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.
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
Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
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!
What "econometric studies" are YOU talking about and your bullshit "empirically false" is a dumb comment.
Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.
Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.
The "trickle down" theory has never worked. Just like your user name, it is a "myth". Forcing businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, generates revenue. Raising the tax rate on capital gains to 25%, generates revenue. Adding a Financial Transaction Tax of .003% for every share traded on Wall Street, will generate revenue.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!
Damn that chart is stupid. maybe the dumbest thing I have seen on the internet all day.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 "trickle down" theory has never worked. Just like your user name, it is a "myth". Forcing businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, generates revenue. Raising the tax rate on capital gains to 25%, generates revenue. Adding a Financial Transaction Tax of .003% for every share traded on Wall Street, will generate revenue.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!
What does not generate revenue, is tax cuts for the rich. In 2010, corporations had record profits of $6 trillion, yet no hiring was going on. Why was that? Because the economy doesn't run on tax cuts, it runs on demand. Putting more money in the middle class, will increase demand. Lower the tax rate on the middle class, raise it on the rich and that will generate more revenue for the government.
Much of it is hoarded overseas. trillions, in fact. Is some put back into the economy? of course it is. but capital hoarding is a problem, like it or not.The "trickle down" theory has never worked. Just like your user name, it is a "myth". Forcing businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, generates revenue. Raising the tax rate on capital gains to 25%, generates revenue. Adding a Financial Transaction Tax of .003% for every share traded on Wall Street, will generate revenue.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!
What does not generate revenue, is tax cuts for the rich. In 2010, corporations had record profits of $6 trillion, yet no hiring was going on. Why was that? Because the economy doesn't run on tax cuts, it runs on demand. Putting more money in the middle class, will increase demand. Lower the tax rate on the middle class, raise it on the rich and that will generate more revenue for the government.
So are you of the school of thought that the filthy rich simply put their money under the mattress or bury it in the backyard?
Where do you suppose all that rich money goes?
You want to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse? Then cut the defense budget in half.
The more tax money put into the system means more waste, fraud and abuse every time. Only shit for brains foolish Progressives believe Keynesian economics work.
Into their bank. It doesn't go into the economy unless their is demand. Company's do not invest money where there is no demand.So are you of the school of thought that the filthy rich simply put their money under the mattress or bury it in the backyard?
Where do you suppose all that rich money goes?
Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.
That's a total falsehood, Ivan. Republicans paint themselves as the party of fiscal entirely responsibility, but like so many other Republican positions, it's a total lie. How can you be fiscally responsible while cutting taxes and spending like drunken sailors?
Democrats are the party of Tax and Spend, but notice that they tax BEFORE they spend so that their expenditures are covered by revenues.
Carter balanced the budget, during difficult economic times. Reagan cut taxes and created the biggest deficit in history, to that point.
Everyone thought Reagan had created an economic miracle but it was a little like your neighbour painting and landscaping his house, buying a new car, getting new furniture, all on borrowed money. It looked like the country was prosperous and successful, but it was all done on borrowed funds using voodoo economics. The tax cuts didn't create jobs and it didn't pay for itself. Reagan has a worse job creation record than Carter, Clinton or Obama.
Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget. He also created jobs. Then along came W. Taking a page from Reagan's book, and completely ignoring the fact that Reagan recanted voodoo economics and raised taxes to try to cover his deficits, W gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and went on a spending spree, starting two wars. Unlike Reagan, who at least spent his deficit at home where the money stayed within the US economy, W spent it overseas, making war in the Middle East.
Making matters worse, in order to buy seniors' votes, W came up with Medicare Part D, with creating a tax to pay for it. When the economy crashed and burned as a result of his fiscal irresponsibility, W handed off the whole steaming pile of shit to Barrack Obama and slunk out of Washington.
Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and through careful management was able to right a sinking and drain the deficit that was taking it down, but it was a long slow process, especially since Republicans refused to allow Bush's tax cuts to expire.
So now Republicans want to make massive tax cuts, again. I guess they figure that the third time is the charm. And they're using voodoo economics saying the tax cuts will pay for themselves. All of this meets the very definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Nobody has ever accused the Republicans or those who vote for them of being smart.
Only fool thinks a shit stain career politician like clinton/obama/bush sr/w/reagan has the best interests of the country in mind. Dumbass Progressive supporters think the federal government and the country are one in the same.Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... factSo going back to the question posed in the thread title, the short answer is that they don't.
Logic and common sense would tell you that. This is why the whole issue of tax cuts paying for themselves is referred to as "voodoo economics", because it defies reason and logic.
