Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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
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.
Well one thing for sure of all the previous Presidents and possibly all the future Presidents Trump has over his 30+ years as a businessman been taxed and paid more than all of them! Remember the "exposed" IRS that Maddow so excitedly produced on Trump's 2005 tax return?Trump's tax plan, to the extent anyone can figure it out, will assuredly put more American households into the no income tax category.
How much more revenue will that produce?
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
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.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
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.
What an absolutely stupid comment!
How much f...king money do you think "prostitutes" buy drugs? And sending out of the country? Geez the stupidity of people using exaggerated examples!
And NOT one of us RW??? preach buying drugs/prostitutes! Idiots like you do.
AND what about the rich exporting money? Are you truly that ignorant of how people spend their billions?
You know, you sure do blather a lot while avoiding answering the questions which go to the claim you made in your OP and your topic title.Well one thing for sure of all the previous Presidents and possibly all the future Presidents Trump has over his 30+ years as a businessman been taxed and paid more than all of them! Remember the "exposed" IRS that Maddow so excitedly produced on Trump's 2005 tax return?Trump's tax plan, to the extent anyone can figure it out, will assuredly put more American households into the no income tax category.
How much more revenue will that produce?
Maddow's show echoed the White House statement, saying that Trump had paid $38 million in taxes that year, and that he had taken a large write-down of $103 million. In total, Trump made more than $150 million in income that year, according to the show.
Notably, those documents indicate that Trump's effective income tax rate was about 25 percent — much higher than former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's much-pilloried 14 percent. Donald Trump 2005 federal tax information revealed on 'The Rachel Maddow Show'
Vs.. the "God"...
Today, the President released his 2015 federal income tax returns. The President and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $436,065. The Obamas paid $81,472 in total tax. The President’s effective federal income tax rate is 18.7 percent.
The President and First Lady also reported donating $64,066 – or about 14.7 percent of their adjusted gross income – to 34 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $9,066 to the Fisher House Foundation.
You know, you sure do blather a lot while avoiding answering the questions which go to the claim you made in your OP and your topic title.Well one thing for sure of all the previous Presidents and possibly all the future Presidents Trump has over his 30+ years as a businessman been taxed and paid more than all of them! Remember the "exposed" IRS that Maddow so excitedly produced on Trump's 2005 tax return?Trump's tax plan, to the extent anyone can figure it out, will assuredly put more American households into the no income tax category.
How much more revenue will that produce?
Maddow's show echoed the White House statement, saying that Trump had paid $38 million in taxes that year, and that he had taken a large write-down of $103 million. In total, Trump made more than $150 million in income that year, according to the show.
Notably, those documents indicate that Trump's effective income tax rate was about 25 percent — much higher than former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's much-pilloried 14 percent. Donald Trump 2005 federal tax information revealed on 'The Rachel Maddow Show'
Vs.. the "God"...
Today, the President released his 2015 federal income tax returns. The President and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $436,065. The Obamas paid $81,472 in total tax. The President’s effective federal income tax rate is 18.7 percent.
The President and First Lady also reported donating $64,066 – or about 14.7 percent of their adjusted gross income – to 34 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $9,066 to the Fisher House Foundation.
You've made a lot of really ignorant and stupid statements all through this topic.
You've derailed your own topic to cover up your ignorance, and your claim has been obliterated.
I hope the next time your propaganda masters hand you a cup of piss about tax cuts increasing revenues that you don't chug it down and regurgitate it again like a rube who never engages a single brain cell in critical thinking before blindly parroting the people pulling your strings.
Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
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
OK... growth revenue population growth. So all those people don't spend any money which grew the economy which increased revenues. Wow... what a concept! population growth spent everything on taxes. That's the only attribution. Of course spending increased and I for one totally decry federal government spending on non-defense of country issues! I mean that is a given! The point is even Arthur Laffer says there is a point where taxes must be paid... but not 90%!Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.
