Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

[AntonToo]

Uh, dumbass, every move to the left of the T* (aka tax cuts) results in lower revenues.

I think the question is what percentage does T represent? And how is that translated into a progressive taxation system?

In 2014 taxes were raised when the top rate cut in the Bush tax cuts expired. Since then we've had increased revenues and lower deficits.

Without claiming as fact cause and effect, if that tax increase did in fact impact revenues, by increasing them,

that would imply that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer curve (assuming here the Laffer curve theory is legitimate in the first place).

I think T is closer to 25% for the top income rates and closer to 10% for the middle class, as the higher rates can more easily afford to pay and so T would be much higher than for people living paycheck to paycheck.

You think based on what?

 

[AntonToo]

The Laffer Curve does not consider government spending.

Yes, and we have had record Federali revenues and the Feds still SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.

Obviously the problem is not with the tax rate but with the spending rate.

Record revenues were in 2000 (aka before Bush tax-cuts). Adjusted for the size of economy our revenues, especially after recession were disastrous and made up 40% of our budget shortfalls.

 

[AntonToo]

When Bush cut taxes twice despite facing the costs of 2 wars that was a tax cutting problem.

Agreed. I am speaking of normal peace time.

War time expenditures should have some funding mechanism, IMO, but Keynes would disagree with us both and his antiquated ideas still have dominance inside the Beltway.

Keynes believed in paying down debts in good times flush with revenues...in that way he was more conservative than most conservatives nowadays.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

So what's your prediction? Use your simple arithmetic model with real numbers. What is our current revenue and tax rate... what do you think revenue will grow to at which lower tax rates? For that to happen what kind of wage and GDP growth are we talking about?

But that's not what she wrote.

She wrote that "tax cuts INCREASES tax revenues", which is a ludicrous statement.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Slade3200]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

So what's your prediction? Use your simple arithmetic model with real numbers. What is our current revenue and tax rate... what do you think revenue will grow to at which lower tax rates? For that to happen what kind of wage and GDP growth are we talking about?

But that's not what she wrote.

She wrote that "tax cuts INCREASES tax revenues", which is a ludicrous statement.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

That argument is based on economic growth. If tax cuts lead to more economic activity then the amount being taxed is higher and even though the tax rate is lower, they think the NET revenue will be more. It's mathematically possible but I've asked 10 times now for some simple numbers showing how the OP sees it all playing out. I keep getting ignored which only tells me the OP has no clue what they are talking about.

 

[Toro]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

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

Here is what Mankiw said:
How unlikely? N. Gregory Mankiw, another former Council of Economic Advisers head in the Bush White House, concluded in 2005 that cuts on capital gains taxes could generate enough extra growth to recoup half the lost revenue in the long run; cutting taxes on wages could recover just 17 percent of the costs.
An analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who had been an economic adviser in the Bush White House, found that, under the rosiest of scenarios,
a 10 percent reduction in the personal income tax rate would generate enough economic growth to replace
22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Economists See Little Magic in Tax Cuts to Promote Growth

Guess what taxes Mr. Mankiw and all you brilliant economically oriented idiots FORGET!!!

Payroll taxes!
The only measure these idiots including Mankiw looked at was the fact that MORE people working means both employer and employee are paying more SS/Medicare tax!
Increase the number of employed from what it was at beginning of Trump i.e.
Long term unemployment page 4 of the below was 8,149,000.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/January 2017 Employment Digest_formatted.pdf

Assume that figure drops by 20% or 1.629 million start to work at average hourly rate:$25.00.
How Does Your Income Stack Up Against the Average American's? -- The Motley Fool

This means:
1) no more collecting unemployment checks for 1.629 million at $1,200/month or for six months $12 billion in savings!
2) With 1.629 million earning $25.00 or...at 13.4% payroll taxes paid by employer/employee a total in one year of over $11 billion in new tax revenue!
And that is just in payroll taxes!
Here are some of the changes over 10 years, compared with projected spending under current law, according to a Times analysis:
How Trump’s Budget Would Affect Every Part of Government

• $627 billion cut to Medicaid* --- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!
• $194 billion cut to food stamps-- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!

The econometric studies indeed did take into account all government revenues.

Your assertion in the OP is empirically false.

If you need a real-time example, look at Kansas over the past five years.

 

[eddiew37]

Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

It would be better if Democrat enlightened you.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

GWB proved trickle down is bullshit

 

[HenryBHough]

It's rooted in the failure of liberal universities to teach the difference between "$" and "%" signs.

When something it taxed at a sufficiently high rate then the number of purchases of that thing diminish and, sooner or later, it's unsalable.

For example:

Tax sliced bread at 10%. The baker (he bakes for queers so isn't run out of business) produces 100 loaves per day and sells it all at $1/loaf so the tax-take is $10.