The trade off for paying taxes is living in a first world country. Infrastructure, law and order, and regulatory agencies to protect intellectual property, investment, and consumers, all cost money. So does good government. Right wingers want all of these benefits, but they don't want to pay for them.
They also want a strong, modern, well equipped military who will jump in and protect "American interests", but they don't want to provide veterans with health care and the other things they promised soldiers when they enlisted.
There are countries which have no income tax. They are not places that any person who has become accustomed to first world comforts, infrastructure or security would want to live, but they do exist. You have to look out for your own security and hire bodyguards. You'll have to purify own water too. And you'll have to bribe government officials to keep them from stealing what you have, but you won't have to pay income tax.
Right wingers like to promote the notion that taxation is theft, but it's not. Taxation is your share of the costs of running maintaining a first world country. Just like you pay for your electrical bill, your heating bill and your water bill, your tax bill is your share of infrastructure and expenses.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that corporations which provide jobs should have lower taxes. In fact these corporations use more infrastructure and government resources than individuals. They need an educated workforce. They need transportation for their goods and services. Their waste disposal costs are very high. They need protection for their intellectual property and investments. Giving these corporations tax breaks simply shifts their costs onto individual middle-class Americans who are already bearing a disproportionately high percentage of the cost of running the government.
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.
That's a total falsehood, Ivan. Republicans paint themselves as the party of fiscal entirely responsibility, but like so many other Republican positions, it's a total lie. How can you be fiscally responsible while cutting taxes and spending like drunken sailors?
Democrats are the party of Tax and Spend, but notice that they tax BEFORE they spend so that their expenditures are covered by revenues.
Carter balanced the budget, during difficult economic times. Reagan cut taxes and created the biggest deficit in history, to that point.
Everyone thought Reagan had created an economic miracle but it was a little like your neighbour painting and landscaping his house, buying a new car, getting new furniture, all on borrowed money. It looked like the country was prosperous and successful, but it was all done on borrowed funds using voodoo economics. The tax cuts didn't create jobs and it didn't pay for itself. Reagan has a worse job creation record than Carter, Clinton or Obama.
Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget. He also created jobs. Then along came W. Taking a page from Reagan's book, and completely ignoring the fact that Reagan recanted voodoo economics and raised taxes to try to cover his deficits, W gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and went on a spending spree, starting two wars. Unlike Reagan, who at least spent his deficit at home where the money stayed within the US economy, W spent it overseas, making war in the Middle East.
Making matters worse, in order to buy seniors' votes, W came up with Medicare Part D, with creating a tax to pay for it. When the economy crashed and burned as a result of his fiscal irresponsibility, W handed off the whole steaming pile of shit to Barrack Obama and slunk out of Washington.
Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and through careful management was able to right a sinking and drain the deficit that was taking it down, but it was a long slow process, especially since Republicans refused to allow Bush's tax cuts to expire.
So now Republicans want to make massive tax cuts, again. I guess they figure that the third time is the charm. And they're using voodoo economics saying the tax cuts will pay for themselves. All of this meets the very definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Nobody has ever accused the Republicans or those who vote for them of being smart.
Only a fool thinks Keynesian economics are anything but a way for federal government control the population....The "trickle down" theory has never worked. Just like your user name, it is a "myth". Forcing businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, generates revenue. Raising the tax rate on capital gains to 25%, generates revenue. Adding a Financial Transaction Tax of .003% for every share traded on Wall Street, will generate revenue.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!
What does not generate revenue, is tax cuts for the rich. In 2010, corporations had record profits of $6 trillion, yet no hiring was going on. Why was that? Because the economy doesn't run on tax cuts, it runs on demand. Putting more money in the middle class, will increase demand. Lower the tax rate on the middle class, raise it on the rich and that will generate more revenue for the government.
Only a fool thinks Keynesian economics are anything but a way for federal government control the population....
Redistribution of wealth is delusional thinking...Only a fool thinks Keynesian economics are anything but a way for federal government control the population....
I remember when Bush passed his taxcuts, and the average middle class got a $400 cut, while the 1% ers got $40,000. The bigger difference is the middle class spent that money in america, while the 1% er either spent it overseas, or just sat on it.s
I hope I don't have to explain how where/how the money gets spent is more important than the amount.
Redistribution of wealth is delusional thinking...
Redistribution of wealth is delusional thinking...
If you want to make America great again, you have to redistribute the wealth from those who would spend it in europe, and instead transfer it to somebody who would spend it in America.
