democrats, do you agree or disagree

[Unkotare]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

 

[auditor0007]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Absolutely not! We did that and the result has been reduced revenues. Yes, if you cut taxes and get a booming economy, revenues will increase, but only by a little. Then when you get a downturn in the economy, the loss in revenue becomes drastic as we have seen. In 2000 at the old rates and a good economy, revenues exceeded $2 trillion with GDP at just under $10 trillion. Today, with those lower tax rates, revenues have been barely over $2 trillion with GDP of nearly $15 trillion. In other words, we increased GDP by 50% and revenues stayed the same.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how reducing tax rates increases revenue, but you cannot dispute facts, and the facts do not support your argument.

 

[Charles_Main]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Absolutely not! We did that and the result has been reduced revenues. Yes, if you cut taxes and get a booming economy, revenues will increase, but only by a little. Then when you get a downturn in the economy, the loss in revenue becomes drastic as we have seen. In 2000 at the old rates and a good economy, revenues exceeded $2 trillion with GDP at just under $10 trillion. Today, with those lower tax rates, revenues have been barely over $2 trillion with GDP of nearly $15 trillion. In other words, we increased GDP by 50% and revenues stayed the same.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how reducing tax rates increases revenue, but you cannot dispute facts, and the facts do not support your argument.

You are aware the statement you do not agree with was from JFK right.

and you don't even know what Facts are. The Facts are clear. No matter how many times you guys try to spin them.

 

[Unkotare]

Ah, you told him too soon!

 

[auditor0007]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Absolutely not! We did that and the result has been reduced revenues. Yes, if you cut taxes and get a booming economy, revenues will increase, but only by a little. Then when you get a downturn in the economy, the loss in revenue becomes drastic as we have seen. In 2000 at the old rates and a good economy, revenues exceeded $2 trillion with GDP at just under $10 trillion. Today, with those lower tax rates, revenues have been barely over $2 trillion with GDP of nearly $15 trillion. In other words, we increased GDP by 50% and revenues stayed the same.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how reducing tax rates increases revenue, but you cannot dispute facts, and the facts do not support your argument.

You are aware the statement you do not agree with was from JFK right.

and you don't even know what Facts are. The Facts are clear. No matter how many times you guys try to spin them.

Yea, that JFK thingy, that's a troubling thing isn't it? You do realize when JFK pushed for lower tax rates that the highest tax rate was 91%, right? Today the highest rate is 35%. According to many of you, we should be able to increase revenues by cutting tax rates to zero. That does seem to be your argument that every time we cut taxes, it increases revenues. The problem is that with a rate of zero percent, the return is zero dollars. At some point your little formula of cutting taxes to raise revenue stops working. Once you go back to school and take a few advanced math classes, maybe you'll figure that one out.

 

[Charles_Main]

Absolutely not! We did that and the result has been reduced revenues. Yes, if you cut taxes and get a booming economy, revenues will increase, but only by a little. Then when you get a downturn in the economy, the loss in revenue becomes drastic as we have seen. In 2000 at the old rates and a good economy, revenues exceeded $2 trillion with GDP at just under $10 trillion. Today, with those lower tax rates, revenues have been barely over $2 trillion with GDP of nearly $15 trillion. In other words, we increased GDP by 50% and revenues stayed the same.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how reducing tax rates increases revenue, but you cannot dispute facts, and the facts do not support your argument.

You are aware the statement you do not agree with was from JFK right.

and you don't even know what Facts are. The Facts are clear. No matter how many times you guys try to spin them.

Yea, that JFK thingy, that's a troubling thing isn't it? You do realize when JFK pushed for lower tax rates that the highest tax rate was 91%, right? .

You do realize that there were many more Deductions and Loop holes then and NOBODY was actually paying 91% right. The Effective real Tax Rate then for the Top after all Deductions and Loop holes was more like 40%.

Your Intellectual Dishonesty on this subject betrays you as a Partisan Hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

utter bullshit because it has failed in practice over and over again

 

[Truthmatters]

Laffer himself said that plan only works under certain conditions.


the right pretends it works EVERY time.


that is just more republican lies

 

[Truthmatters]

Kennedy was talking about the early sixties economy.

NOT EVERY situation like you idiots claim

 

[Sarah G]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Nope, the soundest way is through job creation now. I wouldn't be opposed to tax cuts within certain guidelines for the middle class only but the focus needs to be on job creation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

utter bullshit because it has failed in practice over and over again

Look at Southern Europe economically. Too much spending and to high taxes are the problem.

 

[Truthmatters]

your an idiot

 

[ScienceRocks]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Nope, the soundest way is through job creation now. I wouldn't be opposed to tax cuts within certain guidelines for the middle class only but the focus needs to be on job creation.

Then why not spend money on building up our own country and getting back into space(we have want backwards for the past 40 years). To heck with nation building of others. O

 

[ScienceRocks]

your an idiot

Explain to me how I'm wrong? If people don't have the money they're not going to be able to spend.

 

[Peach]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Nope, the soundest way is through job creation now. I wouldn't be opposed to tax cuts within certain guidelines for the middle class only but the focus needs to be on job creation.

I agree, it appears MULTInationals have no plan to spend in the USA, economic policy is to OPEN NEW MARKETS.

 

[Sarah G]

Ah, you told him too soon!

Told him what, your talking point of the day?

 

[eflatminor]

your an idiot

That would be "You're".

My, the irony is thick today...

 

[bobcollum]

Great another thread with the same title.

 

[eflatminor]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Personally, I don't care about raising revenues. We take in plenty of money at the federal level to meet...greatly exceed in fact...the cash necessary to fund oversight of the enumerated powers delegated to the government. The last thing I want is to give those bastards in Washington MORE money to spend. If they won't live within the confines of the law, cut 'em off where it hurts, in the pocket book.

 

[Avorysuds]

The real question is why does TM hate JFK?

lol.