Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by failsafe, Jan 29, 2017.

  1. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,310
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +316
    So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"? The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending. So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues, therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them. The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses. But if you're now saying they don't do that, then what's the point of doing them at all? I mean, other than forcing budget cuts that Conservatives lack the courage or will to pass through legislation?


    Maybe go back through the thread and take some personal responsibility for yourself.


    So the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, like we were promised they would. So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues? What exception are you going to make now?


    [​IMG]
    There's education for ya. I mean, dude, this is easily discovered. You shouldn't need me to do this work for you. Stop being so lazy and take some personal responsibility.

    Here's an article from the Kansas City Star saying exactly that:

    The cost of going to college in Kansas went up again Wednesday when the state’s Board of Regents approved tuition increases at six public universities. Regents said the increases were necessary because of legislative cuts in higher education funding.

    And why were there cuts to education funding? Because Kansas has a BBA and tax revenues fell well short of projections.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,624
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +1,081
    Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,624
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +1,081
    Guillotine-Fodder Rule

    They inherit it, are set up by inherited wealth, or class-climb according to the soul-destroying rules laid down by the HeirHeads. LIberals are richkids assigned to act disgusting, insulting, and threatening and then say they hate the rich. That is a trick by this illegitimate class to get those turned off by their fake behavior to support the rich. The Kennedy types and Bush types differ only in methods but have the same goal of Birth Class Supremacy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,624
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +1,081
    America Was Founded As an Escape From Aristocracy and Must Abolish It or Die

    Confiscating the money from inheritance, which is not earned by the heirs, will give us $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone, making income taxes unnecessary. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust: the money originates with the plutocrats employees and customers. So it must go back there, not to spoiled moochers who have always been a cancer eating away at progress.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    30,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,078
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +12,965
    That's median wages.
    I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.
     
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,310
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +316
    No, just you. I think you say things like that in order to make you feel better about yourself. Everyone knows it's bullshit when Conservatives start waxing idiotic about their unverifiable personal lives. I mean, why sell yourself short? Reach for the stars! Why not pretend to be a billionaire yourself? How about I pretend to be a billionaire? Then nothing I say can be contradicted, right, because I'm a billionaire? Because I said so. Because. So whatever facts you may have (LOL) are instantly to be dismissed because I'm a billionaire and as such, I am the authority over everything fiscal and financial. Oooo - not only that, but I'm also a veteran as well, so anything I say about, say, foreign military policy or espionage has instant credibility because I said I'm a veteran. You see how silly that game of "me, me, me" is? Let's try to talk using facts, not exaggerations, omissions, or outright lies, mmkay?


    Wait, so you are admitting that the Feds give states education funding. OK, that's important because it directly addresses what I've been saying; that income tax cuts result in revenue cuts, which result in spending cuts. So if you are cutting federal income taxes, and if there is federal money going to states for colleges and such, then wouldn't that mean that the less revenue collected from income tax cuts results in less revenues available for the Feds to distribute to the states? Why yes, it does. So thanks for helping me with my argument on that by tacitly admitting, whether you realize it or not, that you're explaining exactly what I've been saying this whole time.



    Well, we know it happened in Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin because all those states raided the welfare block grants in order to cover the deficits caused by their tax cuts. I just posted an article from the Kansas City Star where the Regents of Kansas' state university system came right out and said tuition hikes were caused by a decrease in funding. And what caused that decrease in funding in Kansas? TAX CUTS!



    No, loan standards have no bearing on state tuition costs. As the Board of Regents for Kansas' state schools told you in the link I provided, tuition was increased because of state cuts to education. The cause of tuition hikes is, and always will be, revenue decreases from tax cuts. So where do you go from there? Dunno. I'm sure you'll invent some personal anecdote that contradicts the claims, but we both know that's bullshit. We have the Kansas Board of Regents saying, with no doubt, that tuition costs were directly related to state aid, and state aid is directly related to revenues, and revenues come from taxes. When you cut revenues, you cut the amount available for state aid, causing tuition to rise.


    When I do, will you concede defeat on these boards, cancel your account, and never return? Because I can do it very, very easily just by providing Treasury Statements on Total Public Outstanding Debt that are distributed each month. I can prove that the national debt decreased according to those statements for the period between December 1999 and December 2000. Do you really want me to do that? Doing so is only going to humiliate you. I'm giving you an out. I advise you take it.


    First of all, the dotcom bubble (Caused by, you guessed it, TAX CUTS) popped before Bush was even President. Secondly, that's what Greenspan was whining about in the link I provided you. The video of him saying paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be fair to the bondholders. I mean, I can post the link again if you want.


    I did prove it using facts. You lied and pretended that you did the exact opposite, but again, why the fuck should I believe anything you say about yourself? If I can't verify it, then it's not a fact.


    I did exactly that. Reagan's tax cuts dropped consumer demand, which resulted in layoffs. They dropped consumer demand because while income taxes were cut, other taxes and fees (including payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, health care costs, education costs) all rise to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut. So that's why household debt skyrocketed under Reagan, flat-lined during Clinton, then shot up again during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts only create debt. That's all they do. That's all they're designed to do. Manufacture budget crises to use as an excuse to cut spending you lack the courage or support to do through legislation. So you posture about the budget, never mind the fact that you're the ones who threw the budget out of whack in the first place with your stupid tax cuts that you promised "would pay for themselves", but never seem to do.


    Yes, because the government has a dwindling pool of revenues from which to spend, so out-of-pocket costs rise. The less you pay in taxes, the more you pay for things like education and health care. I've shown you how this happens. I've even given you a link directly to the Kansas Board of Regents who said, very plainly, that tuition costs rose because of funding cuts. Those funding cuts were because the tax cuts did not produce the revenues Brownback, Laffer, and all the teabags projected.


    Interest rates? The Fed was lowering interest rates throughout 1982. The recession was also caused by ham-fisted fiscal policy. You cut taxes, but increased fees for everything else, so people had to spend more out of pocket outside the consumer economy, which resulted in less consumer spending, which resulted in...wait for it...a recession.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,310
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +316
    No, that's median REAL WAGES.

    You asked for the chart, I showed it to you. If you have nothing to contribute, fuck yourself and die.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    30,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,078
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +12,965
    So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"?

    So? Who said they must?

    The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending.

    Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.
    Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer
    payments......it is possible to screw that up.

    So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues,

    I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.
    But that's the difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives don't always
    consider a policy a failure if it causes government to collect less money.

    therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them.

    Wrong!!!
    They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.
    If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,
    I see that as a win-win.

    Liberals would see that as a lose-lose.

    The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses.

    Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

    So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues?

    Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

    Maybe go back through the thread

    I know, the proof isn't there.

    There's education for ya.

    That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?
    LOL!
     
  9. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    18,548
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +2,029
    I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

    We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    30,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,078
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +12,965
    That's median real wages. I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.
     

Share This Page