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

[healthmyths]

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.

AND YOU provided NO FACTS to support YOUR statement!
I am! MY FACTS!!! YOUR guesses!!!
READ the following and follow the link:

In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — t
hat his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

So where are YOUR FACTS??? YOU have not substantiated ONE of your personal subjective comments! Prove to me!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

 

[danielpalos]

The reason why it is so hard to understand that tax cuts increases tax revenues is because, for the most part, it doesn't happen.

It's like trying to understand why things don't fall up and why the sun doesn't rise in the west.

Tax cuts raising revenues is a religion amongst the hacks that believe it, for the most part.

Just right wing fantasy and then they want to apply their, "imaginary numbers" for budget purposes. They only deserve, one percent growth rate in any budget projections.

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

I am going to shout! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? YOUR LINKS? YOUR PROOF?
HERE ARE MY FACTS!

READ the following and follow the link:
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

I am going to shout! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? YOUR LINKS? YOUR PROOF?
HERE ARE MY FACTS!

READ the following and follow the link:
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Dude, it is a self-evident Truth, that if lowering taxes did what the right wing claims, we would have federal budget surpluses instead of massive federal debt. It is probably, just too cognitively sonant, for the right wing; cognitive dissonance, is what they "love the most".

 

[healthmyths]

The reason why it is so hard to understand that tax cuts increases tax revenues is because, for the most part, it doesn't happen.

It's like trying to understand why things don't fall up and why the sun doesn't rise in the west.

Tax cuts raising revenues is a religion amongst the hacks that believe it, for the most part.

Just right wing fantasy and then they want to apply their, "imaginary numbers" for budget purposes. They only deserve, one percent growth rate in any budget projections.

See the problem with people like you is you have NO ambition. No interests. Nothing to provide you any incentive. Obviously your whole life is built on
envy. On jealousy of people that have striven more to accomplish more and as a result you are so envious you have to tear down. That is the only thing people
of your ilk are good at. Destroying things. Like these people you are NOT constructive members of society but DESTRUCTIVE!

 

[AntonToo]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

I am going to shout! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? YOUR LINKS? YOUR PROOF?
HERE ARE MY FACTS!

READ the following and follow the link:
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

The Reagan recession began in July of 1980 six months after Reagan took office.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

As your chart shows the biggest upward spike in revenues occurred AFTER Bill Clinton's infamous tax INCREASE in 1993.

 

[AntonToo]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

As your chart shows the biggest upward spike in revenues occurred AFTER Bill Clinton's infamous tax INCREASE in 1993.

Yep and the biggest downward spikes after Bush's tax-cuts.

Reagan also significantly raised payroll taxes in 1983. When you exclude those there was only 20% real revenue growth, well behind GDP growth.

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

I am going to shout! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? YOUR LINKS? YOUR PROOF?
HERE ARE MY FACTS!

READ the following and follow the link:
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

The Reagan recession began in July of 1980 six months after Reagan took office.

Of course it did! That is the Official date just like your birth date right? But YOU were conceived 9 months earlier. Or maybe not!
Recessions are not like light switches. Turn on and off.
Here again is what Reagan faced:
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Now any I mean ANY dummy should comprehend that when faced with 21.5% prime interest rate..US bond 16% the costs of everything goes sky-high!
Then add to that inflation of 12.4% does that NOT have a bearing on the cost of goods, services,etc. even the government had to pay "inflated" prices!
Finally unemployment worst outside of the depression at 10.8% ! Wow I guess YOU don't comprehend that payroll taxes are counted as part of Federal receipts!
SO here is a fundamental economic session for you!
A) If more people don't WORK... they don't get a pay check. Hmmm makes sense so far.
B) If they don't get a paycheck then
1) There is nothing to withhold for income taxes.
2) There is no payroll taxes i.e. SS/Medicare paid by the employee PLUS here is the one ignorant people like you forget!
3) THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T PAY THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF PAYROLL TAXES AS EMPLOYEE! Something obviously you never knew did you?

So if more people are not getting paychecks that means less money coming in AND because of our unemployment benefit MORE money going out by the government in unemployment checks.
Verification: he Department of Labor's Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs provide unemployment benefits to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.The following resources provide information about who is eligible for these benefits and how to file a claim.Unemployment Insurance

So you really completely ignorant dummies!
Reagan not only had extremely inflated costs of the Federal government i.e. interest @ 16%... inflation on goods/services paid by government , but
LoWER tax revenue due to fewer people working to pay income and payroll taxes!

All factors truly dumb people don't consider!
WAKE up and recognize the FACTS!

