenced by their growing share of wealth.

No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.

Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!

Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!

Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut. They just did it in Kansas to pay for the tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves.

When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees. Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?

Taking over student lending has nothing to do with state funding for public colleges. That's why tuition costs rise. You're talking about student loans, not tuition. Loans pay the tuition. And the tuition goes up because less state funding because of tax cuts. States pass tax cuts, which reduce revenue, which result in cuts to things like education, which results in state schools having to raise tuition, which results in increased borrowing by students and their families. No tax cuts = no education cuts = no student debt. It's really very simple to understand. So what your excuse for not getting it?

When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?

Clinton did, actually. Depending on what your calendar is, there was a debt reduction if you look December-to-December. Of course, since the government doesn't collect revenues all at once, some months when revenues run high, it's put toward the debt (which is what Clinton did several times). We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code. But they can't even do nothing right. SAD!

and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". Link?

Here ya go, buttmunch.

So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?

The stats show that to be the case, your unverifiable personal account notwithstanding. So why is it that you guys always seem to fall back on things you know you can't prove to make your argument? Personal things, I mean. It's a disturbing pattern on the right that generally reflects an insecurity on the facts, so rather than take personal responsibility, you retroactively justify it by saying you personally experienced it, even though you cannot prove that (or won't because you're too afraid to divulge personal details on an MB). So we are left to "take your word for it". My question is; why the fuck should I take your word for it?

Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?

LOL! So veering into personal anecdote land, we get a glimpse into the flaws of your argument; namely that you have nothing factual to support your position so you just invent or exaggerate your own personal history to rig the argument after the fact. You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable. At least, that's how I was taught to debate. But I didn't go to Trump University like you did.

Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.

You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect? Or maybe the 4 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 70,000 jobs disappear? Or the 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 460,000 jobs disappear? Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand. How? Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives. So if you're spending more on tuition and health care, you're spending less on consumer goods. Increased out-of-pocket spending on education and health care doesn't create jobs, it takes demand out of the consumer economy, causing revenues to stagnate, which means businesses have no motivation to expand and hire more people. Flatlining revenues also result in layoffs because corporations have to increase profits each year. So if your revenues aren't increasing and the tax rate stays the same, that means in order to increase profit, you have to reduce expenses. That means jobs disappear.

<chart showing unemployment spiking the year Reagan's tax cuts went into effect>

LOL indeed. Thanks for providing the same fucking chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts. Also, that chart of yours it total employment, which includes government jobs (that don't count as real jobs, according to you all). Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?

 

[The Derp]

Liar!!View attachment 127561

Why not lay inflation over that and see? Because when you do, you see wages remain mostly stagnant. They only started ticking up toward the end of Obama's second term.

Was it deliberate that you held inflation out of your chart? Or were you just being a lazybones?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes.

No, it didn't. Unemployment numbers would contradict that claim. As would the poor economy prior to 1983. We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn;t.

By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?

As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980. And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway? Wasn't cutting taxes supposed to create all this revenue there would be no need for spending cuts? Isn't that what "tax cuts pay for themselves" means?

Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.

Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised, plus there's inflation...all of which puts more of a burden on the middle and lower classes who must spend the money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy, on things that aren't a part of the consumer economy (education, health care), or go into debt (which is why household debt always seems to skyrocket after tax cuts are passed). Household debt doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts. Most of that debt growth occurred before the bubble even popped. So by cutting taxes, all you do is force most workers to go into debt to afford things they previously could afford because they were well-funded (like colleges, for example). You get that, right? Tax cuts are just a transfer of wealth to the top 1%, as is evidenced by their growing share of wealth.

No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.

Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!

Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!

Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut. They just did it in Kansas to pay for the tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves.

When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees. Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?

