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

[bripat9643]

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.

Because it's a business expense, you moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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

More economic ignorance from a buffoon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I was just pointing out that all countries without income tax are not "dangerous shit holes."

Your point has been received and processed. Proceed.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Agree...now is the time
Make everyone pay
Increase taxes on the wealthy only until the $20 trillion debt is paid off

Seems fair

I have a much better idea Moon Bat. Stop spending so damn much money until the debt is paid off. We can start by stop giving money to environmental wackos like Solyndra, stop paying off the welfare queens, stop Obamacare subsidies, stop giving money to the filthy unions, stop giving money to Muslim counties and stop subsidizing illegal aliens.

 

[boedicca]

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.

^^^ Yep ^^^

Less money for the government means more economic growth and jobs for Normal Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Whatever the Reagan tax cuts did, it wasn't enough to balance the budget as Reagan promised.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q

Agree...now is the time
Make everyone pay
Increase taxes on the wealthy only until the $20 trillion debt is paid off

Seems fair

I have a much better idea Moon Bat. Stop spending so damn much money until the debt is paid off. We can start by stop giving money to environmental wackos like Solyndra, stop paying off the welfare queens, stop Obamacare subsidies, stop giving money to the filthy unions, stop giving money to Muslim counties and stop subsidizing illegal aliens.

Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

When did you complain about Obama's spending?

All the time shoog, the twit turned 2 wars into 7.

I don't recall any snowflakes attacking Obama's spending.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Whatever the Reagan tax cuts did, it wasn't enough to balance the budget as Reagan promised.

That's because Dims kept massively increasing spending on social programs.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

When did you complain about Obama's spending?

All the time shoog, the twit turned 2 wars into 7.

I don't recall any snowflakes attacking Obama's spending.

I'm not responsible for your recollections pard, that's on your dumb ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

Got a link to back up your claims that cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts?

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

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.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative.

To a lunatic like you maybe.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

 

[bripat9643]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

When they don't post a link to the source of the data, you know it's bullshit, and if they do post a link to the source of the data, you also know it's bullshit.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Funny how that's endlessly bipartisan ain't it.

 

[bripat9643]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

 

[Fenton Lum]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

When they don't post a link to the source of the data, you know it's bullshit, and if they do post a link to the source of the data, you also know it's bullshit.

evabody "bullshit" but you bribri.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

Since you're always yapping about the Constitution, how would you protect and enforce the mandates of the Constitution with tax revenues of ZERO?

 

[Fenton Lum]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses