Tax cuts are always a good thing...

[NYcarbineer]

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

He hates the military obviously. No revenue, no military.

 

[Rustic]

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Every year the government should spend less...

 

[Rustic]

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Actually they were similar since you started counting Reagan's presidency at the end of 1981 instead of the beginning. But that supports my point. Reagan cut taxes and yet revenue almost doubled compared to Clinton who raised the highest rates and revenues almost doubled. Increasing taxes did not lead to more revenue. Cutting taxes did not lead to less revenue. And that's in nominal dollars. Real dollars are even better

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

I already pointed out that was in nominal dollars, not real dollars. The economy grew.

You're right that to balance the budget we have to cut spending. But if we're not going to do that, it's critical we keep growing the economy and we need tax cuts to do that.

Think about a couple things

1) The higher taxes are, the higher percent of effort the rich and corporations put into avoiding taxes, which doesn't grow the economy. The lower they are, the more effort they put into growing the economy

2) Tax increases harm us versus foreign competition. More unemployed = less revenue

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

So I claimed that tax cuts increase revenue over time. Reagan cut taxes twice and simplified them (which I also said was critical).

You're arguing that tax revenue increased faster under his successor as if you contradicted what I said ...

You can't cut taxes to grow the economy if you're trying to increase revenues. You're reducing the very thing you're trying to increase.

Dumbass, The economy is the private sector not the federal government... A minimalist federal government is should be the goal...

 

[Rustic]

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

He hates the military obviously. No revenue, no military.

Military, police and fire are an necessary... The rest of the federal government not so much

 

[danielpalos]

Liberals hate that tax increases and government regulations are unpopular and cause them to lose elections.

Let me tell you, small businesses are under assault by tax and spend government every damn conceivable government fiefdom large and small wants a piece of the small business. Recently these government scumbags have enacted taxes that the small business must pay even if they lose money that year, they step in and siphon off a pile of money, they get theirs, screw the business. So pardon me if we embrace Trump's corporate tax cuts, all you liberal government spend-o-holics can piss off.

Tax cuts so the rich can get richer faster and putting it on the Peoples' tab, is what loses elections for the right wing in Midterm elections.

That's an ignorant liberal talking point, don't be stupid.

only the right wing, claims that.

 

[kaz]

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Actually they were similar since you started counting Reagan's presidency at the end of 1981 instead of the beginning. But that supports my point. Reagan cut taxes and yet revenue almost doubled compared to Clinton who raised the highest rates and revenues almost doubled. Increasing taxes did not lead to more revenue. Cutting taxes did not lead to less revenue. And that's in nominal dollars. Real dollars are even better

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

I already pointed out that was in nominal dollars, not real dollars. The economy grew.

You're right that to balance the budget we have to cut spending. But if we're not going to do that, it's critical we keep growing the economy and we need tax cuts to do that.

Think about a couple things

1) The higher taxes are, the higher percent of effort the rich and corporations put into avoiding taxes, which doesn't grow the economy. The lower they are, the more effort they put into growing the economy

2) Tax increases harm us versus foreign competition. More unemployed = less revenue

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

So I claimed that tax cuts increase revenue over time. Reagan cut taxes twice and simplified them (which I also said was critical).

You're arguing that tax revenue increased faster under his successor as if you contradicted what I said ...

You can't cut taxes to grow the economy if you're trying to increase revenues. You're reducing the very thing you're trying to increase.

Dumbass, The economy is the private sector not the federal government... A minimalist federal government is should be the goal...

Actually they count GDP as all spending in both the government and private sectors. I'm not making any argument in that, just saying what the definition of GDP is

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

He hates the military obviously. No revenue, no military.

Military, police and fire are an necessary... The rest of the federal government not so much

Aha! See? As I always say, the RWnuts don't want less government, they just want less of the other guys' government.

 

[Rustic]

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

He hates the military obviously. No revenue, no military.

Military, police and fire are an necessary... The rest of the federal government not so much

Aha! See? As I always say, the RWnuts don't want less government, they just want less of the other guys' government.

Most of the federal government is taxation without representation

 

[jillian]

Lol
Designed to run debt?
You stupid fool, debt is always bad no two ways about it you silly little fucker

Well, no not really.

Waste of air. I said tax revenues doubled under Reagan, I didn't just say they went up. You're following alternative facts with a hot air argument that doesn't contradict what I saiad.

More alternative facts. The first cut was in August of 1981 and the government grew revenues by 16% in 1981 and 17% in 1982. Since your data is wrong, I stopped there.

Note you're as I pointed out ignoring economic growth.

For sure I want to cut spending. I'd slash it. Including military. But tax cuts are a good thing regardless as Rustic said. It's not hard to see why if you think about it. Productivity increases because people use less of their energy producing economic value rather than evading taxes

Yep, you are full of shit.

First off, a tax cut in Aug of 1981 is not going to impact 1981, as such 1981 is counted as a 'pre tax cut year".

In 1980 tax revenues were 517 billion. In 1981 they were 599 billion. That is a percent of change of 14%, not 16%. (599-517)/599 = 14%.

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

Then in 1982 tax revenues were 618 billion. That is a percent of change of 3%, not 17%.

(618 - 599)/618 = 3%.

The bottom line is that tax revenue increases slowed after both tax cuts.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

magical thinking?

 

[jillian]

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

He hates the military obviously. No revenue, no military.

Military, police and fire are an necessary... The rest of the federal government not so much

Aha! See? As I always say, the RWnuts don't want less government, they just want less of the other guys' government.

if they wanted less government, they wouldn't be all about imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else.

 

[kaz]

if they wanted less government, they wouldn't be all about imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else.

What is the Republican party doing to force religious beliefs on you? Be specific