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

[radical right]

Increasing taxes on anyone is always foolish, The federal government is all about waste, fraud and abuse...

So is cutting taxes while you're running massive deficits.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

You know you are full of CRAP!
Please for once cut out this gross exaggeration..." average middle class $400/ 1% spent $40,000 overseas!" THAT is just crap!
Prove to me that with links and substantiation that:
A) Average middle class... HEY Dummy "WHAT EXACTLY is "AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS" first of all!
B) Prove that it was "$400."! Prove to me you make this horrendous out reality statements with no proof!
C) Prove to me 1% spent $40,000 over seas! Prove IT or are you just full of GAS!

 

[healthmyths]

Remember this total grossly exaggerated statement: " the average middle class got a $400 cut, while the 1% ers got $40,000"
I asked the idiot to prove it but since he can't HERE Are the facts!
It is so unbelievable SIMPLE to totally blow idiots comments out by simply using the Internet!

Poorest 20% Average income $13,850
Specifically, the poorest 20 percent (those with an average income of $13,850) would keep their average tax cut of $270 with the extension.
The second 20 percent (about $27,910 income) would save about $630;
and the middle 20 percent of earners ($44,880) would save $880.
The upper 40 percent would continue to save thousands of dollars each year: those earning an average of $73,700 would keep receiving a cut of $1,550,
while the next bracket up -- those earning about $127,560 -- would reap a $3,740 cut.
How Much Would Middle Class Save With Bush Tax Cut Extension?

Where is the "$400" cut?
Also how much does the "average middle class" have in income?
The most recent Census Bureau data showed that median household income — what people in the exact middle of the American spectrum earn — is $53,657.
Opinion | $250,000 a Year Is Not Middle Class
So this idiot who wrote:"the average middle class got a $400 cut" only needed to take a few minutes like I did to see the comment was full of CRAP!

 

[healthmyths]

Honestly folks... for the most part in my 6 years on this forum I have been constantly reminded how correct for the most part my comments have been.
I owe that mostly to my intellectual concern that "my personal" opinion needs to be supported by facts.
But it seems the VAST majority of people that disagree with me hardly EVER provide substantiation of the retorts to my comments!
I've come to the conclusion this is because either they don't know how to do a simple Google search or they are just plain lazy.
In this discussion of why cutting taxes would provide more tax revenue the vast majority of opponents to my comments don't provide ANY really substantive support!
It just makes sense folks.
A) You have to give the economy time for tax cuts to work. As I've pointed out oil tankers don't turn around in 30 feet! So to with the economy.
B) Businesses and people both have been screwed by impatient, uniformed politicians who if something economically doesn't occur in one year..Throw it out!
C) It takes time folks. And so far any tax cuts that have been instituted that DID affect the economy took several years.

It is so simple. Businesses and people have to plan. If they can't count on a "tax cut" being around for more then a few years, they will NOT hire. Not spend any more.
Nor will any person who is responsible. If you get a tax cut one year and then it goes away the next... what will you do?

That's been the problem! We've in the last few times of "tax cutting" haven't allowed the plan to work. If it doesn't show any increase in tax revenue in two years,
TRASH it!
Have Patience folks!

 

[Dragonlady]

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
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.

Progressivism/socialism/political correctness/affirmative action have destroyed this country...

When you say "this country" do you mean Russia? Yes, far left policies destroyed Russia.

Right wing economics haven't completely destroyed the US but they came damn close. Obama pulled the economy back from the brink. Now Trump, Ryan and McConnell want to push it over the edge.

 

[Borillar]

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

Well why not just eliminate taxes altogether? Then we should have an infinite amount of revenue coming in.

 

[healthmyths]

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
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.

Progressivism/socialism/political correctness/affirmative action have destroyed this country...

When you say "this country" do you mean Russia? Yes, far left policies destroyed Russia.

Right wing economics haven't completely destroyed the US but they came damn close. Obama pulled the economy back from the brink. Now Trump, Ryan and McConnell want to push it over the edge.

Where are your facts regarding "pulled economy back"? What exactly did he do?
You know that these EVENTS occurred and had a DIRECT impact on all our lives our economy and our society?
Where were you? Worst hurricane seasons, 9/11-Pentagon, do these events mean anything to you?

 

[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

Well why not just eliminate taxes altogether? Then we should have an infinite amount of revenue coming in.