Taking over student lending has nothing to do with state funding for public colleges. That's why tuition costs rise. You're talking about student loans, not tuition. Loans pay the tuition. And the tuition goes up because less state funding because of tax cuts. States pass tax cuts, which reduce revenue, which result in cuts to things like education, which results in state schools having to raise tuition, which results in increased borrowing by students and their families. No tax cuts = no education cuts = no student debt. It's really very simple to understand. So what your excuse for not getting it?

When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?

Clinton did, actually. Depending on what your calendar is, there was a debt reduction if you look December-to-December. Of course, since the government doesn't collect revenues all at once, some months when revenues run high, it's put toward the debt (which is what Clinton did several times). We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code. But they can't even do nothing right. SAD!

and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". Link?

Here ya go, buttmunch.

So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?

The stats show that to be the case, your unverifiable personal account notwithstanding. So why is it that you guys always seem to fall back on things you know you can't prove to make your argument? Personal things, I mean. It's a disturbing pattern on the right that generally reflects an insecurity on the facts, so rather than take personal responsibility, you retroactively justify it by saying you personally experienced it, even though you cannot prove that (or won't because you're too afraid to divulge personal details on an MB). So we are left to "take your word for it". My question is; why the fuck should I take your word for it?

Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?

LOL! So veering into personal anecdote land, we get a glimpse into the flaws of your argument; namely that you have nothing factual to support your position so you just invent or exaggerate your own personal history to rig the argument after the fact. You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable. At least, that's how I was taught to debate. But I didn't go to Trump University like you did.

Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.

You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect? Or maybe the 4 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 70,000 jobs disappear? Or the 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 460,000 jobs disappear? Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand. How? Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives. So if you're spending more on tuition and health care, you're spending less on consumer goods. Increased out-of-pocket spending on education and health care doesn't create jobs, it takes demand out of the consumer economy, causing revenues to stagnate, which means businesses have no motivation to expand and hire more people. Flatlining revenues also result in layoffs because corporations have to increase profits each year. So if your revenues aren't increasing and the tax rate stays the same, that means in order to increase profit, you have to reduce expenses. That means jobs disappear.

<chart showing unemployment spiking the year Reagan's tax cuts went into effect>

LOL indeed. Thanks for providing the same fucking chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts. Also, that chart of yours it total employment, which includes government jobs (that don't count as real jobs, according to you all). Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?

We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn't.


Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
So what?
The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.

As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980.

Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?

And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway?

Because of whining about the deficit.

Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised

Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.

Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!

I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.

Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut.

Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.

Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?

Taking over student lending has nothing to do with state funding for public colleges.

Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?

Clinton did, actually.

Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL!
Prove it.

We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code.

Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!

The stats show that to be the case,

The stats show people were forced? Try again.

You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable.

Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.
You just can't prove it.

You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect?

Yes, you need to prove causation.

Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand. How? Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives.

Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?

Cool. Prove it.

Thanks for providing the same fucking chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts.

Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!

Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?

Feel free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liar!!View attachment 127561

Why not lay inflation over that and see? Because when you do, you see wages remain mostly stagnant. They only started ticking up toward the end of Obama's second term.

Was it deliberate that you held inflation out of your chart? Or were you just being a lazybones?

If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.

Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed

 

[The Derp]

If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed

That was easy enough.

Just like I said, wages stagnated until the end of Obama's second term, then they went up.

 

[The Derp]

Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
So what? The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.

So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"? The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending. So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues, therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them. The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses. But if you're now saying they don't do that, then what's the point of doing them at all? I mean, other than forcing budget cuts that Conservatives lack the courage or will to pass through legislation?

Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?

Maybe go back through the thread and take some personal responsibility for yourself.

Because of whining about the deficit.

So the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, like we were promised they would. So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues? What exception are you going to make now?

Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.

There's education for ya. I mean, dude, this is easily discovered. You shouldn't need me to do this work for you. Stop being so lazy and take some personal responsibility.

Here's an article from the Kansas City Star saying exactly that:

The cost of going to college in Kansas went up again Wednesday when the state’s Board of Regents approved tuition increases at six public universities. Regents said the increases were necessary because of legislative cuts in higher education funding.​

And why were there cuts to education funding? Because Kansas has a BBA and tax revenues fell well short of projections.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Those providing labor

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Where do the rich get their money from?