 

[healthmyths]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

AND as I keep repeating...over and over again... you people just don't understand THE REAL world of economics!
Get out of the clouds and down to earth!

I'm going to repeat for your benefit exactly what happened during Reagan's terms.
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Now any I mean ANY dummy should comprehend that when faced with 21.5% prime interest rate..US bond 16% the costs of everything goes sky-high!
Then add to that inflation of 12.4% does that NOT have a bearing on the cost of goods, services,etc. even the government had to pay "inflated" prices!
Finally unemployment worst outside of the depression at 10.8% ! Wow I guess YOU don't comprehend that payroll taxes are counted as part of Federal receipts!
SO here is a fundamental economic session for you!
A) If more people don't WORK... they don't get a pay check. Hmmm makes sense so far.
B) If they don't get a paycheck then
1) There is nothing to withhold for income taxes.
2) There is no payroll taxes i.e. SS/Medicare paid by the employee PLUS here is the one ignorant people like you forget!
3) THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T PAY THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF PAYROLL TAXES AS EMPLOYEE! Something obviously you never knew did you?

So if more people are not getting paychecks that means less money coming in AND because of our unemployment benefit MORE money going out by the government in unemployment checks.
Verification: he Department of Labor's Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs provide unemployment benefits to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.The following resources provide information about who is eligible for these benefits and how to file a claim.Unemployment Insurance

So you really completely ignorant dummies!
Reagan not only had extremely inflated costs of the Federal government i.e. interest @ 16%... inflation on goods/services paid by government , but
LoWER tax revenue due to fewer people working to pay income and payroll taxes!

All factors truly dumb people don't consider!
WAKE up and recognize the FACTS!

 

[AntonToo]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

AND as I keep repeating...over and over again... you people just don't understand THE REAL world of economics!
Get out of the clouds and down to earth!

I'm going to repeat for your benefit exactly what happened during Reagan's terms.
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Does Greenspan understand real world economics?
Does Reagan's budget director Stockman understand real world economics?
Does Bush's chair of economic advisers understand real world economics?

How is it that you tax-cut fetishists can't even convince these conservative economists and people that love them tax-cuts?

You throw numbers around BUT YOU GOT NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Prime rate was high to TAME INFLATION, which was the economic ill of the time, it was a policy administered by Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who's objectives Reagan agreed with and kept in place after Carter.

Read up
Paul Volcker - Wikipedia

 

[healthmyths]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

AND as I keep repeating...over and over again... you people just don't understand THE REAL world of economics!
Get out of the clouds and down to earth!

I'm going to repeat for your benefit exactly what happened during Reagan's terms.
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Does Greenspan understand real world economics?
Does Reagan's budget director Stockman understand real world economics?
Does Bush's chair of economic advisers understand real world economics?

How is it that you tax-cut fetishists can't even convince these conservative economists and people that love them tax-cuts?

You throw numbers around BUT YOU GOT NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Prime rate was high to TAME INFLATION, which was the economic ill of the time, it was a policy administered by Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who's objectives Reagan agreed with and kept in place after Carter.

Read up
Paul Volcker - Wikipedia

I throw numbers around???

It matters little why under CARTER the prime rate went up it did! And that had an direct affect on government spending!
Inflation had a direct affect as did unemployment!
Yea... tell me about "Greenspan" who's wife is an ABC reporter that is so left wing biased! Andrea Mitchell
Greenspan is as liberal as you can get as is Stockman!

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

Theres nothing to tax... the country is broke.

 

[Rustic]

The private sector is the only hope this country has fiscally, punishing people for success makes no sense. The last thing we need is more big government, making frivolous laws and regulations.

 

[AntonToo]

And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).

Inflation adjustment? NICE! Keep going because now that you are done adjusting for inflation you have to adjust for economic growth.

As % of GDP revenues were down even after Reagan's tax raises.

AND as I keep repeating...over and over again... you people just don't understand THE REAL world of economics!
Get out of the clouds and down to earth!

I'm going to repeat for your benefit exactly what happened during Reagan's terms.
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Does Greenspan understand real world economics?
Does Reagan's budget director Stockman understand real world economics?
Does Bush's chair of economic advisers understand real world economics?

How is it that you tax-cut fetishists can't even convince these conservative economists and people that love them tax-cuts?

You throw numbers around BUT YOU GOT NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Prime rate was high to TAME INFLATION, which was the economic ill of the time, it was a policy administered by Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who's objectives Reagan agreed with and kept in place after Carter.