Where would the revenue come from? Donations? Would you donate to pay salaries of public officials?
See idiotic statements like yours come from just plain stupidity.

BUT you can go to North Korea where they pay NO taxes also!
Officially, there are no taxes in North Korea. The date of 1 April is the North Korean "Tax Abolition Day".[1] North Korean propaganda claims that North Korea is the world's only tax-free country.[
Taxation in North Korea - Wikipedia

 

[Rustic]

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
Because progressives can only take so much money from others… Then it runs out.

So 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.

Progressive taxation results in unpayable debt... fact
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.

Progressivism/socialism/political correctness/affirmative action have destroyed this country...

When you say "this country" do you mean Russia? Yes, far left policies destroyed Russia.

Right wing economics haven't completely destroyed the US but they came damn close. Obama pulled the economy back from the brink. Now Trump, Ryan and McConnell want to push it over the edge.

Socialism has destroyed this country... USA

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

......especially when you have a side that refuses to cut spending to the point where an increase less than that level requested is viewed as a "cut".

 

[otto105]

Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.

However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.

OK... growth revenue population growth. So all those people don't spend any money which grew the economy which increased revenues. Wow... what a concept! population growth spent everything on taxes. That's the only attribution. Of course spending increased and I for one totally decry federal government spending on non-defense of country issues! I mean that is a given! The point is even Arthur Laffer says there is a point where taxes must be paid... but not 90%!

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I stand by my previous post that laffer curve is a joke. Supply side economics is a joke and anyone that asserts it has merit doesn't understand economics well enough to discuss it.

 

[healthmyths]

OK... growth revenue population growth. So all those people don't spend any money which grew the economy which increased revenues. Wow... what a concept! population growth spent everything on taxes. That's the only attribution. Of course spending increased and I for one totally decry federal government spending on non-defense of country issues! I mean that is a given! The point is even Arthur Laffer says there is a point where taxes must be paid... but not 90%!

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I stand by my previous post that laffer curve is a joke. Supply side economics is a joke and anyone that asserts it has merit doesn't understand economics well enough to discuss it.

And see YOU are living proof WHY Laffer Curve IS valid!
You have been beaten down so much by the FACTS that you are giving up! You like most intellectually dishonest people don't discuss with facts. And when confronted with facts you

 

[otto105]

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I stand by my previous post that laffer curve is a joke. Supply side economics is a joke and anyone that asserts it has merit doesn't understand economics well enough to discuss it.

And see YOU are living proof WHY Laffer Curve IS valid!
You have been beaten down so much by the FACTS that you are giving up! You like most intellectually dishonest people don't discuss with facts. And when confronted with facts you

View attachment 149803

There are no "facts" which prove the laffer curve. Even Arthur knows this, which is why he appears only on FOX.

Additionally, stating that cutting taxes always increases revenues (sometimes waiting 5-15 years for the economy to grow) is like touting home ownership.

 

[AntonToo]

Socialism has destroyed this country... USA

ummm USA, the lone superpower in the world is doing just fine.

You on the other hand probably need to lay off politics and make sure not to skip your meds, because your brain sounds kinda "destroyed".

 

[dudmuck]

Socialism has destroyed this country... USA

ummm USA, the lone superpower in the world is doing just fine.

You on the other hand probably need to lay off politics and make sure not to skip your meds, because your brain sounds kinda "destroyed".

China will surpass USA in 2018.

 

[AntonToo]

Socialism has destroyed this country... USA

ummm USA, the lone superpower in the world is doing just fine.

You on the other hand probably need to lay off politics and make sure not to skip your meds, because your brain sounds kinda "destroyed".

China will surpass USA in 2018.

No it wont. Just raw GDP is not the definitive measure.

China is still far far far behind US in terms of per-person-GDP and global influence. They just happen to have tons more people living there.

I'll put it to you this simple way: Americans are not moving to China looking for a better life lol.

 

[danielpalos]

This reminds me.

“Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes,” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay declared in March 2003

Is that why we are still in the Middle East? So we can cut taxes and waste our time=money?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I make a motion we only give the right wing credit for one percent growth in their budget projections.

 

[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

Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Trump.

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 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.

Beats, Hooverville, every time it comes up for election.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The federal government has no claim to perceived future tax increases, they should forget they're even available because they are not.

The right wing has only "worked hard enough" for credit for one percent growth in any budget projections.