The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

[Boss]

This happens with programs as well... like Obamacare. The CBO claimed it would save $10 trillion over 10 years.

WTF? That is just not true. I don't know where you pull nonsense like that from

From the CBO website.
CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

 

[AntonToo]

This happens with programs as well... like Obamacare. The CBO claimed it would save $10 trillion over 10 years.

WTF? That is just not true. I don't know where you pull nonsense like that from

From the CBO website.
CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

ok and? If you know anything at all you would know CBO would never project 10 Trillion dollar savings over 10 years on anything...but you don't so here we are.

 

[Boss]

For instance, the CBO estimated the Reagan tax cuts would cost us nearly a trillion dollars in tax revenues... why? Because they calculated based on the current tax revenues and trends for the last 5 years and they did not factor increased number of jobs and taxpayers which were the results of the tax cuts. Instead of costing us nearly a trillion dollars, the Reagan tax cut actually generated 40% MORE revenue.

That is an ignorant statement.

Ignorant of the fact that CORRELATION IS NOT PROOF OF CAUSATION.

Tax rate changes do not prevent economy from generating more or less TOTAL taxes, because first and foremost they are hinged on economic growth from poulation and technology expansion. Thats why through the long term we will ALWAYS collect more revenues. That is not a proof of tax-cuts paying for themselves any more than it is proof of spending paying for itself.

There is not a single reputable economist that would say that Reagan's or Bush's broad tax cuts grew economy so much as to make up for their upfront revenue cost.

Bush's own chair of economic advisers (and a tax cut supporting conservative) estimated dynamic effects to recoup only a fraction of upfront revenue loss from his tax-cut policy.

In the second edition of the text, I took out the phrase "charlatans and cranks" because an editor and some readers of the first edition said (correctly) that it was too inflammatory for a textbook description of a policy debate. But the substantive analysis of tax policy stayed about the same. This old post includes an excerpt from the current edition.

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

 

[Boss]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

Actually, I am going to revise my statement. It wasn't 40% it was 75.8%

1980- $517.1 billion
1988- $909.2 billion

 

[healthmyths]

For instance, the CBO estimated the Reagan tax cuts would cost us nearly a trillion dollars in tax revenues... why? Because they calculated based on the current tax revenues and trends for the last 5 years and they did not factor increased number of jobs and taxpayers which were the results of the tax cuts. Instead of costing us nearly a trillion dollars, the Reagan tax cut actually generated 40% MORE revenue.

That is an ignorant statement.

Ignorant of the fact that CORRELATION IS NOT PROOF OF CAUSATION.

Tax rate changes do not prevent economy from generating more or less TOTAL taxes, because first and foremost they are hinged on economic growth from poulation and technology expansion. Thats why through the long term we will ALWAYS collect more revenues. That is not a proof of tax-cuts paying for themselves any more than it is proof of spending paying for itself.

There is not a single reputable economist that would say that Reagan's or Bush's broad tax cuts grew economy so much as to make up for their upfront revenue cost.

Bush's own chair of economic advisers (and a tax cut supporting conservative) estimated dynamic effects to recoup only a fraction of upfront revenue loss from his tax-cut policy.

In the second edition of the text, I took out the phrase "charlatans and cranks" because an editor and some readers of the first edition said (correctly) that it was too inflammatory for a textbook description of a policy debate. But the substantive analysis of tax policy stayed about the same. This old post includes an excerpt from the current edition.

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

IN SPITE 1) Recession that started with Clinton..
2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..
3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember??
4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%
of that:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20
Now as far as TARP goes... Bush get's the blame Obama got the GAIN!!!

Oh and by the way, the solution i.e. TARP?
Obama criticized YET OBAMA has benefited from in this fashion.
If it weren't for TARP's payback of $693 billion on the $620.3 Billion outflow Obama's deficit would be even worse!
Profit: $72 billion!