Read up
Paul Volcker - Wikipedia

I throw numbers around???

It matters little why under CARTER the prime rate went up it did! And that had an direct affect on government spending!
Inflation had a direct affect as did unemployment!
Yea... tell me about "Greenspan" who's wife is an ABC reporter that is so left wing biased! Andrea Mitchell
Greenspan is as liberal as you can get as is Stockman!

Yes, you.

The point was that Reagan AGREED with Carter's appointee in using high interest rates to tame inflation and then gradually decreasing them back down.

All these are MONETARY POLICY concerns only tangentially connected to FISCAL POLICY like tax-cuts. Spending under Reagan went up in REAL terms that already account for inflation.

Reagan also increased taxes after initial cuts - is Reagan also too liberal to understand "real world economics"?

 

[Slade3200]

Hey healthmyths Where are those numbers?

 

[HenryBHough]

Tax any product sufficiently and it will disappear from the market.

Tax any activity sufficiently and it will cease.


OR

A black market will develop in untaxed product.

Activity will shift to "off the books".


Either way the tax take is lower or just goes away entirely.

 

[bendog]

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.

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing makes that fantastical claim. Taxing the rich into Heaven is both moral and can lead to federal budget surpluses. Lowering taxes only increases the debt because the right wing is so cognitively dissonant regarding "big government".

I am going to shout! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? YOUR LINKS? YOUR PROOF?
HERE ARE MY FACTS!

READ the following and follow the link:
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers.
Solid supporting evidence came during the Reagan years. President Ronald Reagan adopted the Laffer Curve message, telling Americans that when 70 to 80 cents of an extra dollar earned goes to the government, it’s understandable that people wonder: Why keep working? He recalled that as an actor in Hollywood, he would stop making movies in a given year once he hit Uncle Sam’s confiscatory tax rates.
When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (
Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.)
And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 —
close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation).
Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Reagan’s tax policy, and the slaying of double-digit inflation rates, helped launch one of the longest and strongest periods of prosperity in American history. Between 1982 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average would surge to 11,000 from less than 800; the nation’s net worth would quadruple, to $44 trillion from $11 trillion; and the United States would produce nearly 40 million new jobs.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

NOW my comments on top of that!
A) Here is what Reagan and the Laffer Curve had to contend with!
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

The Reagan recession began in July of 1980 six months after Reagan took office.

Of course it did! That is the Official date just like your birth date right? But YOU were conceived 9 months earlier. Or maybe not!
Recessions are not like light switches. Turn on and off.
Here again is what Reagan faced:
1) Under Carter...the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. (one year US interest rate: 16% in 1980!)
2) Due to Carter...Unemployment rate 10.8% 11/82 (Remember children.. an oil tanker doesn't stop in 50 feet, nor does unemployment suddenly stop!) It takes time!
3) Under Carter...Inflation went to 12.4% in 1980...
These three economic DRAGS would have put the USA into a DEPRESSION!
No president has ever faced these three economic challenges in the double digits! Prime rate: 21.5%... Inflation 12.4% Unemployment 10.8%!

Now any I mean ANY dummy should comprehend that when faced with 21.5% prime interest rate..US bond 16% the costs of everything goes sky-high!
Then add to that inflation of 12.4% does that NOT have a bearing on the cost of goods, services,etc. even the government had to pay "inflated" prices!
Finally unemployment worst outside of the depression at 10.8% ! Wow I guess YOU don't comprehend that payroll taxes are counted as part of Federal receipts!
SO here is a fundamental economic session for you!
A) If more people don't WORK... they don't get a pay check. Hmmm makes sense so far.
B) If they don't get a paycheck then
1) There is nothing to withhold for income taxes.
2) There is no payroll taxes i.e. SS/Medicare paid by the employee PLUS here is the one ignorant people like you forget!
3) THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T PAY THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF PAYROLL TAXES AS EMPLOYEE! Something obviously you never knew did you?

So if more people are not getting paychecks that means less money coming in AND because of our unemployment benefit MORE money going out by the government in unemployment checks.
Verification: he Department of Labor's Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs provide unemployment benefits to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.The following resources provide information about who is eligible for these benefits and how to file a claim.Unemployment Insurance

So you really completely ignorant dummies!
Reagan not only had extremely inflated costs of the Federal government i.e. interest @ 16%... inflation on goods/services paid by government , but
LoWER tax revenue due to fewer people working to pay income and payroll taxes!

All factors truly dumb people don't consider!
WAKE up and recognize the FACTS!

You're a parody poster, right? Please, I'm begging you here