But that 10% take doesn't satisfy liberals thirst for other people's money so they tax sliced bread at 90%.
In theory the tax take becomes $90. If any bread is sold. But people quicklyl shift to crackers or maybe just learn to bake their own bread.

On the first day of the new tax one (1, liberals) loaf of bread is sold though 100 were baked. The tax take is $0.90 - far less than it used to be (it was $10 though I know you can't remember by now). Naturally the liberal gut reaction is to just ratchet up the tax but then they they think it through and realize they're ahead!

Because they believe they don't have to write checks for "$" signs - and are free to write checks for "%" signs!

So, to what passes for their minds, a check written for 90% is far more valuable than one written for $90. And, so long as they don't try to cash it, they're onto something. But then they try.......

 

[healthmyths]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

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

Here is what Mankiw said:
How unlikely? N. Gregory Mankiw, another former Council of Economic Advisers head in the Bush White House, concluded in 2005 that cuts on capital gains taxes could generate enough extra growth to recoup half the lost revenue in the long run; cutting taxes on wages could recover just 17 percent of the costs.
An analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who had been an economic adviser in the Bush White House, found that, under the rosiest of scenarios,
a 10 percent reduction in the personal income tax rate would generate enough economic growth to replace
22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Economists See Little Magic in Tax Cuts to Promote Growth

Guess what taxes Mr. Mankiw and all you brilliant economically oriented idiots FORGET!!!

Payroll taxes!
The only measure these idiots including Mankiw looked at was the fact that MORE people working means both employer and employee are paying more SS/Medicare tax!
Increase the number of employed from what it was at beginning of Trump i.e.
Long term unemployment page 4 of the below was 8,149,000.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/January 2017 Employment Digest_formatted.pdf

Assume that figure drops by 20% or 1.629 million start to work at average hourly rate:$25.00.
How Does Your Income Stack Up Against the Average American's? -- The Motley Fool

This means:
1) no more collecting unemployment checks for 1.629 million at $1,200/month or for six months $12 billion in savings!
2) With 1.629 million earning $25.00 or...at 13.4% payroll taxes paid by employer/employee a total in one year of over $11 billion in new tax revenue!
And that is just in payroll taxes!
Here are some of the changes over 10 years, compared with projected spending under current law, according to a Times analysis:
How Trump’s Budget Would Affect Every Part of Government

• $627 billion cut to Medicaid* --- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!
• $194 billion cut to food stamps-- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!

The econometric studies indeed did take into account all government revenues.

Your assertion in the OP is empirically false.

If you need a real-time example, look at Kansas over the past five years.

What "econometric studies" are YOU talking about and your bullshit "empirically false" is a dumb comment. Dumb because the word empirical means:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
And I provided verifiable facts... and NOT a theory!

Also...yes LET'S LOOK at Kansas RECENTLY because see people like you like a little kid think oil tankers turn on a dime. Aircraft carriers stop in 20 feet.
Recessions start on 3/1/2001. End on 11/01. BUT in reality they don't!

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

 

[AntonToo]

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

Kansas has been bleeding billions in revenues over past 3-4 years and now you get ONE month above REDUCED forecast and think you can now declare tax-cuts successfully financing themselves? How fucking stupid.

The Kansas Budget: July 2016

 

[Kosh]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

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

Here is what Mankiw said:
How unlikely? N. Gregory Mankiw, another former Council of Economic Advisers head in the Bush White House, concluded in 2005 that cuts on capital gains taxes could generate enough extra growth to recoup half the lost revenue in the long run; cutting taxes on wages could recover just 17 percent of the costs.
An analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who had been an economic adviser in the Bush White House, found that, under the rosiest of scenarios,
a 10 percent reduction in the personal income tax rate would generate enough economic growth to replace
22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Economists See Little Magic in Tax Cuts to Promote Growth

Guess what taxes Mr. Mankiw and all you brilliant economically oriented idiots FORGET!!!

Payroll taxes!
The only measure these idiots including Mankiw looked at was the fact that MORE people working means both employer and employee are paying more SS/Medicare tax!
Increase the number of employed from what it was at beginning of Trump i.e.
Long term unemployment page 4 of the below was 8,149,000.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/January 2017 Employment Digest_formatted.pdf

Assume that figure drops by 20% or 1.629 million start to work at average hourly rate:$25.00.
How Does Your Income Stack Up Against the Average American's? -- The Motley Fool

This means:
1) no more collecting unemployment checks for 1.629 million at $1,200/month or for six months $12 billion in savings!
2) With 1.629 million earning $25.00 or...at 13.4% payroll taxes paid by employer/employee a total in one year of over $11 billion in new tax revenue!
And that is just in payroll taxes!
Here are some of the changes over 10 years, compared with projected spending under current law, according to a Times analysis:
How Trump’s Budget Would Affect Every Part of Government

• $627 billion cut to Medicaid* --- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!
• $194 billion cut to food stamps-- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!

