Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[TakeAStepBack]

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003. So there is that talking point you keep regurgitating blown up in your face. The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Jeebus, you're fuckin' stupid.

 

[RDD_1210]

edit

 

[eflatminor]

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

How disingenuous can you be?! Bush's tax rates did not kick in until 2003 (the 2001 cut was paltry in comparison). And after 2003, tax revenues increased. And it wasn't due to inflation!

Further, Laffer himself acknowledges we're on the right side of the curve today.

Your logic is highly flawed.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Derp, you're wrong. The wealthiest Americans can not pay off the debt even if the government confiscates every last penny and asset they own. You'd have to take around 80% of the entire publics assets to do that....and sell them to China. You hair brained ninkumpoop.

Link?

 

[8537]

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003.

The cuts went into effect immediately - retroactively, in fact, which is why every American who paid taxes got a refund check in the summer of 2001.

The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Tax revenues were up significantly in 2000.

1999 revenues: 1.8275T
2000 revenues: 2.0252T

Be careful who you're calling "fucking stupid".

 

[DontBeStupid]

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003. So there is that talking point you keep regurgitating blown up in your face. The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Jeebus, you're fuckin' stupid.

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eflatminor]

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003. So there is that talking point you keep regurgitating blown up in your face. The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Jeebus, you're fuckin' stupid.

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.

Thanks for making me check facts instead of going off the head. Makes it easier to prove you're pissing in the wind too.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003. So there is that talking point you keep regurgitating blown up in your face. The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Jeebus, you're fuckin' stupid.

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

If I'm wrong, I admit it. You on the other hand ....

Conserva is clearly talking about just the top tax rate, which we all know wasn't the ONLY rate cut. There were others.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously. I'm begging you. Read up on this topic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, let's review.

if the tax cut extension passed by the Senate becomes law, will everyone who works see a reduction in their taxes relative to what they would pay without this legislation?

A simple yes or no will do, thanks,

No.

No one will see a reduction in what they pay today. With this extension, some with see their tax burden remain the same, while others will see their taxes increase.

 

[RDD_1210]

So, let's review.

if the tax cut extension passed by the Senate becomes law, will everyone who works see a reduction in their taxes relative to what they would pay without this legislation?

A simple yes or no will do, thanks,

No.

No one will see a reduction in what they pay today. With this extension, some with see their tax burden remain the same, while others will see their taxes increase.

When all else fails, play a game of semantics! You're doing well.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.

Thanks for making me check facts instead of going off the head. Makes it easier to prove you're pissing in the wind too.

So your opinion is that the popping of the NASDAQ bubble was worse than any other financial disaster in the past 75 years. Including, the most recent Great Recession.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

If I'm wrong, I admit it. You on the other hand ....

Conserva is clearly talking about just the top tax rate, which we all know wasn't the ONLY rate cut. There were others.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously. I'm begging you. Read up on this topic.

Exactly right, I'm referring only to the top marginal rate.

 

[8537]

Yes, and the tax cuts didn't go into effect until 2003. So there is that talking point you keep regurgitating blown up in your face. The revenue was down in 2000 also. It was called the NASDAQ bubble burst.

Jeebus, you're fuckin' stupid.

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

The entirety of the 2001 cuts were not a 1% drop in the TMR.

 

[8537]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.
.

So, using this metric, did tax revenues increase in 1993,4,5 etc....because Clinton raised taxes in 1993?

Did revenues increase in 1983 because of TEFRA?

Or maybe, just maybe, ceteris paribus tax revenues increase when income increases.

 

[8537]

So, let's review.

if the tax cut extension passed by the Senate becomes law, will everyone who works see a reduction in their taxes relative to what they would pay without this legislation?

A simple yes or no will do, thanks,

No.

No one will see a reduction in what they pay today. With this extension, some with see their tax burden remain the same, while others will see their taxes increase.

Since you are incapable of reading, I took the liberty of highlighting the section of my post that makes you look like an idiot

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.
.

So, using this metric, did tax revenues increase in 1993,4,5 etc....because Clinton raised taxes in 1993?

Did revenues increase in 1983 because of TEFRA?

Or maybe, just maybe, ceteris paribus tax revenues increase when income increases.

No, they increased due to two building bubbles and perhaps a other variables. Which is why Ive said it before and I'll say it again. Correlation does not imply causation. The economy is not in a vaccuum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's how we got the longest post-war period between peaks in real revenues. An "explosion" in tax revenues.

The problem is, you're lying.

Hey, it's what democrats do.

 

[8537]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.
.

So, using this metric, did tax revenues increase in 1993,4,5 etc....because Clinton raised taxes in 1993?

Did revenues increase in 1983 because of TEFRA?

Or maybe, just maybe, ceteris paribus tax revenues increase when income increases.

No, they increased due to two building bubbles and perhaps a other variables. Which is why Ive said it before and I'll say it again. Correlation does not imply causation. The economy is not in a vaccuum.

No, really - it was because income increased and we tax....incomes.

A housing bubble in and of itself does nothing to increase federal revenues. The feds don't collect a tax based on the value of your home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the record you do know that everyone in the upper tax bracket will still be getting the tax break in the 15%, 25% and 28% brackets (everything below $200,000 for individuals). And extending the cuts for the lower brackets will increase the debt 800 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

No one is getting a tax break, as you well know. Those above $150 individually, or $250 joint, will see a tax INCREASE as the BUSH tax cuts are descender. The rest will see taxes remain at what BUSH lowered them to.