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

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes for those who will spend the savings helps the economy.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy is not as effective because the wealthy will not spend it.

Cutting corporate taxes swill not create jobs or investment in growth. Both of those things are tax deductible either directly or through depreciation.

Currently a corp paying the top rate looks at money spent on new employees or buildings, etc writes those expenses off of 35% value.

Drop the tax rate to 15% like El Cheeto wants & those new employees & investments only save them 15%. Expect fewer new hires & less expansion.

Corpotations hire people when they have work that needs done. The have more work to do when their sales improve. The sales improve when people have more money to spend. Tax break for people, not corporations.

^^^ Another liberal drone taught to hate the wealthy and corporations, they know not why they just obey blindly. Lets score this post, wishful thinking, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Great response!

You fucktards think handing corporations money will create jobs.

It has never worked.

Reference the Bush recession.

^^^ brainwashed libtard alert. Who do you think owns the corporations? Yes public and private employee union pensions who have invested trillions of dollars in the very corporations ignorant drones like you hate. Got nothing to say? Yeah we know but but but..but. LOL

End the tax on real Persons so the right wing won't be so morally challenged, and have only artificial Person pay taxes.

What are you babbling about?

Your cluelessness and Causelessness. That was the real reason for limiting the franchise.

 

[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.

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

Dear, having a problem with Only taxes and not the "big government" that requires them, is merely, cognitive dissonance; only the right wing does that, and claims they are not really like that, afterward.

What in the world are you talking about?

Show me the post in which I whined about taxes and "big government", which you just put in quotes.

I'm waiting. You're avoiding.
.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing should end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; so, they can stop whining about income taxes. Too much, "hard work" to accomplish, lazy persons on the Right Wing?

Ask them. Again, you obviously don't know my politics.

I can't help you with your binary thought processes.
.

You whine about taxes? Check.

You whine about, "big government"? Check.

Dear, only right wingers do that.

Oh good. Lies. Yum.

Please show me where I've ever whined about taxes. I would increase personal income tax rates, and you'll see that in the link in the second line of my sig.

Please show me where I've ever whined about "big government".

You're a liar. All wingers are, both ends. You are part of the problem. You're just like the right wingers you hate.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me, dear.


.

What lies. You are whining about taxes in this thread and have claimed you are not for, "big government". Is that not correct?

Your lies. You can't even admit it. Maybe you're so blinded by your ideology you don't see it.

Show me where I whined about taxes.

Back up your words.

Let's go.
.

Dear, thou dost protest too much about taxes, if you are not willing to do any thing, to abolish the "big government" that requires them.

 

[Mac1958]

Ask them. Again, you obviously don't know my politics.

I can't help you with your binary thought processes.
.

You whine about taxes? Check.

You whine about, "big government"? Check.

Dear, only right wingers do that.

Oh good. Lies. Yum.

Please show me where I've ever whined about taxes. I would increase personal income tax rates, and you'll see that in the link in the second line of my sig.

Please show me where I've ever whined about "big government".

You're a liar. All wingers are, both ends. You are part of the problem. You're just like the right wingers you hate.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me, dear.


.

What lies. You are whining about taxes in this thread and have claimed you are not for, "big government". Is that not correct?

Your lies. You can't even admit it. Maybe you're so blinded by your ideology you don't see it.

Show me where I whined about taxes.

Back up your words.

Let's go.
.

Dear, thou dost protest too much about taxes, if you are not willing to do any thing, to abolish the "big government" that requires them.

Still waiting.
.

 

[danielpalos]

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

Dear, having a problem with Only taxes and not the "big government" that requires them, is merely, cognitive dissonance; only the right wing does that, and claims they are not really like that, afterward.

What in the world are you talking about?

Show me the post in which I whined about taxes and "big government", which you just put in quotes.

I'm waiting. You're avoiding.
.

Only right wingers do that.

You are welcome to tell me Your position on the matter, for future reference.

 

[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.

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

 

[AntonToo]

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Are you sure YOU are reasonable? You don't sound that way when I tell talk to you about the specifics in the thread and change the topic to generalities about wingers again.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

Dear, having a problem with Only taxes and not the "big government" that requires them, is merely, cognitive dissonance; only the right wing does that, and claims they are not really like that, afterward.

