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

It's a proven fact... it's not even debatable... reducing the top marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Historically, we can look at 1920, 1960, 1983, 1997 and 2003... these are years we cut top marginal tax rates... in every instance, tax revenues increased.

So the OP is correct and the data proves it.
 
When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.


Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.
Then why don't we just get rid of taxes and make it 0% for individuals and corporations ?

Ah argumentum ad absurdum, the first and last refuge of the scoundrel.
This conservative on post #17 disagrees doesn't think my argument was "absurd" as he proposes the elimination of personal income taxes. You now have caused a split in your people's ranks: Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"
/---- If i DON'T mug you and steal your money, how much does that cost and who has to pay for it?

tax cuts.png
 
We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.
 
3 steps to a balanced budget in 4 short years and a surplus in year 5.

1) Freeze Spending.
2) Freeze Spending
3) Freeze Spending.
FYI-
Spending has been frozen since the sequester, back in 2013..... still no balanced budget....

Not true.

It has been increasing every year.

2013 = $3.4 Trillion
2014 + $3.5 Trillion
2015 = $3.8 Trillion
2016 = $4.1 Trillion
Discretionary spending has been frozen since the sequester, mandatory spending which can not be touched in any manner has not....and can not be stopped or frozen.....ie.. if there are more seniors collecting SS that is paid, can not be frozen.
 
We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.
If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?
 
We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.
If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?
Again... tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue. Not sometimes... Not theoretically... always!

Now...according to the Laffer Curve, there is a point where decreasing the tax rate will result in less revenue, but we are far from that.
 
We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.
If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?
Again... tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue. Not sometimes... Not theoretically... always!

Now...according to the Laffer Curve, there is a point where decreasing the tax rate will result in less revenue, but we are far from that.
Any gains are short term
Problem is....you have to produce more revenue EVERY year
Reagan's tax cuts are still in place....we are still paying for them
 
It's a valid point, but is it really wise to cut tax revenue while we're $20 Trillion in Debt and proposing spending another $Trillion on 'Infrastructure?' Seems like the Government would need that tax revenue to pay for such massive expenditures. Where is it gonna get all the money to pay for the $Trillion in 'Infrastructure' spending? We should actually be focusing only on cutting spending. No tax cuts, or spending another $Trillion. Just cut spending.
Just micro economics pander from the micro economist of the right.

The right wing Owns keeping our drug war after this republican administration.
 
Hilarious, those on the far right wing here believe "someone else spent money so now we get to, who cares about the national debt, we have the unlimited credit card!"

Unfortunately for you RW sheep YOU don't get to spend the money on anything. Drumpf and his cronies will be too busy stuffing it in their pockets while the poor and middle class are losing their break on city and state taxes on their federal tax form. Yes, the poor and middle class will not only have to pay their city and state taxes, but now the federal government will be taxing any city and state taxes which used to be deductible on your federal taxes.

Rubes, the billionaires that you voted into office are cutting their own taxes but raising yours. And again, for the 12th time, you were fooled into believing they wouldn't do this.

Ignorance is the bane of the human race but willful ignorance is human beings that crave misery bringing it on themselves.
Why should expatriate subsidiaries of US firms, be able to write-off foreign labor costs for tax purposes? Only US labor should qualify US Firms for a tax write-off.
 
There are lots of countries in the world where you pay no income tax, but they're all dangerous shit holes, where you need bodyguards to protect you from criminals and thieves.

The five most livable countries with no income tax | Nomad Capitalist

lol

3. Bermuda
While you could live in the Bahamas on a few thousand dollars a month, Bermuda isn’t quite so cheap. Nor is it as tropical. Bermuda is one of our top five island countries with no income tax, but its status as a most livable country means you’ll pay $15 for a gallon of milk. Due to its isolated location, Bermuda is one of the world’s most expensive places to live.

Which would suck for me, because I use a lot of milk. :p

I was just pointing out that all countries without income tax are not "dangerous shit holes." :)
 
Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.
Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.
The right wing is trying to convince us that Reagan era tax cuts exclusively produced increases in tax receipts for the government.
 
When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

The government needs to BALANCE THE BUDGET while the economy is strong. That means INCREASING taxes, not lowering them, as well as cutting spending.
 
Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.
Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.
 
It's a proven fact... it's not even debatable... reducing the top marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Historically, we can look at 1920, 1960, 1983, 1997 and 2003... these are years we cut top marginal tax rates... in every instance, tax revenues increased.
And there again is the reagan lie. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues dropped both years, that is the proven fact! So what does the dishonest do, they ignore 1981 and 1982. In 1983 Reagan made the largest tax peacetime tax increase so the deceitful Right start with the revenues from 1983.

To refresh the failing/selective memory of the Right:

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97–34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut", was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an act "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates.
 
Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.
Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.
The right wing is trying to convince us that Reagan era tax cuts exclusively produced increases in tax receipts for the government.

Which they did, the other half of the equation y'all want to put blinders on for is spending under Reagan, that he increased by a lot. The obvious truth is, is that economic growth increases tax revenue. We've seen over and over throughout history. We NEED to cut spending, and then we need demand side tax cuts, which have NOT substantially happened in a long time. There is no reason USG should be raking in 10,000 off of someone making only 50,000. We wouldn't even need demand side cuts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top