Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[AntonToo]

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

 

[sakinago]

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

 

[AntonToo]

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

 

[sakinago]

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

Your example is the only non sequitur there. A. The country was already headed for recession B. The biggest terrorist attack in the history of man had also occurred durning that time period.

How do you then explain the Coolidge tax cuts and the JFK tax cuts, which are the most drastic tax cuts in our history.

Here's how your logic is forming (and it's the non sequitur your accusing me of). It doesn't happen all the time, therefore it NEVER happens. You're using the same false logic you're accusing me of.

 

[sakinago]

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

 

[AntonToo]

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

 

[sakinago]

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

 

[radical right]

It doesn't happen all the time, therefore it NEVER happens. You're using the same false logic you're accusing me of.

It's like having a system to win at blackjack. Only it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Unless it works most of the time, it proves your system doesn't work.

 

[AntonToo]

You say you don't conflate and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to conflate.

Just because economy roared, doesn't mean it roared because of tax-cuts. Correlation is not nearly the same thing as causation.

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

 

[radical right]

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

When republicans cut taxes, they also go on a massive spending spree. As you said, putting more money into the economy, stimulates it. But was it because of massive government spending, or because of the tax cuts?

 

[sakinago]

It doesn't, but it happened quite notably, and immediately after the 3 biggest tax cuts of the past century.

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

 

[sakinago]

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

When republicans cut taxes, they also go on a massive spending spree. As you said, putting more money into the economy, stimulates it. But was it because of massive government spending, or because of the tax cuts?

No mainly just Reagan did that. And helicopter money can work, but only for a limited amount of time, it's very short lived. But first things first, government would still have to spend its money by giving that money to the people. They rarely inject money directly to the people. And like I said helicopter money is a short lived gain, non sustainable.

 

[AntonToo]

It doesn't period.

Your logic that because it correlated SOMETIMES, therefore in those specific times it was causation reeks of cherry picking fallacy.

After tax raises in late 80s and early 90's economy did great - doesn't mean tax-raises caused it. Conversely since passing tax cuts in 2000 economy has been mostly bad - that doesn't mean tax-cuts caused it.

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

 

[bripat9643]

If the goal is reducing government, tax cuts are a mistake. We should raise taxes, across the board, until the budget balances. Then we can have an honest discussion about how much government we really want.

Do you imagine Congress would refrain from spending all the additional reveneues and then two times more? Past behavior shows that would be foolish.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[danielpalos]

If the goal is reducing government, tax cuts are a mistake. We should raise taxes, across the board, until the budget balances. Then we can have an honest discussion about how much government we really want.

Do you imagine Congress would refrain from spending all the additional reveneues and then two times more? Past behavior shows that would be foolish.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

We need an Army Group and Naval Armada, in reserve.

 

[sakinago]

And also, I'm not just suggesting tax cuts magically for some unknown reason stimulates the economy. When people have more disposable income, money tends to have more velocity, which in turn grows the economy, and that is a direct correlation from Econ 101. I don't think that needed to be said. But your suggestion that it never stimulates the economy is just ridiculous.

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

 

[AntonToo]

When did I say it doesn't stimulate? On the contrary, presumption is tax-cuts always stimulate...at very least until the bill on the increased debt, with interest, is due.

The question is on the VOLUME of this expansionary effect with respect to everything else going on economy (like for example simultaneous increases in spending under Reagan)

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

If only the evil rich paid their "fair" share the " oppressed" could have equality !!!!!!!! Lol

 

[LogikAndReazon]

80% tax rates = UTOPIA !!!

4 da peoplz !

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Communes not Corporations !!!!!! Lmfao