Guillotine-Fodder Rule

They inherit it, are set up by inherited wealth, or class-climb according to the soul-destroying rules laid down by the HeirHeads. LIberals are richkids assigned to act disgusting, insulting, and threatening and then say they hate the rich. That is a trick by this illegitimate class to get those turned off by their fake behavior to support the rich. The Kennedy types and Bush types differ only in methods but have the same goal of Birth Class Supremacy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation". Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis.

I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.

America Was Founded As an Escape From Aristocracy and Must Abolish It or Die

Confiscating the money from inheritance, which is not earned by the heirs, will give us $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone, making income taxes unnecessary. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust: the money originates with the plutocrats employees and customers. So it must go back there, not to spoiled moochers who have always been a cancer eating away at progress.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed

That was easy enough.

Just like I said, wages stagnated until the end of Obama's second term, then they went up.

That's median wages.
I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.

 

[The Derp]

I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.

No, just you. I think you say things like that in order to make you feel better about yourself. Everyone knows it's bullshit when Conservatives start waxing idiotic about their unverifiable personal lives. I mean, why sell yourself short? Reach for the stars! Why not pretend to be a billionaire yourself? How about I pretend to be a billionaire? Then nothing I say can be contradicted, right, because I'm a billionaire? Because I said so. Because. So whatever facts you may have (LOL) are instantly to be dismissed because I'm a billionaire and as such, I am the authority over everything fiscal and financial. Oooo - not only that, but I'm also a veteran as well, so anything I say about, say, foreign military policy or espionage has instant credibility because I said I'm a veteran. You see how silly that game of "me, me, me" is? Let's try to talk using facts, not exaggerations, omissions, or outright lies, mmkay?

Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.

Wait, so you are admitting that the Feds give states education funding. OK, that's important because it directly addresses what I've been saying; that income tax cuts result in revenue cuts, which result in spending cuts. So if you are cutting federal income taxes, and if there is federal money going to states for colleges and such, then wouldn't that mean that the less revenue collected from income tax cuts results in less revenues available for the Feds to distribute to the states? Why yes, it does. So thanks for helping me with my argument on that by tacitly admitting, whether you realize it or not, that you're explaining exactly what I've been saying this whole time.

Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?

Well, we know it happened in Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin because all those states raided the welfare block grants in order to cover the deficits caused by their tax cuts. I just posted an article from the Kansas City Star where the Regents of Kansas' state university system came right out and said tuition hikes were caused by a decrease in funding. And what caused that decrease in funding in Kansas? TAX CUTS!

Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?

No, loan standards have no bearing on state tuition costs. As the Board of Regents for Kansas' state schools told you in the link I provided, tuition was increased because of state cuts to education. The cause of tuition hikes is, and always will be, revenue decreases from tax cuts. So where do you go from there? Dunno. I'm sure you'll invent some personal anecdote that contradicts the claims, but we both know that's bullshit. We have the Kansas Board of Regents saying, with no doubt, that tuition costs were directly related to state aid, and state aid is directly related to revenues, and revenues come from taxes. When you cut revenues, you cut the amount available for state aid, causing tuition to rise.

Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL! Prove it.

When I do, will you concede defeat on these boards, cancel your account, and never return? Because I can do it very, very easily just by providing Treasury Statements on Total Public Outstanding Debt that are distributed each month. I can prove that the national debt decreased according to those statements for the period between December 1999 and December 2000. Do you really want me to do that? Doing so is only going to humiliate you. I'm giving you an out. I advise you take it.

Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!

First of all, the dotcom bubble (Caused by, you guessed it, TAX CUTS) popped before Bush was even President. Secondly, that's what Greenspan was whining about in the link I provided you. The video of him saying paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be fair to the bondholders. I mean, I can post the link again if you want.

Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.You just can't prove it.

I did prove it using facts. You lied and pretended that you did the exact opposite, but again, why the fuck should I believe anything you say about yourself? If I can't verify it, then it's not a fact.

Yes, you need to prove causation.

I did exactly that. Reagan's tax cuts dropped consumer demand, which resulted in layoffs. They dropped consumer demand because while income taxes were cut, other taxes and fees (including payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, health care costs, education costs) all rise to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut. So that's why household debt skyrocketed under Reagan, flat-lined during Clinton, then shot up again during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts only create debt. That's all they do. That's all they're designed to do. Manufacture budget crises to use as an excuse to cut spending you lack the courage or support to do through legislation. So you posture about the budget, never mind the fact that you're the ones who threw the budget out of whack in the first place with your stupid tax cuts that you promised "would pay for themselves", but never seem to do.

Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?

Yes, because the government has a dwindling pool of revenues from which to spend, so out-of-pocket costs rise. The less you pay in taxes, the more you pay for things like education and health care. I've shown you how this happens. I've even given you a link directly to the Kansas Board of Regents who said, very plainly, that tuition costs rose because of funding cuts. Those funding cuts were because the tax cuts did not produce the revenues Brownback, Laffer, and all the teabags projected.

Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!

Interest rates? The Fed was lowering interest rates throughout 1982. The recession was also caused by ham-fisted fiscal policy. You cut taxes, but increased fees for everything else, so people had to spend more out of pocket outside the consumer economy, which resulted in less consumer spending, which resulted in...wait for it...a recession.

 

[The Derp]

That's median wages.I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.

No, that's median REAL WAGES.

You asked for the chart, I showed it to you. If you have nothing to contribute, fuck yourself and die.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
So what? The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.

So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"? The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending. So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues, therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them. The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses. But if you're now saying they don't do that, then what's the point of doing them at all? I mean, other than forcing budget cuts that Conservatives lack the courage or will to pass through legislation?

Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?

Maybe go back through the thread and take some personal responsibility for yourself.

Because of whining about the deficit.

So the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, like we were promised they would. So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues? What exception are you going to make now?

Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.

There's education for ya. I mean, dude, this is easily discovered. You shouldn't need me to do this work for you. Stop being so lazy and take some personal responsibility.

Here's an article from the Kansas City Star saying exactly that:

The cost of going to college in Kansas went up again Wednesday when the state’s Board of Regents approved tuition increases at six public universities. Regents said the increases were necessary because of legislative cuts in higher education funding.​

And why were there cuts to education funding? Because Kansas has a BBA and tax revenues fell well short of projections.

So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"?

So? Who said they must?

The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending.

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.
Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer
payments......it is possible to screw that up.

So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues,

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.
But that's the difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives don't always
consider a policy a failure if it causes government to collect less money.

therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them.

Wrong!!!
They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.
If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,
I see that as a win-win.

Liberals would see that as a lose-lose.

The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses.

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues?

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

Maybe go back through the thread

I know, the proof isn't there.

There's education for ya.

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?
LOL!

 

[danielpalos]

National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation". Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis. I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.

Not a bad idea. I actually would support a government program that mandated all federal buildings get 100% their energy from renewable sources by a certain date, and those sources have to be made in America. Of course, I also think the tax rate on the top is way too low. It should be between 50-75% and should apply to all forms of income. I also think that we should seriously start considering a wealth tax, as well as a universal basic income as automation removes more jobs by the day.

I would also support doing away with income tax entirely and putting a Carbon Tax in its place. Taxation is best used to influence societal behavior. If we made it expensive for polluters, the "free market" will naturally find solutions to reduce waste. The larger your carbon footprint, the more you pay in taxes for the waste you produce.

I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's median wages.I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.

No, that's median REAL WAGES.

You asked for the chart, I showed it to you. If you have nothing to contribute, fuck yourself and die.

That's median real wages. I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.