Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is about dedicated funding for our public sector intervention in free markets, with our military, dears.Shitforbrains thinks America faced no threats and had a peace time military in 1963. My God how they are so ignorant.Are we in real times of War, or not, right wingers.Dufus calls JFK a right winger!Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
The general welfare clause does not specifically address individuals. Any careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that the general welfare is in reference to the overall health and security of the nation.We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause. It seems simple, to any federalist.No, but I agree that there should be no talk of taxation until real progress is made on defining 'legitimate' spending by the Federal government and their abuse of the States.You mean, fiscal responsibility. Since, you agree that spending and revenue should be in the same "ball park".Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.
It simply cannot be argued with any voracity that tax cuts do not create stimulus. However, it also cannot be stated that tax cuts without a corresponding level of spending cutes will create a stimulus. What it (spending) does is burden future generations with unimaginable taxation to cover the lack of responsible spending and mature priorities of government.
Excuse Me, but today I'm making a batch of watermelon wine and I can't spend all day discussing economics 101. Have a nice day.
Trickle down means, bailout the rich and then let it trickle down.Look at that chart. Between 2000 and 2004. That was only the beginning of the Bush Tax cuts. What happened in 2008 was the other effect.
Remember Reagan cut taxes in his first year and then raised taxes in the next 7 to undo the damage he did.
In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.[18][20][21]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Where do you come up with your right wing fantasy? The general welfare clause is general, not specific or common.The general welfare clause does not specifically address individuals. Any careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that the general welfare is in reference to the overall health and security of the nation.We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause. It seems simple, to any federalist.No, but I agree that there should be no talk of taxation until real progress is made on defining 'legitimate' spending by the Federal government and their abuse of the States.You mean, fiscal responsibility. Since, you agree that spending and revenue should be in the same "ball park".Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.
It simply cannot be argued with any voracity that tax cuts do not create stimulus. However, it also cannot be stated that tax cuts without a corresponding level of spending cutes will create a stimulus. What it (spending) does is burden future generations with unimaginable taxation to cover the lack of responsible spending and mature priorities of government.
Excuse Me, but today I'm making a batch of watermelon wine and I can't spend all day discussing economics 101. Have a nice day.
Enjoy.
It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money
It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
You are dumber than a brick.It is about dedicated funding for our public sector intervention in free markets, with our military, dears.Shitforbrains thinks America faced no threats and had a peace time military in 1963. My God how they are so ignorant.Are we in real times of War, or not, right wingers.Dufus calls JFK a right winger!Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Well then, we should lower the taxes to zero, then the money would flow into the Treasury so fast it would pour out the windows. We would need snow plows to keep the streets clear of the money threatening to bury Washington.
Kansas cut taxes, and expected an explosion of growth, and the explosion did not materialize. Cuts, and more cuts, and then finally the legislature overrode the Governor's Veto to get rid of the tax cuts. Spending in the state did not increase.
There are a number of reasons, but supply side economics counts on one thing that does not happen anymore. People with more money no longer spend it locally, they spend it online buying the items they want from the cheapest supplier. Not something close to what they want, but what they really want. Amazon and eBay and the rest are able to meet customer demand all over the nation.
So stores were not opening, employment did not increase, and payroll taxes did not take up the slack on lost tax revenue and then drown Kansas in money.
Everyone shops online now. I do. You can even purchase a weapon online, providing that you go to the Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to pick it up and fill out the forms. But let's talk about that. Most FFL people will do the transfer. They charge a small fee. $25 or $50. That is much less than they would make if they sold the weapon through their own sources. That probably covers their costs and a tiny bit more to maintain the paperwork for eternity.
But we have a lot of other examples to look at. Instead of heading to the local electronics store to buy a TV, you just order one online. Instead of buying a new pair of pants at the store, a lot of people buy online.
Online sales is the hole in the theory that did not exist when Reagan fired up the tax cut to stimulate growth idea. That's why the tax cut experiment in Kansas failed, and that's why it will fail at any State Level. Federal, you have income tax from the online sellers, so you can argue that you'll do better in the long run that way, but I'm not convinced.
AND you really really suck at validation of your comments!It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money
It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
You REALLY suck at math. LOL Stick to healthcare, it's easier for you to misstate those facts
Well then, we should lower the taxes to zero, then the money would flow into the Treasury so fast it would pour out the windows. We would need snow plows to keep the streets clear of the money threatening to bury Washington.
Kansas cut taxes, and expected an explosion of growth, and the explosion did not materialize. Cuts, and more cuts, and then finally the legislature overrode the Governor's Veto to get rid of the tax cuts. Spending in the state did not increase.
There are a number of reasons, but supply side economics counts on one thing that does not happen anymore. People with more money no longer spend it locally, they spend it online buying the items they want from the cheapest supplier. Not something close to what they want, but what they really want. Amazon and eBay and the rest are able to meet customer demand all over the nation.
So stores were not opening, employment did not increase, and payroll taxes did not take up the slack on lost tax revenue and then drown Kansas in money.