The econometric studies indeed did take into account all government revenues.

Your assertion in the OP is empirically false.

If you need a real-time example, look at Kansas over the past five years.

Says the far left drone that supported 80% of Obama's policies and voted for |Hilary Clinton.

You have nothing to refute any data as you use far left religious dogma not connected to reality.

 

[healthmyths]

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

Kansas has been bleeding billions in revenues over past 3-4 years and now you get ONE month above REDUCED forecast and think you can now declare tax-cuts successfully financing themselves? How fucking stupid.

The Kansas Budget: July 2016

Hey no more stupid then idiots like you that think hmm tax cuts. on 1/1/2017 .. better economy, more tax revenue 1/2/2017.
Or better yet. I bet you think a oil tanker can turn around in 30 feet! Or ocean liner can stop in 100 feet. Right?
I know the example goes over your head but the economy is very big and complex. And actions like a tax cut just don't take affect the next day, or next month
or in some cases the next year. ONE reason is people file taxes generally one year after the earnings,i.e. April 15th 2019 and any tax benefits would have occurred
in 2018. If the legislation signed 2017. It takes time and for you to berate Kansas which by the way with dummy Obama thwarting oil production as he did
with massive rules and regulations, Kansas tax cuts would also be affected.
So quick being a petulant little kid thinking everything happens right away and grow up!
Recessions don't start the day the NBER declares it. The 3/1/2001 recession as deigned by NBER started in July 2000!

 

[AntonToo]

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

Kansas has been bleeding billions in revenues over past 3-4 years and now you get ONE month above REDUCED forecast and think you can now declare tax-cuts successfully financing themselves? How fucking stupid.

The Kansas Budget: July 2016

Hey no more stupid then idiots like you that think hmm tax cuts. on 1/1/2017 .. better economy, more tax revenue 1/2/2017.

Retard I'm showing you 3 year data.

P.S. this just in, paragraphs were invented!

 

[danielpalos]

It's rooted in the failure of liberal universities to teach the difference between "$" and "%" signs.

When something it taxed at a sufficiently high rate then the number of purchases of that thing diminish and, sooner or later, it's unsalable.

For example:

Tax sliced bread at 10%. The baker (he bakes for queers so isn't run out of business) produces 100 loaves per day and sells it all at $1/loaf so the tax-take is $10.

But that 10% take doesn't satisfy liberals thirst for other people's money so they tax sliced bread at 90%.
In theory the tax take becomes $90. If any bread is sold. But people quicklyl shift to crackers or maybe just learn to bake their own bread.

On the first day of the new tax one (1, liberals) loaf of bread is sold though 100 were baked. The tax take is $0.90 - far less than it used to be (it was $10 though I know you can't remember by now). Naturally the liberal gut reaction is to just ratchet up the tax but then they they think it through and realize they're ahead!

Because they believe they don't have to write checks for "$" signs - and are free to write checks for "%" signs!

So, to what passes for their minds, a check written for 90% is far more valuable than one written for $90. And, so long as they don't try to cash it, they're onto something. But then they try.......

Then, get your info. from YouTube. Learning how to reason, critically, is important.

 

[danielpalos]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

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

Here is what Mankiw said:
How unlikely? N. Gregory Mankiw, another former Council of Economic Advisers head in the Bush White House, concluded in 2005 that cuts on capital gains taxes could generate enough extra growth to recoup half the lost revenue in the long run; cutting taxes on wages could recover just 17 percent of the costs.
An analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who had been an economic adviser in the Bush White House, found that, under the rosiest of scenarios,
a 10 percent reduction in the personal income tax rate would generate enough economic growth to replace
22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Economists See Little Magic in Tax Cuts to Promote Growth

Guess what taxes Mr. Mankiw and all you brilliant economically oriented idiots FORGET!!!

Payroll taxes!
The only measure these idiots including Mankiw looked at was the fact that MORE people working means both employer and employee are paying more SS/Medicare tax!
Increase the number of employed from what it was at beginning of Trump i.e.
Long term unemployment page 4 of the below was 8,149,000.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/January 2017 Employment Digest_formatted.pdf

Assume that figure drops by 20% or 1.629 million start to work at average hourly rate:$25.00.
How Does Your Income Stack Up Against the Average American's? -- The Motley Fool

This means:
1) no more collecting unemployment checks for 1.629 million at $1,200/month or for six months $12 billion in savings!
2) With 1.629 million earning $25.00 or...at 13.4% payroll taxes paid by employer/employee a total in one year of over $11 billion in new tax revenue!
And that is just in payroll taxes!
Here are some of the changes over 10 years, compared with projected spending under current law, according to a Times analysis:
How Trump’s Budget Would Affect Every Part of Government

• $627 billion cut to Medicaid* --- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!
• $194 billion cut to food stamps-- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!

