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

[Weatherman2020]

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

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

It would be better if Democrat enlightened you.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

Sorry Pal, that was before the don't tax and spend Republican Party put us into a 20 Trillion Dollar Hole. If you go to war, sell Bonds; if you want to build a Wall, sell bonds, if you want to cut the debt, cut the annual deficit to zero and don't spend my take dollars on boondoggles and tax cuts to Global Corporations.

Don't worry about the deficit.

NPR, PBS, National Endowment of the Arts, Food Stamps, Welfare, spending on sanctuary cities, etc will all be cut.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Republicans still don't understand that 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. They don't seem to understand what that means.
If Chinese labor at $173 a month was too expensive and so corporations like Fox-comm still automated, why do Republicans think they didn't automate here?

If they can't get an issue as simple as automation, why would they understand taxes? Something even more complex?

Yeah, that's why eliminating NAFTA makes you lefties cry. Nothing is made in Mexico.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

Correct, unemployment would go through the roof as most government workers would be out of a job; cops would be private security defending their private employer and private jails would deny basic health care and nutritious food leading to death sentences for even petty crimes. A perfect way to create a dystopian society.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans still don't understand that 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. They don't seem to understand what that means.
If Chinese labor at $173 a month was too expensive and so corporations like Fox-comm still automated, why do Republicans think they didn't automate here?

If they can't get an issue as simple as automation, why would they understand taxes? Something even more complex?

Yeah, that's why eliminating NAFTA makes you lefties cry. Nothing is made in Mexico.

Really, why are so many companies moving to Mexico? Tourism is an industry, as is agriculture and receiving parts to put together components installed in American made cars.

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

Dufus calls JFK a right winger!

Why not answer the question, and tell the reader that a cut in taxes will trickle down to the many, when the few put it to work (in the Cayman Islands).

It would be better if Democrat enlightened you.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

Sorry Pal, that was before the don't tax and spend Republican Party put us into a 20 Trillion Dollar Hole. If you go to war, sell Bonds; if you want to build a Wall, sell bonds, if you want to cut the debt, cut the annual deficit to zero and don't spend my take dollars on boondoggles and tax cuts to Global Corporations.

Don't worry about the deficit.

NPR, PBS, National Endowment of the Arts, Food Stamps, Welfare, spending on sanctuary cities, etc will all be cut.

Your ignorance on each of these bullet points ^^^ are amazing; the more you post, the dumber you seem to be.

 

[healthmyths]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

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%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

It just kills me that the graph he used as "proof" actually killed his argument before it even started, but he does not seem to know that.

How did it "kill" the argument?
A) TAX RECEIPTS DON"T GO UP every year!
GEEZ DIDN"T you read this chart?
Tax receipts went down Dummy in 2001, in 2002,in 2003,in 2004 AND WHY ?
THE EVENTS that happened directly AFFECTED JOBS and businesses!
Yet the population went up. Technology still existed. "social growth" what the f..k is that???

So right there you are so wrong!
In fact the chart I used showed the decline in receipts! Look at 2000 through 2004 DOWN not up or don't you know the difference???
B) Even your beloved Obama had 2016 decline in receipts and oh yea the population had increased but the idiot in office was killing businesses!
See you don't even know that in one business area alone Obamacare taxed an additional 10% on their revenue...
and this has drastically reduced that industry's revenue!

So again YOU are a dummy for stating my chart "killed" my argument!
View attachment 149209

Here is the chart you posted...View attachment 149220
In this chart there is no correlation at all between tax rate and tax receipts. The entire time the tax rate was 70% tax receipts went up. When the tax rate went up in 92 there was no drop in receipts, which would be the case if you were correct about the correlation between the two things.

That is why this chart kills your argument, it shows there is no correlation between the two things. The two drops due to the recessions do not have a corresponding increase, which would need to be the case for your theory of a connection between the two to be correct.

I hope that helps, if I need to I could draw it out in crayons for you.

YUP of course people as naive as you are think that oil tankers turn around on a dime. That an ocean liner can stop in 20 feet!
And I am 100% confident you blamed Bush for the 03/2001 Recession which was the date NBER declared the recession to have started!
Again recessions, like tax cuts, like tankers don't start the next day!!! It takes time! But idiots like you are like little kids....Wahh... I want my sucker NOW!!!
Economies are and I know you won't grasp this LIKE tankers/ocean liners.
Effects like tax reduction don't take affect right after the law is past!
For a great example... Bush's 2001 tax cut.. Congress enacted tax cuts to families in 2001 and investors in 2003.
They were supposed to expire at the end of 2010.
Are you really that naive to think "oh Bush bill passed in 2001 that means 2002 tax revenues dropped? Investors tax cuts didn't have an affect until 2005!

