Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[The Derp]

Well.. YES, it DID! What you are doing is applying revenues for 2001 where the cuts were made retroactive.

No, I'm using the numbers from the Tax Policy Center for receipts collected:

So I see receipts in 2000 above levels for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

I see receipts in 1983 below levels in 1982.

Also, I see a deficit doubling between 1981 - 1989. In fact, in nearly every instance of tax cuts you talk about, the deficit increases.

1961 - 1968: Deficit increased from $3B to $25B
1981 - 1989: Deficit increased from $79B to $152B
2000 - 2004: Record $236B surplus turned into a Record $412B deficit

See? I told you that you would attempt this. You Democrats ALWAYS want to jump from tax revenues to the deficit and debt. Spending increased the debt, not increased revenues from tax cuts. If anything, the increased tax revenue prevented the deficits from being even greater. The argument is over tax rates and subsequent revenue produced... that has nothing to do with spending and debt.

Spending definitely increased revenues. Why? Because revenues come from spending. You can't say tax cuts created revenue growth when cutting the tax rate cuts revenue. You can't have a discussion about receipts/deficits/and debt without also talking about spending. So here, you're trying to pretend spending has nothing to do with the growth of revenues, even though spending grew by 50% during LBJ.

And you're just flat wrong about Reagan's tax cuts. You're also wrong about your idiotic speculations as to why the economy tanked and what caused it. You're absolutely clueless, as are most Democrats.

Look at the fucking chart you stupid bastard. Receipts for 1983 are less than receipts for 1982. Go spread your Russian propaganda elsewhere.

 

[The Derp]

But tax cuts and the revenues they produce have nothing to do with decisions on spending and the budget..

Tax cuts don't produce revenues. Tax cuts reduce revenues. Tax cuts have never once paid for themselves, and you would have to show an increased spending rate by the wealthy in order for your claim to be true. And all current available data we have shows that after taxes are cut, the wealthy increase their savings, not their spending.

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index.

After the second round of Bush tax cuts in May 2003, the rich also increased their saving, with the rate climbing to 7.6 percent in the first quarter of 2004 from 2.2 percent in the second quarter of 2003, the Moody's data show.
​

So what that means is that the wealthy do not increase consumption (thus increasing revenues) if given more money. Instead, they save it and don't spend it in the economy.

You're welcome for this lesson, by the way.

In fact, here's a handy chart that shows every time taxes for the rich are cut, they increase their savings, not their spending...which means putting more money into the hands of the wealthy only results in the wealthy saving more, not spending more. Then, when taxes are raised, suddenly the savings rate for the wealthy drops -which means the spending rate increases.

If your boss gives you a $100 a week raise but your wife goes out and spends $500 a week, is that "deficit" the fault of your boss increasing your pay? No... it's the fault of your wife spending more money.

If you tell your boss to cut your salary from $500 a week to $100 a week, you would end up with a deficit. That's what you're arguing for when you argue for tax cuts...a voluntary reduction in revenues collected for no purpose than to manufacture deficits to use as an excuse to cut the spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. So what you do instead is fly metaphorical planes into the budget, then use the resulting debt hysteria to argue for cuts to programs you oppose on a fundamental, ideological level. In other words, fiscal terrorism.

 

[Boss]

Also, I see a deficit doubling between 1981 - 1989

WE'RE NOT DEBATING THE DEFICIT!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The middle class benefits from higher stock prices, even if Obama is adding stupid regulations that harm job growth and wage growth.

But Obama's regulations haven't harmed job or wage growth, and you've yet to prove they do. In fact, Obama's record 75+ month streak of job creation began the month Obamacare was signed into law.

After 8 years, Obama created net 11.7 million private sector jobs, which is only 3 million less than Reagan created over 8 years.

But Obama's regulations haven't harmed job or wage growth

Of course they have.

 

[Boss]

Spending definitely increased revenues. Why? Because revenues come from spending.

HUH?

That the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Boss]

If you tell your boss to cut your salary from $500 a week to $100 a week, you would end up with a deficit. That's what you're arguing for when you argue for tax cuts.

No, because a tax cut will produce MORE revenues, as it always has.

You are the wife maxing out the credit cards and claiming her husband's increased revenue (pay raise) is the reason for the family debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.
Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!

But you lack any economic justification for doing so. You say that doing so will lead to stock market growth, but we just came from an 8 years period where the market nearly tripled in size, yet you complain that the middle class got screwed during Obama. So, OK, then that means a roaring market doesn't cue what ails the middle class at all.

Ireland disagrees. The EU has been whining about Ireland for YEARS!

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours, and higher than the UK's. Also, Ireland's growth hasn't been great and had multiple quarters over the last 3 years with negative growth:

You want to make the argument they didn't? LOL!

