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

[Slade3200]

healthmyths im still waiting for some real numbers from your "simple" math model. What is your prediction for how the numbers will play out at a reduced tax rate? I'd like to see the realistic kind of growth that you think will result in this change.

I'll make it easy for you so you can just fill in the blanks...

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =
Last fiscal years GDP =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =
Predicted GDP =

Lets see what you got

No

healthmyths im still waiting for some real numbers from your "simple" math model. What is your prediction for how the numbers will play out at a reduced tax rate? I'd like to see the realistic kind of growth that you think will result in this change.

I'll make it easy for you so you can just fill in the blanks...

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =
Last fiscal years GDP =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =
Predicted GDP =

Lets see what you got

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing! Besides GUESS WHAT MAKES UP the GDP???
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! So if you really want to measure GDP accurately TAKE AWAY Federal REVENUES because THAT adds to the GDP.
So consequently your "MATH" is flawed!

cool, take GDP out of it and answer the question.

 

[g5000]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

Wow.

Just....wow.

That's almost sig worthy.

You can't fight with this level of stupidity. Don't even bother.

 

[danielpalos]

healthmyths im still waiting for some real numbers from your "simple" math model. What is your prediction for how the numbers will play out at a reduced tax rate? I'd like to see the realistic kind of growth that you think will result in this change.

I'll make it easy for you so you can just fill in the blanks...

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =
Last fiscal years GDP =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =
Predicted GDP =

Lets see what you got

It only works in a vacuum of special pleading.

The right wing prefers fantasy to fiscal conservatism when dealing with the budget, not social programs, specifically.

One percent growth should be all the credit allowed to the right wing.

He can ignore me all he wants I'm gonna keep asking him to back up is OP. If we want to have a real discussion about a plan then lets look at real numbers not arbitrary numbers of 90% tax rates and doubling of income. Put real rates and real income in the equation and then make realist predictions of growth and lets take a look.

One percent growth should be all the credit allowed to the right wing, for budget projections.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left use tax increases to PUNISH their enemies, not to increase revenue. So you can argue that tax cuts increase revenue until you are blue in the face they don't care.

The right builds for-profit prisons.

The left is learning how to merely use capital for all of its worth in modern times.

Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of, "public sector means of production" that defray the cost of government.

Better (hydro-power generating) aqueducts and better (solar power generating) roads, along with more, well regulated militia, is always an answer.

If anyone even attempted to build a dam and hydroelectric power plant today the left would file 100 lawsuits and protest it daily.

aqueducts are not dams. we should be able to move water from one point of the US to another to solve for droughts and flooding.

The left proposed diverting the Columbia river dividing Oregon and Washington several hundred miles south to California.

 

[Slade3200]

healthmyths im still waiting for some real numbers from your "simple" math model. What is your prediction for how the numbers will play out at a reduced tax rate? I'd like to see the realistic kind of growth that you think will result in this change.

I'll make it easy for you so you can just fill in the blanks...

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =
Last fiscal years GDP =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =
Predicted GDP =

Lets see what you got

No

healthmyths im still waiting for some real numbers from your "simple" math model. What is your prediction for how the numbers will play out at a reduced tax rate? I'd like to see the realistic kind of growth that you think will result in this change.

I'll make it easy for you so you can just fill in the blanks...

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =
Last fiscal years GDP =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =
Predicted GDP =

Lets see what you got

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing! Besides GUESS WHAT MAKES UP the GDP???
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! So if you really want to measure GDP accurately TAKE AWAY Federal REVENUES because THAT adds to the GDP.
So consequently your "MATH" is flawed!

cool, take GDP out of it and answer the question.

Here you go healthmyths ... Fill in the blanks and lets see what you got?

Last fiscal years tax rate = %
Last fiscal years taxable income =
Last fiscal years tax revenue =

Now Healthmyths predictions:

Desired tax rate = %
Predicted taxable income =
Predicted tax revenue =

 

[danielpalos]

The left use tax increases to PUNISH their enemies, not to increase revenue. So you can argue that tax cuts increase revenue until you are blue in the face they don't care.

The right builds for-profit prisons.

The left is learning how to merely use capital for all of its worth in modern times.

Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of, "public sector means of production" that defray the cost of government.