The econometric studies indeed did take into account all government revenues.

Your assertion in the OP is empirically false.

If you need a real-time example, look at Kansas over the past five years.

What "econometric studies" are YOU talking about and your bullshit "empirically false" is a dumb comment. Dumb because the word empirical means:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
And I provided verifiable facts... and NOT a theory!

Also...yes LET'S LOOK at Kansas RECENTLY because see people like you like a little kid think oil tankers turn on a dime. Aircraft carriers stop in 20 feet.
Recessions start on 3/1/2001. End on 11/01. BUT in reality they don't!

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

special pleading is all the right wing has, besides, nothing but repeal, almost.

 

[danielpalos]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
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..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

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

Here is what Mankiw said:
How unlikely? N. Gregory Mankiw, another former Council of Economic Advisers head in the Bush White House, concluded in 2005 that cuts on capital gains taxes could generate enough extra growth to recoup half the lost revenue in the long run; cutting taxes on wages could recover just 17 percent of the costs.
An analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who had been an economic adviser in the Bush White House, found that, under the rosiest of scenarios,
a 10 percent reduction in the personal income tax rate would generate enough economic growth to replace
22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Economists See Little Magic in Tax Cuts to Promote Growth

Guess what taxes Mr. Mankiw and all you brilliant economically oriented idiots FORGET!!!

Payroll taxes!
The only measure these idiots including Mankiw looked at was the fact that MORE people working means both employer and employee are paying more SS/Medicare tax!
Increase the number of employed from what it was at beginning of Trump i.e.
Long term unemployment page 4 of the below was 8,149,000.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/January 2017 Employment Digest_formatted.pdf

Assume that figure drops by 20% or 1.629 million start to work at average hourly rate:$25.00.
How Does Your Income Stack Up Against the Average American's? -- The Motley Fool

This means:
1) no more collecting unemployment checks for 1.629 million at $1,200/month or for six months $12 billion in savings!
2) With 1.629 million earning $25.00 or...at 13.4% payroll taxes paid by employer/employee a total in one year of over $11 billion in new tax revenue!
And that is just in payroll taxes!
Here are some of the changes over 10 years, compared with projected spending under current law, according to a Times analysis:
How Trump’s Budget Would Affect Every Part of Government

• $627 billion cut to Medicaid* --- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!
• $194 billion cut to food stamps-- again if 1.6 million become employed NO NEED for Medicaid!

The econometric studies indeed did take into account all government revenues.

Your assertion in the OP is empirically false.

If you need a real-time example, look at Kansas over the past five years.

Says the far left drone that supported 80% of Obama's policies and voted for |Hilary Clinton.

You have nothing to refute any data as you use far left religious dogma not connected to reality.

Lowering taxes is why we have so much debt.

 

[danielpalos]

Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note

Kansas has been bleeding billions in revenues over past 3-4 years and now you get ONE month above REDUCED forecast and think you can now declare tax-cuts successfully financing themselves? How fucking stupid.

The Kansas Budget: July 2016

Hey no more stupid then idiots like you that think hmm tax cuts. on 1/1/2017 .. better economy, more tax revenue 1/2/2017.
Or better yet. I bet you think a oil tanker can turn around in 30 feet! Or ocean liner can stop in 100 feet. Right?
I know the example goes over your head but the economy is very big and complex. And actions like a tax cut just don't take affect the next day, or next month
or in some cases the next year. ONE reason is people file taxes generally one year after the earnings,i.e. April 15th 2019 and any tax benefits would have occurred
in 2018. If the legislation signed 2017. It takes time and for you to berate Kansas which by the way with dummy Obama thwarting oil production as he did
with massive rules and regulations, Kansas tax cuts would also be affected.
So quick being a petulant little kid thinking everything happens right away and grow up!
Recessions don't start the day the NBER declares it. The 3/1/2001 recession as deigned by NBER started in July 2000!

Lowering taxes is why we have so much debt. A Harvard, MBA, proved it, last millennium.

 

[Mac1958]

The task, and conversation, should be about finding the a proper point of EQUILIBRIUM between...

Aw, fuck it. This is partisan political debate, not reality.
.

 

[danielpalos]

The task, and conversation, should be about finding the a proper point of EQUILIBRIUM between...

Aw, fuck it. This is partisan political debate, not reality.
.

The right wing should end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; so, they can stop whining about income taxes.

 

[Mac1958]

The task, and conversation, should be about finding the a proper point of EQUILIBRIUM between... Aw, fuck it. This is partisan political debate, not reality.

The right wing should end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; so, they can stop whining about income taxes.

Both ends are stuck in shallow, simplistic, binary thinking processes, which is why we can't make substantive progress.

We need our wingers to find another hobby.
.