No, no...it's on you to prove your assertion. You say his "regulations" hampered growth, yet you can't cite a single regulation that did and how. You make a very lazy argument that relies on your own brand of "conventional wisdom" which is that any government regulation hurts the economy. However, that point has no support to it. It's you trying to shoehorn in your bullshit rhetoric. In fact, the opposite can be the case; Obamacare caused 75+ consecutive months of private sector job growth - which is a record. The new Obamacare "regulations" created jobs. That's why he had 75+ straight months of positive job growth.

What's also funny is that the states that employed your trickle down ideas (KS being the best example but also LA, WI, AZ, NJ) generally had growth below the national average (both in terms of GDP and jobs). Which means it is Conservative policy that harms growth, not Obama's policy.

They'll try again after they take 5+ Senate seats from the Dems in 2018.

If you couldn't do it earlier this year, you'll never be able to do it. It's just another empty promise that is intended to lure gullible Conservatives into supporting policy that is against their personal interests.

[/QUOTE]

But you lack any economic justification for doing so.

Right, because corporations prefer higher taxes to lower taxes....DURR!

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours, and higher than the UK's. Also, Ireland's growth hasn't been great and had multiple quarters over the last 3 years with negative growth:

Why are you posting data from 2014-2017?
2014 wasn't when they cut their corporate tax rate.

You say his "regulations" hampered growth, yet you can't cite a single regulation that did and how.

Dodd-Frank hampered the shit out of lending which hampers growth.

In fact, the opposite can be the case; Obamacare caused 75+ consecutive months of private sector job growth

Yeah, when you make employment more expensive that obviously causes more job growth. DURR!

If you couldn't do it earlier this year, you'll never be able to do it.

If they can't do it with 52 votes they'll never do it with 57?

 

[The Derp]

WE'RE NOT DEBATING THE DEFICIT!

It's all inter-connected, pal. Tax cuts were sold as a means to create all this growth, that they'd pay for themselves. That means no spending should have to be cut since according to you, cutting taxes unleashes all this growth. So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, then they don't generate revenue. They're revenue-negative, not revenue-neutral. So before you even get to spending, you've already reduced the amount of revenue you take in.

Tax cuts were supposed to pay for themselves that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending because - tax cuts pay for themselves. Now you seem to be saying they don't pay for themselves, and only create deficits.

Kansas just went through this exercise...they cut taxes, which produced record deficits, which led to growth below the US average. Here is the budget straight from the Kansas State Legislature that includes revenue from the repeal of the Brownback Tax Cuts. Notice how once the tax cuts are repealed, suddenly KS's budget produces surpluses!?!?!? But how could that be? According to you tax cuts don't produce deficits. Er um, except that they do and here is the proof:

Even Republicans in Kansas know the tax cuts are a scam.

 

[The Derp]

No, because a tax cut will produce MORE revenues, as it always has.

No it hasn't. We can look at revenue totals from just 17 years ago to know this isn't true in the slightest.

Revenues for 2001-2004 were below revenues for 2000. That was after the tax cuts. So there comes a point when you cease being a reasonable person and become a complete dogmatic zealot. This is one of those times.

You are the wife maxing out the credit cards and claiming her husband's increased revenue (pay raise) is the reason for the family debt.

Before your wife has spent a dime, you've asked your boss to reduce your salary.

 

[Boss]

So what that means is that the wealthy do not increase consumption (thus increasing revenues) if given more money. Instead, they save it and don't spend it in the economy.

Again... the "wealthy" are not who we tax. We have NEVER taxed wealth in America! We tax INCOMES! Why is this so difficult to get through your granite-like neanderthal noggin?

Decreasing the top marginal income tax rate results in encouraging more top marginal income earning which results in greater tax revenue at the lower rate of taxation. See the Laffer Curve.

Instead, they save it and don't spend it in the economy.

Even IF that is true (it's not always), the result is economic stimulation because the capital is made available for loans to people who need capital. The laws of free market supply and demand dictate that the more money made available, the lower the interest rates, encouraging more borrowing and spending.

 

[Boss]

Before your wife has spent a dime, you've asked your boss to reduce your salary.

Nope. Look at the chart. Every time we've reduced the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in INCREASED tax revenues. Reagan reduced the top marginals from 71% to 28% and revenue over the 8 years of his presidency went from $517 billion to $909 billion.

 

[The Derp]

Right, because corporations prefer higher taxes to lower taxes....DURR!

Corporate profit taxes have no bearing on consumer demand, nor do they have any bearing on expansion and re-investment. The only thing they affect is after-tax profit. A business expands and invests pre-tax. So cutting the corporate profit tax only helps shareholders, Board members, and executives.

Why are you posting data from 2014-2017?
2014 wasn't when they cut their corporate tax rate.