Better (hydro-power generating) aqueducts and better (solar power generating) roads, along with more, well regulated militia, is always an answer.

If anyone even attempted to build a dam and hydroelectric power plant today the left would file 100 lawsuits and protest it daily.

aqueducts are not dams. we should be able to move water from one point of the US to another to solve for droughts and flooding.

The left proposed diverting the Columbia river dividing Oregon and Washington several hundred miles south to California.

California has been increasing our wetlands to increase our watershed. And, California already has an aqueduct that could be upgraded to generate more hydro-power.

 

[RealDave]

Cutting taxes for those who will spend the savings helps the economy.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy is not as effective because the wealthy will not spend it.

Cutting corporate taxes swill not create jobs or investment in growth. Both of those things are tax deductible either directly or through depreciation.

Currently a corp paying the top rate looks at money spent on new employees or buildings, etc writes those expenses off of 35% value.

Drop the tax rate to 15% like El Cheeto wants & those new employees & investments only save them 15%. Expect fewer new hires & less expansion.

Corpotations hire people when they have work that needs done. The have more work to do when their sales improve. The sales improve when people have more money to spend. Tax break for people, not corporations.

 

[danielpalos]

Some form of recourse to an income is necessary and proper, in our First World political-economy.

 

[BluesLegend]

Cutting taxes for those who will spend the savings helps the economy.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy is not as effective because the wealthy will not spend it.

Cutting corporate taxes swill not create jobs or investment in growth. Both of those things are tax deductible either directly or through depreciation.

Currently a corp paying the top rate looks at money spent on new employees or buildings, etc writes those expenses off of 35% value.

Drop the tax rate to 15% like El Cheeto wants & those new employees & investments only save them 15%. Expect fewer new hires & less expansion.

Corpotations hire people when they have work that needs done. The have more work to do when their sales improve. The sales improve when people have more money to spend. Tax break for people, not corporations.

^^^ Another liberal drone taught to hate the wealthy and corporations, they know not why they just obey blindly. Lets score this post, wishful thinking, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

 

[Tax Man]

One columnists view of
Sunday JULY 18 2010
BAY AREA NEWS GROUP
Voodoo economics ignores facts
By Paul Krugman
Republicans are feeling good about the midterms - so good that they've started saying what they really think. Last week the party's Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can't afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.
And that's one reason - there are others - why you should fear the consequences if the GOP actually does as well in November as it hopes.
For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official GOP response to President Barack Obama's weekly radio address, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, "one of the most dangerous threats con
fronting America today." He went on, "At some point, we have to say 'enough is enough."'
But this past Monday, Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: If deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?
His answer was breathtaking: "You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn't count.
The next day, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, confirmed that Kyl was giving the official party line: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."
Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth and stagnant family incomes; "vibrant" isn't one of them. But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.
It's not true, of course. President Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits,
then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When President Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.
But we're talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it's not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: No matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back.
Why should this scare you? On paper, solving America's long-run
fiscal problems is eminently doable: Stronger cost control for Medicare plus a moderate rise in taxes would get us most of the way there. And the perception that the deficit is manageable has helped keep U.S. borrowing costs low.
But if politicians who insist that the way to reduce deficits is to cut taxes, not raise them, start winning elections again, how much faith can anyone have that we'll do what needs to be done? Yes, we can have a fiscal crisis. But if we do, it won't be because we've spent too much trying to create jobs and help the unemployed. It will be because investors have looked at our politics and concluded, with justification, that we've turned into a banana republic.
We really should thank Kyl and McConnell for their sudden outbursts of candor. They've now made it clear that their previous posturing on the deficit was entirely hypocritical. They won't try to reduce the deficit - they'll try to make it explode by demanding even more budget-busting tax cuts.
Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Clinton raised taxes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom.
PAUL KRUGMAN is a columnist for The New York Times.

 

[AntonToo]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

GDP is the measure of economic activity. Taxes are levied ON economic activity. More GDP, more revenues at same tax rate.

Revenues as a % of GDP is the yardstick of Revenue comparison because it has built-in economic growth and inflation adjustment.

