"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

[Toddsterpatriot]

This debate gets old, so I'll provide a few links for those who want food for thought and not propaganda's Pavlov response.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.


"The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

_

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.

Da, comrade, real owner is government.

 

[Toro]

I'm telling you, a sure fire way to boost this Economy

there is one way and one way only to boost an economy!! Think about how we got from the stone age to here. People invented new products. Its just that simple!! No amount of liberal tricks and paper shuffling in Washington will boost the economy!!

If its not in support of innovative new products its liberal and won't work!!!!

And have those "new ideas" outsourced to Japan? you miss the point totally.

We have to keep what we have HERE. ALL OF OUR MANUFACTURING. that's what made us strong.

AND we have to Demand that other countries that want to deal with us have to deal fairly or fuck it. we'll drive Cadillac and Camaros forever. fuck a Benz.

all the rip off and raping American status has got to stop. have you seen USA's credit rating in the world lately?

We used to be AAA, now we are just A or A- rating in the world.

China is buying up all the copper and scrap metal in the world for weapons and bullets.

America is becoming a sitting duck.

You clearly aren't a libertarian.

 

[Wiseacre]

Tax rate changes up or down are but one of several factors that influence economic growth. And the impact of the change maybe different, even much different, from one scenario or experience to another. One should not say that just because the economy did well after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we should therefore assume that future tax hikes will not have a deletorious effect on the econmy. Nor can we say that because the Bush tax cuts in 2003 may have contributed to the period of good economic growth between 2003-2007, such will always be the case.

The multipliers for such events are not constant, the impact of a tax policy change may be minimal or it may be substantial, but comparing the present day situation to another period of time and expecting the same result from a tax change is foolish. Or comparing results from a foreign country's economic decisions as proof that the same decisions will lead to the same results here is likewise wrong. It ain't that easy folks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To further expand on one analogy above that fits with taxes, if a sports team trades its best and highest priced players and then has a lower payroll and a worse record, the sports team pays for the smaller payroll by having a worse winning record. So they are paying less in salary but the counterbalance are fewer wins. I can't imagine a fan would say their team isn't paying for it on the field by being cheap.

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

I get your point, which is why I am going out of my way to paint it as absurd. Tax cuts do not need to be paid for, spending has to be justified.

 

[Toro]

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

I get your point, which is why I am going out of my way to paint it as absurd. Tax cuts do not need to be paid for, spending has to be justified.

That's a political argument, not a linguistic one. I'd probably agree with you on the politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

I get your point, which is why I am going out of my way to paint it as absurd. Tax cuts do not need to be paid for, spending has to be justified.

That's a political argument, not a linguistic one. I'd probably agree with you on the politics.

Linguistically, I provided multiple definitions of pay that proved my point, you supplied none.

 

[Friends]

I am not an expert by any means, but I think a combination of tax cuts and a reduction in .gov spending will spur economic growth.

Warren G. Harding was inaugurated in 1921, Calvin Coolidge's last year in office was 1928. In 1921 the top tax rate was 73 percent. By 1928 that had declined to 25 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

The following dollar amounts are in 1996 dollars. In 1921 the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) was $5,758. By 1928 that had grown to $7,439. This represents a 29.19 percent increase.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. The last year of his first term was 1936. During this time the top tax rate grew from 63 percent to 79 percent. The per capita GDP grew from $4,804 to $6,423. This represents a 33.7 percent increase.

From 1921 to 2000 the United States had Democratic presidents for 40 years, and Republican presidents for 40 years. If you do the calculations I did for the terms of Harding, Coolidge, and Roosevelt you will find that there was over twice as much economic growth under Democratic presidents, when the top tax rate has usually been higher.

The reason high taxes on the rich and big government spur economic growth is because when the government takes money from the rich and spreads the wealth around it creates better consumers. As these buy more employers hire more to produce and sell what is bought.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you will find that there was over twice as much economic growth under Democratic presidents,

too stupid but perfectly liberal!! It's because they followed Republican presidents or Congresses!! Barry is about to get reelected because of what Bush did, not because of what he did: preside over a depression!! Get it?? There is a huge lag!! Over your cute liberal head????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reason high taxes on the rich and big government spur economic growth is because when the government takes money from the rich and spreads the wealth around it creates better consumers. As these buy more employers hire more to produce and sell what is bought.

100% stupid and 100 liberal!!! An economy grows for one reason and one reason only: people invent new products. That's how we got from the stone age to here. Taking money from productive people and giving it to non-productive people retards the process and is perfectly liberal. If you tax venture capitalists, for example, they can fund fewer new ventures like Apple, Google, and Intel.