Because you said Ireland's economy was doing so well and is the envy of the EU. Clearly it isn't. Gee, we shouldn't look at Ireland's current economic state (not even current, going back three years) because it ruins your argument that Ireland's tax cuts somehow were good? LOL! Priceless. How dare I produce facts that undermine your argument! Damn libs and their biased facts!

And the corporate tax rates have been in effect for years. So now we are seeing the results of those tax breaks and they're not great, are they? LOL!

"Pay no attention to Ireland's current state, even though it's current state is a result of the policy I'm defending". I notice that the only time your arguments make sense is when you cherry pick a certain data set or redefine the parameters mid-stream. That's a habit you should correct. So if we can't look at Ireland's current economic performance as a result of its tax policy that you are cheerleading, what can we look at?

Dodd-Frank hampered the shit out of lending which hampers growth.

That's weird because post-Dodd Frank the stock market reached record highs, corporate profits also reached record highs, senior executive compensation reached record highs, and we had 75+ consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. So if Dodd-Frank "hampered growth" it did a really shitty job of it.

I guess the main problem is that you don't know how to define "growth". You kind of use it as a catch-all for whatever bullshit you're pushing. Like most of what you say, "growth" is a vague, general ambiguity you wiggle around a set of ever-changing parameters, just so you don't have to admit you're posturing. Yeesh. Get over yourself.

Yeah, when you make employment more expensive that obviously causes more job growth. DURR!

More expensive, how? Most businesses under 50 employees got tax credits for providing their workers with insurance, and those businesses under 50 employees weren't required to provide insurance anyway. So nothing you're saying seems to align with the facts. Why is that? Because you're making this shit up as you go.

If they can't do it with 52 votes they'll never do it with 57?

Nope. Conservatives will never be able to repeal it because they have no plan for what to do after, even though they've had 7 fucking years to come up with one.

 

[The Derp]

2014 wasn't when they cut their corporate tax rate.

But the rates have been in effect for years, and we see that the last three years of growth in Ireland (under those rates) were shit.

So much for your argument that Ireland is so wonderful, and that cutting corporate taxes somehow leads to growth...with Ireland experiencing three quarters of negative GDP growth in 3 years, and an unemployment rate higher than the UK's.

 

[Boss]

Corporate profit taxes have no bearing on consumer demand

Consumer demand rises when consumers have more available expendable income. Like, when they get more money on their paychecks because we lowered their taxes!

 

[The Derp]

Again... the "wealthy" are not who we tax. We have NEVER taxed wealth in America! We tax INCOMES! Why is this so difficult to get through your granite-like neanderthal noggin?

Seems like you're trying to seek out a red herring or semantic argument. Call them whatever you want; the rich, the wealthy, the 1%. My point remains unchanged.

Decreasing the top marginal income tax rate results in encouraging more top marginal income earning which results in greater tax revenue at the lower rate of taxation. See the Laffer Curve.

Again, just because the wealthy are getting a tax break doesn't mean they take that break and spend it in the economy. I just provided you in the last post with data showing that the wealthy save more, not spend more when given a tax cut. Revenues don't grow from savings, they grow from spending. So if the wealthy increase their savings rate after a tax cut, that means they're spending less, which results in less revenues. Because math.

Even IF that is true (it's not always), the result is economic stimulation because the capital is made available for loans to people who need capital. The laws of free market supply and demand dictate that the more money made available, the lower the interest rates, encouraging more borrowing and spending.

We know it's true to at least the last 27 years because we have that data.

No, loans aren't made available because of a tax cut for the wealthy. Where are you getting this shit? A tax cut does have one massive impact on lending...it increases debt:

Funny how household debt always increases immediately after a tax cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, because corporations prefer higher taxes to lower taxes....DURR!

Corporate profit taxes have no bearing on consumer demand, nor do they have any bearing on expansion and re-investment. The only thing they affect is after-tax profit. A business expands and invests pre-tax. So cutting the corporate profit tax only helps shareholders, Board members, and executives.

Why are you posting data from 2014-2017?
2014 wasn't when they cut their corporate tax rate.

Because you said Ireland's economy was doing so well and is the envy of the EU. Clearly it isn't. Gee, we shouldn't look at Ireland's current economic state (not even current, going back three years) because it ruins your argument that Ireland's tax cuts somehow were good? LOL! Priceless. How dare I produce facts that undermine your argument! Damn libs and their biased facts!

And the corporate tax rates have been in effect for years. So now we are seeing the results of those tax breaks and they're not great, are they? LOL!

"Pay no attention to Ireland's current state, even though it's current state is a result of the policy I'm defending". I notice that the only time your arguments make sense is when you cherry pick a certain data set or redefine the parameters mid-stream. That's a habit you should correct. So if we can't look at Ireland's current economic performance as a result of its tax policy that you are cheerleading, what can we look at?

Dodd-Frank hampered the shit out of lending which hampers growth.