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

 

[AntonToo]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't, you are making a statement that economists consider a counter factual.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Boo hoo hows that Austerty working out for ya? Still crying about it?

just look at the blue citys and states people are fucking leaving.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Boo hoo hows that Austerty working out for ya? Still crying about it?

just look at the blue citys and states people are fucking leaving.
.

Blue cities are not known for Austerity..so

 

[Wyatt earp]

Boo hoo hows that Austerty working out for ya? Still crying about it?

just look at the blue citys and states people are fucking leaving.
.

Blue cities are not known for Austerity..so

Two different topics i threw at you...you wiffed them both.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Boo hoo hows that Austerty working out for ya? Still crying about it?

just look at the blue citys and states people are fucking leaving.
.

Blue cities are not known for Austerity..so

Two different topics i threw at you...you wiffed them both.


.

Why don't you stop throwing topics around and stick to what is actually being discussed? I know, I know, too much to ask for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, $10 MW would be expected to cost some jobs and we do have safety net to help those people out but it would also help lift 16 million people out of poverty.

We had $10 (real $2015) minimum wage in the 60's, it was done and it works.

It wouldn't lift anyone out of poverty, that's bullshit.

I think I'll go with serious studies by economists over your opinion.

These are complex estimates and are a heavy lift, especially for politicaly biased laymen to positively make. Meaning you can maybe criticize something in CBO's studies, but short of that there is no reason to take your word over CBO on this.

What you are proposing is that Minimum Wage is a policy only with downsides and no upsides. That is as spurious on it's face as saying that minimum wage laws have only upsides and no downsides.

Reality is entry level employees are being replaced in my local McDonalds AND...
The age of the restaurant self-service kiosks has dawned, and it's the end of fast food as we know it.

McDonald's is striding into the 21st century with the rollout of the "Create Your Taste" touchscreen kiosks, on which custom burgers can be built as well as full-menu ordering.
Fast food workers are becoming obsolete

That is the reality and you and your estimates by CBOs obviously don't take in consideration that labor costs make up almost 30% of
a McDonalds,etc. operating expenses. You want them to raise their prices 30% to cover the $15/hour OR maybe they'll replace the
worker as they are doing with kiosks. Not your choice or mine... but simply economics. Can't get blood out of a turnip...

I went to the Cleveland Clinic last year to see my doctor. I walked up to the checkin desk and was met with empty seats and no lights on. Then a lady walked up to me and said she was going to introduce me to their new kiosks. From then on, you had to check in yourself when you see the doctor. Boy were there some old people complaining about that one.

 

[healthmyths]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

So you don't believe the pie grows bigger. Strange but here is the history of the USA GDP...
From this source:US Real GDP by Year
Sep 30, 2016 GDP $16,700,000,000,000
Dec 31, 1929 GDP 1,060,000,000,000
Years elapsed: 87 years... growth rate over 87 years: 1,475% or per year..17%
So let's see if the population in 1929 was 121,800,000 or GDP per person of $8,703
But today the population is 324,118,787 or a GDP of $51,524.
Now discounting for inflation average over those 87 years or 3.15%.
USA inflation in 2015 .12%
USA inflation in 1929 0.0%
So the GDP based on that inflation rate SHOULD be $14,944,370,760,233
US Inflation Calculator
But it's nearly $2 trillion more.

My point being is when it is all said and done a growing GDP benefits everyone but naysayers like you that think tax cuts
didn't help with Reagan/GWB and definitely you are against Trump's will never comprehend the concept of a rising tide lifts all boats!
You are like snarling wolves each fighting for a piece of a pie when it simply takes making the pie bigger... and when the economy grows
tax revenue grows.
Here is the fact under GWB...
YET in spite of these gigantic cataclysmic events Bush had:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..
IN SPITE of that:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historical

 

[AntonToo]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

View attachment 101132

Is there an argument against mine somewhere in there?

There isn't. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Reagan II, Bush and Clinton all raised income taxes at the end of 80s and into 90's from there until tax cuts in 2001 we broke all records on revenues with respect to GDP.

