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

[Flash]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?

Of course these greedy little Moon Bats really don't want to give the government any of their own money. They want somebody else to pay.

 

[bendog]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?

Of course these greedy little Moon Bats really don't want to give the government any of their own money. They want somebody else to pay.

Only be ending all taxation will we be able to tell what is truly a necessary govt function.

 

[meaner gene]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?
.

Look at Charlie Sheen, or Daryl Strawberry. How well did they spend their own money, and wouldn't it have been better spent by the government?

Just sayin' many people have more dollars than sense.

 

[Flash]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?
.

Look at Charlie Sheen, or Daryl Strawberry. How well did they spend their own money, and wouldn't it have been better spent by the government?

Just sayin' many people have more dollars than sense.

LOL! So you want a government bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups, deciding how to spend the money that you earned or do you want them to only decide how to spend Sheen's and Strawberry's money?

By the way, I bet both Sheen and Strawberry paid several order of magnitudes more in taxes over the years than you did.

This filthy ass combined Fed, State and Local government of ours is 40% of the GDP and that is too much and that is the reason why we have increasing poverty, decreasing family income, greater income disparity, tremendous debt and dismal economic growth.

 

[meaner gene]

LOL! So you want a government bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups, deciding how to spend the money that you earned?.

Better that than a government bureaucrat whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups deciding to send my ass off to some unwinable war, like vietnam.

Think about it. Your money or your life?

 

[healthmyths]

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

Right of course you are begging! People like you tend to be always looking for a handout especially from the taxpayers' pockets! Just confirmed it!

 

[healthmyths]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?
.

Look at Charlie Sheen, or Daryl Strawberry. How well did they spend their own money, and wouldn't it have been better spent by the government?

Just sayin' many people have more dollars than sense.

YOU are a very poor person from the sound of it.
You use two anecdotal examples and here let me share some FACTS NOT poor exceptions!

 

[Slade3200]

healthmyths, how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

 

[meaner gene]

You use two anecdotal examples and here let me share some FACTS NOT poor exceptions!

View attachment 149870

Maybe you need to adjust your figures for inflation.

It's like the old joke, a person is frozen, and wakes up in the future, and the first thing he does is check his portfolio. He goes to a telephone booth (I said it was an old joke) and calls his stock brokers company, and after a l records search, tells him his account is worth $100 million dollars.

The guy is speechless. Until the operator breaks in and tell him "please deposit $1 million for the next 10 minutes."

 

[meaner gene]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

 

[bendog]

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

Right of course you are begging! People like you tend to be always looking for a handout especially from the taxpayers' pockets! Just confirmed it!

Well, I was truly hoping you weren't as ignorant of economics as you are, see your post concerning interest rates in the Carter years as increasing inflation.

 

[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.

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

You're the one claiming that reducing taxes raises revenue. Personally, I think that notion has already been disproved. But, if you're correct, where is the sweet spot? How much can you cut taxes without adding to the deficit and debt?

 

[Slade3200]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

I'm just looking for their best guess so I can see how the idea would work in an economy of our size. I dont understand how somebody could start a thread on the subject using fake unrealistic numbers as their example and then avoid giving details and real projections when asked.

 

[bendog]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

I'm just looking for their best guess so I can see how the idea would work in an economy of our size. I dont understand how somebody could start a thread on the subject using fake unrealistic numbers as their example and then avoid giving details and real projections when asked.

They could have shit for brains. Jus sayin

 

[meaner gene]

You're the one claiming that reducing taxes raises revenue. Personally, I think that notion has already been disproved. But, if you're correct, where is the sweet spot? How much can you cut taxes without adding to the deficit and debt?

The Laffer curve shows that given the assumption that economic activity increases with a decreased tax burden, there is a point where decreasing taxes will increase revenue, and increasing taxes will decreast tax revenue. There are also points where increasing taxes will increase tax revenue, and decreasing taxes will decrease tax revenue.

The problem is knowing where we are on the curve. Where tax revenue is at a peak or a valley

The economics to determine that are more intertwined than predicting the weather.

 

[Flash]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

How dumb do you have to be to think that the stupid corrupt government is better at spending the money that you make rather than yourself?

 

[meaner gene]

How dumb do you have to be to think that the stupid corrupt government is better at spending the money that you make rather than yourself?

I would never spend my money finding a cure for cancer, but the government would.

Just sayin'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't it absolutely amazing that these stupid Moon Bat think that it is better for a bureaucrat to spend the money that they earn rather than they spend it themselves?

Of course these greedy little Moon Bats really don't want to give the government any of their own money. They want somebody else to pay.

Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If that was your intent, well done.

 

[NYcarbineer]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

How dumb do you have to be to think that the stupid corrupt government is better at spending the money that you make rather than yourself?

So what would a private military to defend the country look like?

 

[Slade3200]

how can you keep trying to give financial/economic ideas when you can't give a simple explanation of your own OP?! I've asked 12 times now for some simple numbers. How much of a tax reduction do you want to see and what will the resulting economic and wage growth be in your estimation? If you think that is an unfair question for me to ask then explain why you think it is unfair.

They have no idea. Laffer doesn't have any idea. They just want to try once more, what's already been tried and failed. It sounds insane, but that's just the way they think.

How dumb do you have to be to think that the stupid corrupt government is better at spending the money that you make rather than yourself?

I'm simply asking for a projected model of economic effects under the desired conditions that the OP is promoting. So far nobody can put down some real numbers for us to look at.