That's weird because post-Dodd Frank the stock market reached record highs, corporate profits also reached record highs, senior executive compensation reached record highs, and we had 75+ consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. So if Dodd-Frank "hampered growth" it did a really shitty job of it.

I guess the main problem is that you don't know how to define "growth". You kind of use it as a catch-all for whatever bullshit you're pushing. Like most of what you say, "growth" is a vague, general ambiguity you wiggle around a set of ever-changing parameters, just so you don't have to admit you're posturing. Yeesh. Get over yourself.

Yeah, when you make employment more expensive that obviously causes more job growth. DURR!

More expensive, how? Most businesses under 50 employees got tax credits for providing their workers with insurance, and those businesses under 50 employees weren't required to provide insurance anyway. So nothing you're saying seems to align with the facts. Why is that? Because you're making this shit up as you go.

If they can't do it with 52 votes they'll never do it with 57?

Nope. Conservatives will never be able to repeal it because they have no plan for what to do after, even though they've had 7 fucking years to come up with one.

Corporate profit taxes have no bearing on consumer demand,

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

So cutting the corporate profit tax only helps shareholders, Board members, and executives. ​

And the middle class. And pension plans.

Because you said Ireland's economy was doing so well

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

and is the envy of the EU. ​

​

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?​

​

Gee, we shouldn't look at Ireland's current economic state (not even current, going back three years) ​

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.
​

That's weird because post-Dodd Frank the stock market reached record highs, corporate profits also reached record highs​

Which Presidents haven't seen record highs in the market and corporate profits over an 8 year period?​

​

More expensive, how?​

Seriously? LOL!

​

 

[The Derp]

Nope. Look at the chart. Every time we've reduced the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in INCREASED tax revenues. Reagan reduced the top marginals from 71% to 28% and revenue over the 8 years of his presidency went from $517 billion to $909 billion.

WHICH IS REVENUE GROWTH SLOWER THAN OBAMA & CLINTON.

Revenue Growth
Reagan, 1981 - 1989:
$599.3 - $991.1
65% growth

Clinton, 1993 - 2001:
$1,154.3 - $1,991.1
73% growth

Bush the Dumber, 2001 - 2009:
$1,991.1 - $2,105.0
6% growth

Obama, 2009 - 2017:
$2,105.0 - $3,643.7
73% growth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2014 wasn't when they cut their corporate tax rate.

But the rates have been in effect for years, and we see that the last three years of growth in Ireland (under those rates) were shit.

So much for your argument that Ireland is so wonderful, and that cutting corporate taxes somehow leads to growth...with Ireland experiencing three quarters of negative GDP growth in 3 years, and an unemployment rate higher than the UK's.

But the rates have been in effect for years,

I know!
So look at their economy maybe 5 years before the cut and 5 years after.
Or don't. LOL!

So much for your argument that Ireland is so wonderful, and that cutting corporate taxes somehow leads to growth...

It didn't lead to growth? Great.
Post the period immediately after their useless tax cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... the "wealthy" are not who we tax. We have NEVER taxed wealth in America! We tax INCOMES! Why is this so difficult to get through your granite-like neanderthal noggin?

Seems like you're trying to seek out a red herring or semantic argument. Call them whatever you want; the rich, the wealthy, the 1%. My point remains unchanged.

Decreasing the top marginal income tax rate results in encouraging more top marginal income earning which results in greater tax revenue at the lower rate of taxation. See the Laffer Curve.

Again, just because the wealthy are getting a tax break doesn't mean they take that break and spend it in the economy. I just provided you in the last post with data showing that the wealthy save more, not spend more when given a tax cut. Revenues don't grow from savings, they grow from spending. So if the wealthy increase their savings rate after a tax cut, that means they're spending less, which results in less revenues. Because math.

Even IF that is true (it's not always), the result is economic stimulation because the capital is made available for loans to people who need capital. The laws of free market supply and demand dictate that the more money made available, the lower the interest rates, encouraging more borrowing and spending.

We know it's true to at least the last 27 years because we have that data.

No, loans aren't made available because of a tax cut for the wealthy. Where are you getting this shit? A tax cut does have one massive impact on lending...it increases debt:

Funny how household debt always increases immediately after a tax cut.

Funny how household debt always increases immediately after a tax cut.

Do people save more when the economy is doing well, or when the economy sucks?
What happened to the savings rate during the recession?

 

[BluesLegend]

Yet president Kennedy (JFK) facing similar economic challenges advocated for EXACTLY the same tax reforms president Trump is about to sign into law. Its on tape to a speech Kennedy gave to an economic group in NY.

No, they're not exactly the same (did Kennedy propose reducing the tax on pass-through's? No.) And it should be noted that LBJ passed the tax cuts, but also increased spending by 50% and put in place Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes they are lib