Is that really over a liberals head?? OF course it is.

 

[Toro]

I get your point, which is why I am going out of my way to paint it as absurd. Tax cuts do not need to be paid for, spending has to be justified.

That's a political argument, not a linguistic one. I'd probably agree with you on the politics.

Linguistically, I provided multiple definitions of pay that proved my point, you supplied none.

Of course I did. I supplied one. That's all that's needed. You just can't see it because you can't see beyond your ideology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a political argument, not a linguistic one. I'd probably agree with you on the politics.

Linguistically, I provided multiple definitions of pay that proved my point, you supplied none.

Of course I did. I supplied one. That's all that's needed. You just can't see it because you can't see beyond your ideology.

Whatever.

 

[del]

Linguistically, I provided multiple definitions of pay that proved my point, you supplied none.

Of course I did. I supplied one. That's all that's needed. You just can't see it because you can't see beyond your ideology.

Whatever.

brilliant riposte

 

[Oddball]

To further expand on one analogy above that fits with taxes, if a sports team trades its best and highest priced players and then has a lower payroll and a worse record, the sports team pays for the smaller payroll by having a worse winning record. So they are paying less in salary but the counterbalance are fewer wins. I can't imagine a fan would say their team isn't paying for it on the field by being cheap.

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

Do you need to have the difference between salaries paid for productive work and taxes expropriated by compulsion -which produce nothing at all- explained?

Your flimsy game of semantic jiggery-pokery doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[del]

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

Do you need to have the difference between salaries paid for productive work and taxes expropriated by compulsion -which produce nothing at all- explained?

Your flimsy game of semantic jiggery-pokery doesn't pass the smell test.

translation: i can't keep up

git gubmint out of the jiggery-pokery bidness

 

[Oddball]

Your retorts are getting even stupider than those of poopsplatters and rderp.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course I did. I supplied one. That's all that's needed. You just can't see it because you can't see beyond your ideology.

Whatever.

brilliant riposte

I already pointed out to him how focusing on a single word in a definition and then using it in a way that means something entirely different than pay does not mean you have to pay for tax cuts. If you did, every time you cut taxes you would have to pay for them, even if you had a surplus and didn't have to cut spending. Since that is not true, you don't need to pay for tax cuts and Toro is just being stubborn because he is blind in this one small area. Whatever is all he deserves at this point.

 

[Toro]

Whatever.

brilliant riposte

I already pointed out to him how focusing on a single word in a definition and then using it in a way that means something entirely different than pay does not mean you have to pay for tax cuts. If you did, every time you cut taxes you would have to pay for them, even if you had a surplus and didn't have to cut spending. Since that is not true, you don't need to pay for tax cuts and Toro is just being stubborn because he is blind in this one small area. Whatever is all he deserves at this point.

Here are other examples of decreasing costs causes a company to "pay" for their actions, something any business 101 student understands.

A company has a 500 person sales force. It decides it no longer wants to pay for any of them, so they fire them all. Sales collapse. The company pays for not paying salespeople by a loss in sales.

A technology company reliant on new products fires every person its R&D department. It pays for not paying for its research people by losing market share.

A company being sued fires all of its lawyers and decides not to represent itself in court. It pays by not paying lawyers by losing its case.

My sports example above. The Miami Heat cuts all of its players and replaces them with homeless people at minimum wage. They go 0-82.

In each case, the company decided not to pay its employees and paid by losing something. The company kept "their" money and paid for it. Its the same analogy for taxes. You cut taxes and fire the fire department but now you can't put out fires and the town burns down.

I mean, I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[Toro]

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.

Do you need to have the difference between salaries paid for productive work and taxes expropriated by compulsion -which produce nothing at all- explained?

Your flimsy game of semantic jiggery-pokery doesn't pass the smell test.

That's because you're wrapped in the same narrow ideological straightjacket as QW. This isn't a political argument. You're trying to make it one. If you can't see this, you don't understand the nature of the argument.

 

[del]

Your retorts are getting even stupider than those of poopsplatters and rderp.

i try to make it easy for you to understand, luca

you're not too bright

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners."

too stupid but perfectly 1000% liberal! When people buy from Bill Gates they are deciding they are better off by doing so!! This is not immoral unless you are a complete moron liberal ass!!

You cant buy something from Gates then steal the money back any more than Gates can sell something and then steal the product back!! That's a liberals idea of morality???

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow!!