 

[AntonToo]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

So you don't believe the pie grows bigger

That is a stupid conclusion and yes I absolutely do believe that pie grows due to population and technological growth. And I say as much too if you'd read the thread.

Tax-cuts are generally expansionary and they will "grow the pie", just not nearly enough to offset their first order revenue loss that finances that growth.

Conservatives claiming that tax-cuts is a free lunch that pays for itself is like liberals trying to claim that spending pays for itself...except liberals don't generally say that, they know better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

View attachment 101132

Is there an argument against mine somewhere in there?

There isn't. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Reagan II, Bush and Clinton all raised income taxes at the end of 80s and into 90's from there until tax cuts in 2001 we broke all records on revenues with respect to GDP.

This is a chart of percentage of GDP, not actual dollars.

But using your chart, look what happened when GW cut taxes. It began to increase right up to the beginning of the housing problems.

 

[AntonToo]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

View attachment 101132

Is there an argument against mine somewhere in there?

There isn't. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Reagan II, Bush and Clinton all raised income taxes at the end of 80s and into 90's from there until tax cuts in 2001 we broke all records on revenues with respect to GDP.

This is a chart of percentage of GDP, not actual dollars.

But using your chart, look what happened when GW cut taxes. It began to increase right up to the beginning of the housing problems.

?? No.

After Bush tax cuts revenues dropped like a brick (from peak 10% to 7%). Then there was of course some buoyancy from the real estate bubble (7%-8%) followed by recession and a record low of 6%. Revenues since the passage of tax-cuts in 2000s are a disaster compared to the 90s.

It is OF COURSE tied to state of economy, but that's the point, there is no proof in this correlation and it's not directly possible to see impact of relatively small tax-cut volume on entirety of revenues.

Economists Left, Right and Center agree that tax cuts are not self financing. The only disagreement is on the extent of revenue loss.

Belief in downside free tax-cutting is reserved solely for rightwingers, that is what it takes to believe these magical stories.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

View attachment 101132

Is there an argument against mine somewhere in there?

There isn't. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Reagan II, Bush and Clinton all raised income taxes at the end of 80s and into 90's from there until tax cuts in 2001 we broke all records on revenues with respect to GDP.

This is a chart of percentage of GDP, not actual dollars.

But using your chart, look what happened when GW cut taxes. It began to increase right up to the beginning of the housing problems.

?? No.

After Bush tax cuts revenues dropped like a brick (from peak 10% to 7%). Then there was of course some buoyancy from the real estate bubble (7%-8%) followed by recession and a record low of 6%. Revenues since the passage of tax-cuts in 2000s are a disaster compared to the 90s.

It is OF COURSE tied to state of economy, but that's the point, there is no proof in this correlation and it's not directly possible to see impact of relatively small tax-cut volume on entirety of revenues.

Economists Left, Right and Center agree that tax cuts are not self financing. The only disagreement is on the extent of revenue loss.

Belief in downside free tax-cutting is reserved solely for rightwingers, that is what it takes to believe these magical stories.

Then why does my chart tell a different story? We were experiencing a recession when 911 hit, and of course, revenues went down. After GW's cut, look at the chart. Revenues increased once again. And before you criticize my chart, look at your GDP chart as well.

 

[healthmyths]

Sorry but facts are facts. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by over 40% over his 8 years as president. That wasn't because of technology or population, it WAS due to economic growth which the tax cuts sparked. I don't care what Bush's economic advisers said, that doesn't matter in this debate. The CBO at the time, predicted his tax cuts would cost $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. It didn't. FACT.

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...unless you are a rightwinger politico of course and have desperate need to reconcile claims to fiscal concern and your unyielding tax-cut religion.

Let me put it another way to you:

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two! But the reason why it sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

So you don't believe the pie grows bigger

That is a stupid conclusion and yes I absolutely do believe that pie grows due to population and technological growth. And I say as much too if you'd read the thread.