Everyone shops online now. I do. You can even purchase a weapon online, providing that you go to the Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to pick it up and fill out the forms. But let's talk about that. Most FFL people will do the transfer. They charge a small fee. $25 or $50. That is much less than they would make if they sold the weapon through their own sources. That probably covers their costs and a tiny bit more to maintain the paperwork for eternity.
But we have a lot of other examples to look at. Instead of heading to the local electronics store to buy a TV, you just order one online. Instead of buying a new pair of pants at the store, a lot of people buy online.
Online sales is the hole in the theory that did not exist when Reagan fired up the tax cut to stimulate growth idea. That's why the tax cut experiment in Kansas failed, and that's why it will fail at any State Level. Federal, you have income tax from the online sellers, so you can argue that you'll do better in the long run that way, but I'm not convinced.
YOU were saying???
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
BY HUNTER WOODALL [email protected]
JULY 03, 2017 3:51 PM
TOPEKA
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
: Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
It's not hard to understand. Liberals just lie continually. Once you understand that, it all makes sense. They lie about everything.It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money
It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
This is not one of your typical, twice a day moments, right winger. You are wrong, simply Because, I say so.You are dumber than a brick.It is about dedicated funding for our public sector intervention in free markets, with our military, dears.Shitforbrains thinks America faced no threats and had a peace time military in 1963. My God how they are so ignorant.Are we in real times of War, or not, right wingers.Dufus calls JFK a right winger!Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
My apologies to bricks.
Nothing but right wing, special pleading in a vacuum, like usual. Seems like, fantasy.Well then, we should lower the taxes to zero, then the money would flow into the Treasury so fast it would pour out the windows. We would need snow plows to keep the streets clear of the money threatening to bury Washington.
Kansas cut taxes, and expected an explosion of growth, and the explosion did not materialize. Cuts, and more cuts, and then finally the legislature overrode the Governor's Veto to get rid of the tax cuts. Spending in the state did not increase.
There are a number of reasons, but supply side economics counts on one thing that does not happen anymore. People with more money no longer spend it locally, they spend it online buying the items they want from the cheapest supplier. Not something close to what they want, but what they really want. Amazon and eBay and the rest are able to meet customer demand all over the nation.
So stores were not opening, employment did not increase, and payroll taxes did not take up the slack on lost tax revenue and then drown Kansas in money.
Everyone shops online now. I do. You can even purchase a weapon online, providing that you go to the Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to pick it up and fill out the forms. But let's talk about that. Most FFL people will do the transfer. They charge a small fee. $25 or $50. That is much less than they would make if they sold the weapon through their own sources. That probably covers their costs and a tiny bit more to maintain the paperwork for eternity.
But we have a lot of other examples to look at. Instead of heading to the local electronics store to buy a TV, you just order one online. Instead of buying a new pair of pants at the store, a lot of people buy online.
Online sales is the hole in the theory that did not exist when Reagan fired up the tax cut to stimulate growth idea. That's why the tax cut experiment in Kansas failed, and that's why it will fail at any State Level. Federal, you have income tax from the online sellers, so you can argue that you'll do better in the long run that way, but I'm not convinced.
YOU were saying???
Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
BY HUNTER WOODALL [email protected]
JULY 03, 2017 3:51 PM
TOPEKA
Kansas tax revenue came in more than $72 million above projections for June, according to a report released Monday by the Kansas Department of Revenue.
Individual income tax collections were $22.8 million above the June estimate, while corporate income tax revenue beat the estimate by almost $39 million.
The state’s sales tax collections also came in almost $11.5 million above projections for the month, which ends the fiscal year.
: Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
The revenue news comes roughly a month after the Kansas Legislature overcame Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto and approved a tax increase expected to raise roughly $600 million annually in the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years.
Read more here: Kansas beats June revenue projections by $72 million to end fiscal year on a high note
The general welfare clause does not specifically address individuals. Any careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that the general welfare is in reference to the overall health and security of the nation.We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause. It seems simple, to any federalist.No, but I agree that there should be no talk of taxation until real progress is made on defining 'legitimate' spending by the Federal government and their abuse of the States.You mean, fiscal responsibility. Since, you agree that spending and revenue should be in the same "ball park".Because the debt correlation is directly attributable to spending, not income.Just more right wing fantasy? Why not show the debt correlation to lowering taxes.
However, healthmyths isn't doing his argument any favors with that chart. I am a believer in tax cuts to stimulate growth, provided that equal cuts in spending happen. But the chart shows an increase in revenue BEFORE the tax cuts happened. The ability to read a chart is crucial. The growth in revenue can be more easily attributed to population growth.
It simply cannot be argued with any voracity that tax cuts do not create stimulus. However, it also cannot be stated that tax cuts without a corresponding level of spending cutes will create a stimulus. What it (spending) does is burden future generations with unimaginable taxation to cover the lack of responsible spending and mature priorities of government.
Excuse Me, but today I'm making a batch of watermelon wine and I can't spend all day discussing economics 101. Have a nice day.
Enjoy.
Only in a vacuum of special pleading, not the competitiveness of capitalism.Trust me....All tax cuts pay for themselves
OinkonomicsIt seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money
It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?
