Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure why you're stuck on this "dear" thing, but whatever works for you.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.Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.Of course I have.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.
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.
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.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
Your link is nothing but propaganda and rhetoric, typical of the right wing. Don't blame me for your getting it from me, like any typical right winger.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.Only right wingers do that.What in the world are you talking about?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.Of course I have.He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.
But if there are "no two ways about it" in your mind, I'm fine with that. I know how you folks are.
.
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.
.
You are welcome to tell me Your position on the matter, for future reference.
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.
.
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!
Yet another lie.Your link is nothing but propaganda and rhetoric, typical of the right wing. Don't blame me for your getting it from me, like any typical right winger.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.Only right wingers do that.What in the world are you talking about?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.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.
.
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.
.
You are welcome to tell me Your position on the matter, for future reference.
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.
.
Ok. So you allege to be "conservative" and recognize that revenue must match or beat expenditures.
My position is that the republicans should only be given credit for one percent growth in their budget assumptions, so taxes are not a "political football".
Nothing but diversion, dear? Only the cognitively dissonant, right wing, does that.Not sure why you're stuck on this "dear" thing, but whatever works for you.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.Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.Of course I have.He is right, you didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be drawing equivalence. No two ways about it.
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.
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.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
You either blatantly lied about my positions or you made simplistic (and incorrect) assumptions based on the standard binary thought processes of wingers.
All you folks do is illustrate the points made in my sig, over and over and over.
Both ends are so similar. And I wonder what it's like, being so similar to those you hate.
.
Why do you believe in higher taxes if not to meet higher expenditures of "bigger government"?Yet another lie.Your link is nothing but propaganda and rhetoric, typical of the right wing. Don't blame me for your getting it from me, like any typical right winger.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.Only right wingers do that.What in the world are you talking about?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.
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.
.
You are welcome to tell me Your position on the matter, for future reference.
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.
.
Ok. So you allege to be "conservative" and recognize that revenue must match or beat expenditures.
My position is that the republicans should only be given credit for one percent growth in their budget assumptions, so taxes are not a "political football".
When have I ever alleged to be "conservative" (your quotes, again)?
What in the world is wrong with you?
.
Why do you believe in higher taxes if not to meet higher expenditures of "bigger government"?
Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Trump.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
Makes, "rational choice theory" sense.Why do you believe in higher taxes if not to meet higher expenditures of "bigger government"?
How about to pay off the national debt?
Holy crap, you're nuts.Nothing but diversion, dear? Only the cognitively dissonant, right wing, does that.Not sure why you're stuck on this "dear" thing, but whatever works for you.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.Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.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.
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.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
You either blatantly lied about my positions or you made simplistic (and incorrect) assumptions based on the standard binary thought processes of wingers.
All you folks do is illustrate the points made in my sig, over and over and over.
Both ends are so similar. And I wonder what it's like, being so similar to those you hate.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Trump.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
The fiscal reality is, we have massive debt not massive federal budget surpluses to pay off the debt.P.S. Your 3 year data is just like you, evidently a premature baby!
Just like a little kid you want your sucker and you want it NOW!!!
REALITY!
Year one after Kansas tax cut. Guess what? The financial affect is not felt on day one after the bill is passed!
It takes time for bureaucracy to implement. Then it takes time for businesses especially to "SEE" if this is a permanent plan because unlike idiots
like you a smart businessperson DOESN"T immediately go out and buy new equipment hire more people without KNOWING if this is a permanent plan!
Then after say a year of watching and seeing maybe this is real...THEN the businesses start expanding, hiring. BUT again... when is that effort felt in
the economy? The day after the business starts hiring people, buying equipment? NO! But ignorant naive dummies like you once again want results
YESTERDAY...wahhhhh I want my sucker NOW!!!
It doesn't work that way in any government effort to reduce taxes. It takes time for people to believe that this will be real and that is the BIGGEST problem!
We have idiots like you that say ...Hey tax cuts went into effect today ... it's tomorrow where is all the economic growth???
It doesn't work that way little preemie!
dear, only the right wing is typically, that clueless and that Causeless.Holy crap, you're nuts.Nothing but diversion, dear? Only the cognitively dissonant, right wing, does that.Not sure why you're stuck on this "dear" thing, but whatever works for you.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.Wingers are unreasonable by nature. Side irrelevant.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.
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.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
You either blatantly lied about my positions or you made simplistic (and incorrect) assumptions based on the standard binary thought processes of wingers.
All you folks do is illustrate the points made in my sig, over and over and over.
Both ends are so similar. And I wonder what it's like, being so similar to those you hate.
.
Rational choice 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 of special pleading.
You're just completely making things up.
Okay, got it.
.
Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Trump.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
AND idiots like you are so stupid! How long do you think it takes for business people to accept that lower taxes are for real? EVEN the Bush Tax cuts were considered "Temporary" and as a result why would ANY smart business person go out hire people build facilities ONLY to know a few years later... all tax cuts gone! YOU have no sense of reality as to how people think and unless the tax cuts are Permanent with no plans for being raised again...NO economic benefit will occur! Idiots like you are like a little kid...."wahhh... I want my sucker NOW"!!!
Tax cuts won't work unless they are permanent and NOT especially like Bush's built in with an expiration date!
Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Trump.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
AND idiots like you are so stupid! How long do you think it takes for business people to accept that lower taxes are for real? EVEN the Bush Tax cuts were considered "Temporary" and as a result why would ANY smart business person go out hire people build facilities ONLY to know a few years later... all tax cuts gone! YOU have no sense of reality as to how people think and unless the tax cuts are Permanent with no plans for being raised again...NO economic benefit will occur! Idiots like you are like a little kid...."wahhh... I want my sucker NOW"!!!
Tax cuts won't work unless they are permanent and NOT especially like Bush's built in with an expiration date!
No matter how hard you try to spin it, voodoo economics don't work. It's not a matter of giving them time. One of the arguments right wingers make in favour of tax cuts is that when Reagan cut taxes, revenues immediately increased. Now you're saying it takes time.
When you cut taxes revenues go down. Period. When you cut taxes AND increase spending massively, tax revenues will go up but only as a result of the tax revenue coming back to the government on that spending increase.
Kansas is broke because they cut taxes. Broke as in "they can't pay their bills broke". The much promised increase in revenues from their free market experiment is bankrupting them.
Republicans only have one fiscal policy - cut taxes. Every time they do it, it fails. But they keep doing it because it can easily be sold to gullible fools like you. It's an easy sell because everyone wants to keep more of their hard earned money, myself included.
But only fools believe it's wise to cut taxes while running a deficit. Only fools believe that cutting taxes creates jobs. Only fools believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.
The federal government has no claim to perceived future tax increases, they should forget they're even available because they are not.View attachment 149661
Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.
But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (Treasury Dynamic Scoring Analysis Refutes Claims by Supporters of the Tax Cuts)
The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (Claim That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True)
Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)
Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities
So here we have facts versus fantasy.