Well if you look closer at this chart... you see Bush tax cuts started in 2002 tax income. Which didn't get paid until 2003! Obviously you still don't understand!
LOOK at the events that ALSO occurred during the Bush tax cuts. Any events jump out as monumental losses of businesses, life, JOBS??? DUH????
So I hope you then understand that the year the bill is passed the next year the tax cuts don't go into effect until the year after and then when the tax bill is due it is paid!

 

[healthmyths]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

 

[AntonToo]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

....so given that, at what rate do you feel cutting income tax rates reduces revenues?

 

[healthmyths]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

....so given that, at what rate do you feel cutting income tax rates reduces revenues?

Well the first issue should be that the Federal Government be by LAW to operate as STATES do, i.e. be given a budget that matches the revenue.
Without that we have the mess we have now! And the only solution for now is some honest politicians recognize that expenditures like these are stupid!

Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
7. The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

 

[g5000]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

....so given that, at what rate do you feel cutting income tax rates reduces revenues?

Well the first issue should be that the Federal Government be by LAW to operate as STATES do, i.e. be given a budget that matches the revenue.

Try answering the question. It goes directly to YOUR topic.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

In your perfectly adequate, righty sense, would you say conservative economists understand economics?

You are 100% correct regarding "conservative economists"

GREAT! So let me quote them to you and you tell me what you know that they don't:

Alan Greenspan - Bush's Fed Reserve chairman and 2001 tax-cut supporter Alan Greenspan: Extending Bush Tax Cuts Without Paying For Them Could Be 'Disastrous' | HuffPost

“They do not,” said Greenspan on direct question of tax cuts paying for themselves.

"Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."

"in all tax cuts and all expenditure increases, I have held the position that we have to pay for them one way or another, or we're creating serious problems."


David Stockman - Reagan's budget director: Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt

...we're spending $3.8 trillion in defense, non-defense, entitlements, everything else, and we're taking in only 2.2 trillion. So we got a massive gap. You have to pay your bills; you can't keep borrowing from the rest of the world at that magnitude, year after year after year. So in light of all of those facts, I say we can't afford the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, there was a good idea that in certain circumstances, lower tax rates will encourage economic activity and savings. But when you make it a religion, when you make it a catechism and you say you cut taxes no matter what the circumstance, what the season, what the condition, then I think the whole idea has been perverted.

By getting off track over the last 30 years, the Republican Party has basically given up its historic view that the key thing was financial discipline, financial responsibility, and that we had to live within our means. Today, we have two free lunch parties and as a result, we're borrowing ourselves into grave danger with each passing month and year.


GREG MANKIW - Bush's Chair of Economic Advisors, architect of 2001 tax cuts Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

There are many reasons a person might favor tax cuts besides the belief that tax cuts are self-financing.

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

My...work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

So you concede that lowering taxes doesn't necessarily raise revenue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

You deny that anyone would suggest lowering taxes to zero?

So how did it happen that in a recent year 47% of American households paid no federal income tax?

 

[AntonToo]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

....so given that, at what rate do you feel cutting income tax rates reduces revenues?

Well the first issue should be that the Federal Government be by LAW to operate as STATES do, i.e. be given a budget that matches the revenue.
Without that we have the mess we have now! And the only solution for now is some honest politicians recognize that expenditures like these are stupid!

Stop wasting our time with deflections and just answer the straight to the point question:

You agree that at 1% tax rate Fed revenues will in fact crater. So yes you agree that there is a point at which tax cut reduces revenues - right?

All I'm asking from here is roughly what rate this inflection happens. At what rate do you think tax cuts reduce revenues, and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the state of Kansas recently offered a rather poignant refutation of the OP's claim.

 

[Slade3200]

They don't. If tax cuts could increase revenues we could cut taxes to zero and get unlimited revenue.

You truly are a dumb f...k! Even Jesus told people "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "
NOT ONE idiot would suggest NO Federal tax revenue! GEEZ... what dummy!

....so given that, at what rate do you feel cutting income tax rates reduces revenues?

He won't give you numbers. I've asked like 6 times now. #zeroRespect

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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%.

Not just population growth, there is also technological growth, social growth etc. That's why looking at revenue with respect to overall economic activity makes so much sense.

It just kills me that the graph he used as "proof" actually killed his argument before it even started, but he does not seem to know that.

How did it "kill" the argument?
A) TAX RECEIPTS DON"T GO UP every year!
GEEZ DIDN"T you read this chart?
Tax receipts went down Dummy in 2001, in 2002,in 2003,in 2004 AND WHY ?
THE EVENTS that happened directly AFFECTED JOBS and businesses!
Yet the population went up. Technology still existed. "social growth" what the f..k is that???

So right there you are so wrong!
In fact the chart I used showed the decline in receipts! Look at 2000 through 2004 DOWN not up or don't you know the difference???
B) Even your beloved Obama had 2016 decline in receipts and oh yea the population had increased but the idiot in office was killing businesses!
See you don't even know that in one business area alone Obamacare taxed an additional 10% on their revenue...
and this has drastically reduced that industry's revenue!

So again YOU are a dummy for stating my chart "killed" my argument!
View attachment 149209

Here is the chart you posted...View attachment 149220
In this chart there is no correlation at all between tax rate and tax receipts. The entire time the tax rate was 70% tax receipts went up. When the tax rate went up in 92 there was no drop in receipts, which would be the case if you were correct about the correlation between the two things.

That is why this chart kills your argument, it shows there is no correlation between the two things. The two drops due to the recessions do not have a corresponding increase, which would need to be the case for your theory of a connection between the two to be correct.

I hope that helps, if I need to I could draw it out in crayons for you.

YUP of course people as naive as you are think that oil tankers turn around on a dime. That an ocean liner can stop in 20 feet!
And I am 100% confident you blamed Bush for the 03/2001 Recession which was the date NBER declared the recession to have started!
Again recessions, like tax cuts, like tankers don't start the next day!!! It takes time! But idiots like you are like little kids....Wahh... I want my sucker NOW!!!
Economies are and I know you won't grasp this LIKE tankers/ocean liners.
Effects like tax reduction don't take affect right after the law is past!
For a great example... Bush's 2001 tax cut.. Congress enacted tax cuts to families in 2001 and investors in 2003.
They were supposed to expire at the end of 2010.
Are you really that naive to think "oh Bush bill passed in 2001 that means 2002 tax revenues dropped? Investors tax cuts didn't have an affect until 2005!

Well if you look closer at this chart... you see Bush tax cuts started in 2002 tax income. Which didn't get paid until 2003! Obviously you still don't understand!
LOOK at the events that ALSO occurred during the Bush tax cuts. Any events jump out as monumental losses of businesses, life, JOBS??? DUH????
So I hope you then understand that the year the bill is passed the next year the tax cuts don't go into effect until the year after and then when the tax bill is due it is paid!

View attachment 149232

One more time, this time I will type really slow and see if that helps.
The graph you posted in your OP shows no correlation between tax rate and tax receipts. NONE/NADA/ZILCH/ZERO. If it were about a delayed reaction then you graph would still show a correlation just shifted to the right, but it does not do that.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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 **who** pays **pay blue collars **blue-collar** 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 **any** revenue at all. It is because they are hiring foreign intelligence (whom **who** 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.

Both Statists and Selfists Must Be Banned

The prostitute will buy drugs, sending much of the money out of the country and the rest to a pusher, who won't pay taxes on it. And what about the rich who export our money on foreign vacations, foreign cars, and foreign glitter? Once again, every single thing you RWNJs preach about government spending could be said about plutocracy spending.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Anti-Populists Only Oppose Left-Handed Tyrants

Both the Left and the Right are led by richkids, a class that has no right to exist.

 

[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 **who** pays **pay blue collars **blue-collar** 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 **any** revenue at all. It is because they are hiring foreign intelligence (whom **who** 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.

Both Statists and Selfists Must Be Banned

The prostitute will buy drugs, sending much of the money out of the country and the rest to a pusher, who won't pay taxes on it. And what about the rich who export our money on foreign vacations, foreign cars, and foreign glitter? Once again, every single thing you RWNJs preach about government spending could be said about plutocracy spending.

The pusher buys gold necklaces (Gold ropes around their necks), that is helping to bring the value of gold up. And then the pusher will buy basketball player's endorsed tennis shoes that matches with their lime green tuxedo wearing a ball cap.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What Goes Around Comes Around

The ruling class, which controls the entire specious spectrum, will fall because it only hires no-talent brownnoses to service and defend it. Its sons will pay dearly.