What in the world are you talking about?

Show me the post in which I whined about taxes and "big government", which you just put in quotes.

I'm waiting. You're avoiding.
.

Only right wingers do that.

You are welcome to tell me Your position on the matter, for future reference.

For the second time - you'll find it in the link in the second line of my sig. I put it there for people like you.

When you see that I advocate for increasing personal tax rates, be sure to pretend you didn't see it.

This is why I've given up trying to have extended conversations with partisans here.
.

 

[postman]

Exactly. They like it that the average American pays more in taxes every month than on food and clothing.

Their real goal is to make sure Americans have zero extra money after taxes.

Actually their goal is to tax the rich, and pass the savings to the middle class. For every millionaire who doesn't get a tax cut, you get 100 middle class people that do.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Call yourself whatever you'd like. I don't care.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

Your post simply isn't true. Many have been trying to engage the OP in fact-based debate and he just responds with blather.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Are you sure YOU are reasonable? You don't sound that way when I tell talk to you about the specifics in the thread and change the topic to generalities about wingers again.

Note that he contributes nothing to the topic of the thread except to troll the other participants.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

So where would we find your non-simplistic contribution to the issue of whether or not tax cuts increase revenues?

 

[BlueGin]

Exactly. They like it that the average American pays more in taxes every month than on food and clothing.

Their real goal is to make sure Americans have zero extra money after taxes.

Actually their goal is to tax the rich, and pass the savings to the middle class. For every millionaire who doesn't get a tax cut, you get 100 middle class people that do.

If that were true the democrats wouldn't have specifically targeted the middle class while doling out Obamacare to the masses.

 

[AntonToo]

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Call yourself whatever you'd like. I don't care.
.

But it's impossible for me to say what YOU are calling me.


You come into a thread which is yes, littered with winger statements, but there are also reasonable arguments made. And instead of picking up reasonable discussion you just post the same ol' everyone-sucks-but-me you seem to be here for and run off.

thanks for your input Mac, hopefully you feel better now.

 

[danielpalos]

You obviously haven't read the thread, big surprise.

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

dear, right wingers are a "bunch of communists and don't know it"; at least, some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

Rational choice theory would suggest that high taxes are necessary for, "large government".

Only the "irrational" right wing, believes their special pleading their right wing fantasy, works without a vacuum.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Call yourself whatever you'd like. I don't care.
.

But it's impossible for me to say what YOU are calling me.


You come into a thread which is yes, littered with winger statements, but there are also reasonable arguments made. And instead of picking up reasonable discussion you just post the same ol' everyone-sucks-but-me you seem to be here for and run off.

Tissue?
.

 

[AntonToo]

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Call yourself whatever you'd like. I don't care.
.

But it's impossible for me to say what YOU are calling me.


You come into a thread which is yes, littered with winger statements, but there are also reasonable arguments made. And instead of picking up reasonable discussion you just post the same ol' everyone-sucks-but-me you seem to be here for and run off.

Tissue?
.

I'm good, run along now.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, I can certainly understand why someone like you would get pissy over that post.

Too bad.
.

He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.

Of course I have.

But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.

No you didn't and no you don't know.

Laffer curve, it's inflection point and our relative position to it were discussed and OP could neither acknowledge revenues reductions on the left side of the graph nor respond to where point of inflection is.

Also covered were CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST opinions on self-financing tax-cuts.

Tell me again how lefties here are the unreasonable ones.

Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.

This thread, as are most here, has been primarily simplistically partisan in nature.

From your political perspective, I'm sure your "side" is perfectly reasonable.
.

Am I a winger? I can't tell from your posting since you lump everyone into one mass.

Are you sure YOU are reasonable? You don't sound that way when I tell talk to you about the specifics in the thread and change the topic to generalities about wingers again.

It depends on the context. In civics, it should refer to the Militia of the United States.

 

[postman]

Your post simply isn't true. Many have been trying to engage the OP in fact-based debate and he just responds with blather.

One problem with the tax cut debate is that it's never produced a net decrease in deficits. Whenever it's happened the government paralleled it with increased spending. So like the horse and the cart, you can't separate increased tax revenue stemming from increased spending, from increased tax revenue stemming from tax cuts.

Saying that tax cuts work, actually means that spending increases work.