Read up
Relationship Between GDP and Tax Revenue - GetMoneyRich.com

 

[Aletheia4u]

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

Tax cuts on the middle class will help small businesses to stay in business. The money that they will keep, will still stay in the system. Even if they buy a prostitute, that the prostitute will take it to the liquor store. And the liquor store owner will be able to buy more liquor from big liquor corporations, whom pays blue collars employees. But the money will not go where the government wants it to go. Like to fund intelligence agencies to spy on us and which that doesn't bring in no revenue at all. It is because they are hiring foreign intelligence (whom hires private contractors), like Canada or Norway agencies that are receiving the money. The only complaints when giving cuts to the people, are the government. They need the money so that they can make money for themselves.

 

[healthmyths]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

GDP is the measure of economic activity. Taxes are levied ON economic activity. More GDP, more revenues at same tax rate.

Revenues as a % of GDP is the yardstick of Revenue comparison because it has built-in economic growth and inflation adjustment.

Read up
Relationship Between GDP and Tax Revenue - GetMoneyRich.com

HEY Dummy... WHICH CAME FIRST... economic activity or GDP????
GDP is a MEASURE of economic activity!
Federal government REVENUE comes from ECONOMIC activity NOT from anything the government creates, sells and earns revenue!
So take out of the GDP a MEASURE of economic activity Federal revenue and then tell me tax cuts don't help!
BECAUSE TAXES are based on economic activity that creates MORE revenue then is spent on labor/capital. Federal revenue comes AFTER economic activity
has paid labor/capital expenses. So you can't count Federal revenue as part of GDP because it is left over from economic activity which is then measured by GDP!
Dummy!

 

[AntonToo]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

GDP is the measure of economic activity. Taxes are levied ON economic activity. More GDP, more revenues at same tax rate.

Revenues as a % of GDP is the yardstick of Revenue comparison because it has built-in economic growth and inflation adjustment.

Read up
Relationship Between GDP and Tax Revenue - GetMoneyRich.com

HEY Dummy... WHICH CAME FIRST... economic activity or GDP????

Idiot, GDP IS A VIEW OF THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

Saying that there is sequence to these concepts is like asking "what came first, chicken or it's length?"

 

[Slade3200]

WHAT the f...k does GDP have anything to do with revenue, taxes etc? NOT a damn thing!

GDP is the measure of economic activity. Taxes are levied ON economic activity. More GDP, more revenues at same tax rate.

Revenues as a % of GDP is the yardstick of Revenue comparison because it has built-in economic growth and inflation adjustment.

Read up
Relationship Between GDP and Tax Revenue - GetMoneyRich.com

HEY Dummy... WHICH CAME FIRST... economic activity or GDP????
GDP is a MEASURE of economic activity!
Federal government REVENUE comes from ECONOMIC activity NOT from anything the government creates, sells and earns revenue!
So take out of the GDP a MEASURE of economic activity Federal revenue and then tell me tax cuts don't help!
BECAUSE TAXES are based on economic activity that creates MORE revenue then is spent on labor/capital. Federal revenue comes AFTER economic activity
has paid labor/capital expenses. So you can't count Federal revenue as part of GDP because it is left over from economic activity which is then measured by GDP!
Dummy!View attachment 149168

You ever going to give us numbers? Ive asked like 4 times now. Come on man back up your argument with something practical

 

[AntonToo]

Federal government REVENUE comes from ECONOMIC activity NOT from anything the government creates, sells and earns revenue!

This is again total nonsense. Both private and public economic activity is taxed.

For a direct example government contractors still pay taxes, as do public employees.

There are also secondary, indirect examples like food stamps spent become taxable business revenues and salaries.

 

[AntonToo]

So you can't count Federal revenue as part of GDP because it is left over from economic activity which is then measured by GDP!

Revenues are not a part of GDP, it's not in itself economic activity GDP measures.

 

[Timmy]

Didn't Kansas try tax cut theory only to miserably fail?

 

[toobfreak]

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

Look, if the Left had half the sense needed to understand basic economics, they'd be too smart to be Leftists in the first place.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

math or data analysis is not really your thing, is it?

If your chart does anything it is prove there is no correlation between the two. Tax receipts go up because every year there are more people paying taxes, that is what is known as population growth. You will notice that tax receipts were going up the entire time the rate was 70%.