I've asked you about 8 times to give numbers and you've ignored the request. I know you like being Mr Neighsayer, so I understand why you want to turn the discussion into fact checking my statements. So for now I'll retract any statement I've made about economic data and let you provide your own sources and ideas.Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
And I"VE asked YOU to prove to me with links not your guesses regarding "EFFECTIVE tax rate! Where have you gotten that figure?I've asked you about 8 times to give numbers and you've ignored the request. I know you like being Mr Neighsayer, so I understand why you want to turn the discussion into fact checking my statements. So for now I'll retract any statement I've made about economic data and let you provide your own sources and ideas.Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
So for the 9th time.
What is the desired tax reduction that you want to see and what is the resulting growth that you think it will produce?
And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!OK... growth revenue population growth. So all those people don't spend any money which grew the economy which increased revenues. Wow... what a concept! population growth spent everything on taxes. That's the only attribution. Of course spending increased and I for one totally decry federal government spending on non-defense of country issues! I mean that is a given! The point is even Arthur Laffer says there is a point where taxes must be paid... but not 90%!Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.
The laffer curve is an economic joke.
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
Does this graph explain current day Kansas and the great tax cutting experience?
Also, President Clinton raised taxes of the top wage earners in 1993. Can you point to that spot on the graph and go hmmmmm....
Wow, going all in on the deflection I see. I retracted that statement because I want you to answer a question I've asked 10 times now. Give me an answer and then we can talk about the numbersAnd I"VE asked YOU to prove to me with links not your guesses regarding "EFFECTIVE tax rate! Where have you gotten that figure?I've asked you about 8 times to give numbers and you've ignored the request. I know you like being Mr Neighsayer, so I understand why you want to turn the discussion into fact checking my statements. So for now I'll retract any statement I've made about economic data and let you provide your own sources and ideas.Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
So for the 9th time.
What is the desired tax reduction that you want to see and what is the resulting growth that you think it will produce?
And of course I want a FACT checking YOUR statements because YOU are the one lipping off about "13.5%"!
Where is your proof?
Wow, going all in on the deflection I see. I retracted that statement because I want you to answer a question I've asked 10 times now. Give me an answer and then we can talk about the numbersAnd I"VE asked YOU to prove to me with links not your guesses regarding "EFFECTIVE tax rate! Where have you gotten that figure?I've asked you about 8 times to give numbers and you've ignored the request. I know you like being Mr Neighsayer, so I understand why you want to turn the discussion into fact checking my statements. So for now I'll retract any statement I've made about economic data and let you provide your own sources and ideas.Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
So for the 9th time.
What is the desired tax reduction that you want to see and what is the resulting growth that you think it will produce?
And of course I want a FACT checking YOUR statements because YOU are the one lipping off about "13.5%"!
Where is your proof?
Yeah, pretty amazing. I'm actually open minded to his idea but I want to see the forecast and talk about actual substance. I'm not trying to trap him, but if he is going to make the claim that he did in the OP then i'd think he would be wanting to analyze it, discuss it, explain it, and back it up. Pretty amazing that he deflects everything that tries to dig in.Wow, going all in on the deflection I see. I retracted that statement because I want you to answer a question I've asked 10 times now. Give me an answer and then we can talk about the numbersAnd I"VE asked YOU to prove to me with links not your guesses regarding "EFFECTIVE tax rate! Where have you gotten that figure?I've asked you about 8 times to give numbers and you've ignored the request. I know you like being Mr Neighsayer, so I understand why you want to turn the discussion into fact checking my statements. So for now I'll retract any statement I've made about economic data and let you provide your own sources and ideas.Don't believe anything you write. Give me a source! Until then your comment is unsubstantiated!healthmyths im still waiting for those numbers... here I'll make it easier for you. Let's say Trump cuts to 15%. What is the resulting effective tax rate? In 2015 the average effective tax rate in America was 13.5% so with Trumps cut, what is the new effective tax rate? And what is your predicted growth that would result?
So for the 9th time.
What is the desired tax reduction that you want to see and what is the resulting growth that you think it will produce?
And of course I want a FACT checking YOUR statements because YOU are the one lipping off about "13.5%"!
Where is your proof?
Deflection is all he has left, he can't answer in good faith.
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
Does this graph explain current day Kansas and the great tax cutting experience?
Also, President Clinton raised taxes of the top wage earners in 1993. Can you point to that spot on the graph and go hmmmmm....