Tax-cuts are generally expansionary and they will "grow the pie", just not nearly enough to offset their first order revenue loss that finances that growth.

Conservatives claiming that tax-cuts is a free lunch that pays for itself is like liberals trying to claim that spending pays for itself...except liberals don't generally say that, they know better.

Ok let's try this again with an example...

Let's say you have a business at current corporate rate of 25% and Trump cuts to 15%
You gross $1 million and net before taxes $200,000
Taxes now... $50,000.
But with tax cuts... $30,000.
So what to do with the $20,000 in tax savings...hmmmm...
Well hire another person? Means then the government gets from both the employee and the business another 13% in tax revenue or $2600.
See you forgot employment taxes didn't you?
Of course that doesn't make up much for the $20,000 tax loss does it?
Then that employee now has $25,000 to spend. Ever hear of this study? http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
So this means with $25,000 in the economy that really works out to nearly $30,000 pumped back in.

I don't know if you get the picture or not but the sales the business makes the more the profit. And being the anti-capitalist that you are
profits are evil... so making more profits will be bad... but they will pay more taxes.
Because see that above employer had 10 employees that grossed $1 million or $100,000 per employee.
Buy adding another employee again at $100,000 that means $1,100,000 and at net of 20% that's another $220,000 in profit taxed at
15% or $33,000 in tax revenue... up from $30,000.. again remember these are little things....
But of course you don't understand the business economics so tax cuts don't mean anything to you.
But tell that to the $1.2 trillion offshore that due to Trump's tax cut will be coming back with GREAT utilization in hiring people, construction, materials... you name it and it will be HUGE!!!

 

[Boss]

No they didn't increase revenues by 40%. That is straight up nonsense and blatant counter factual not a single economist would ever argue, no matter how crazy of a rightwing nutter you'll manage to find.

It's not an argument. It's a documented public record of fact. You can look it up at the Treasury Dept. website. In 1980, total tax revenue was $517.1 bil. In 1988, when Reagan left office, total revenue was $909.2 bil... that's 75.8% more. The "nonsense" is trying to argue that was the result of population growth and technology. Regardless of that argument and how utterly ridiculous it is, the CBO prediction was still very wrong. Whether they didn't factor in the results of lowering taxes or they didn't factor in population growth and technology... their predictions were totally wrong.

When you tax at lower rate the general rule is that you collect less, especially around current low rates. It's really not that complicated...

Problem is, that's just not so. When you lower top marginal tax rates it generates more investment capital which creates many jobs for people who pay taxes and revenues increase. It happened when Reagan lowered taxes, it happened when Clinton lowered taxes and it happened when Bush lowered taxes. It also happened back in 1960 when Kennedy lowered taxes.

If what you say were true, nobody would ever object to tax-cutting - I pay less tax and government collects MORE? Yes please, I'll take two!

Well, what I am saying IS true, you can go to the Treasury Dept. website and confirm it. Now, there is the Laffer Curve... you CAN cut taxes so much that it does result in less revenue. And, as Bush proved, you can cut tax rates across the board and it doesn't produce as good of results as Reagan's and Kennedy's cutting the top marginal rates and expanding the base. This is because the middle class don't generally create many jobs with their tax cuts.

Likewise, whenever Trump decreases the corporate tax rates, we will see a tremendous increase in expansion and growth which will generate more tax revenue. People object to tax cuts because they are simple minded and don't understand the dynamics... they live in a vacuum like the CBO and don't factor in the results of cutting taxes.

Let me try and explain this with an analogy that even a dummy like you can follow... Imagine you have a lemonade stand. You charge $1 a cup for lemonade. Today you sold 20 cups and your revenue was $20. Someone comes along and suggests you sell lemonade for 50 cents a cup. Now, in YOUR way of looking at it... you believe that is ridiculous because you'd only make $10 tomorrow. But in reality, the lower price generates many more customers and you sell 50 cups instead. Your revenue is now $25.