How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount?

[Truthseeker420]

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Companies that paid the most in taxes 2011 (amount income tax paid/effective tax rate):

Exxon Mobil - $27.3 billion, 42%
Chevron - $17.4 billion, 43.3%
ConocoPhillips - $10.6 billion, 45.6%
JP Morgan - $8.2 billion, 29.1%
WalMart - $5.9 billion, 32.6%

Now, what were you saying?

26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits

26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years

 

[SniperFire]

That's the law.

Yes, it is.

There is no way you can know this but even if you're right, you're missing the point of lowering tax rates. There is every reason to believe, if you know economic history, that revenue will INCREASE following a tax rate reduction as the economy expands and more people pay taxes. The rich in particular tend to pay more tax revenue following a tax rate reduction. Bottom line, lowering tax rates, even with all the loopholes, will result likely result in more revenue.

Whether we add to or reduce the debt is ENTIRELY a matter of spending. That's also on Congress to fix or not.

There is a massive flaw inherent to this argument.

Based on the very same conservative theory that gave us this idea, the Laffer Curve, there is a point where lowering taxes stops raising revenue.

That is why it is called the Laffer "Curve" rather than the Laffer "Slope".

The apex of the Laffer Curve was reached during the Clinton administration, and has providing diminishing returns ever since, to the point where now we've reached the low point on the curve, and can no longer get a reward from lowering taxes any further.

Therefore, lowering taxes any further will LOWER total revenue, not raise it.

And that is according to right-wing theory, which I am not willing to admit is correct, but which Mitt is most assuredly referring to in his assertion that lowering taxes will raise more revenue.

True.

Not likely. See above. If you want to educate yourself on this, I recommend this book:

The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen: Arthur B. Laffer,Stephen Moore,Peter Tanous: Amazon.com: Books

A book written by the very same Arthur Laffer that developed the curve I was referring to.

Unfortunately, Arthur refuses to admit that, by his own math, lowering taxes will not raise revenue.

So much wrong here it is hard to decide what to piss all over first.

Let's just say that your assumption that lower taxes will not raise revenues assumes a zero sum economic fishbowl where GDP is a fixed pie.

That is, of course, utter horseshit.

The entire point is to grow the economy to grow the tax base. Reagan knew this, when even as a NET TAX CUTTER, he almost doubled Federal income tax receipts because he was able to DOUBLE GDP in just 8 years.

 

[eflatminor]

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Companies that paid the most in taxes 2011 (amount income tax paid/effective tax rate):

Exxon Mobil - $27.3 billion, 42%
Chevron - $17.4 billion, 43.3%
ConocoPhillips - $10.6 billion, 45.6%
JP Morgan - $8.2 billion, 29.1%
WalMart - $5.9 billion, 32.6%

Now, what were you saying?

26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits

26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years

Yes, we all remember Obama's buddies at GE not having to pay tax. Does this mean you agree that "corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes"?

 

[SniperFire]

It doesn't but Romney has made up a story about how he's not cutting taxes for the Rich every since his camp found out that was a very unpopular position.

They're just saying anything now that polls well.

Can you show anywhere he ever said he would cut taxes on the rich?

Yes. In the GOP primary Arizona debate:

ROMNEY: There were so many misrepresentations there, it's going to take me a little while. Number one, I said today that we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.

Link:

Transcript of Tonight's CNN Republican Debate in Arizona | The Weekly Standard

I am not 100% sure on this, but I believe the confusion lies in using the word 'rates.'

I heard Romney say in the debate that the rich would not pay less of their SHARE of the tax burden than they pay now.

Of course, since the rich presently pay their greatest share of the Federal income tax burden EVER in our history, they are paying plenty from a perspective of share.

Romney's idea is to get more taxpayers working and contributing to the tax base, which would be increasing the share of total taxes paid by the working class (who consume much much more than their share of the bennies) but not increasing anybody's RATE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the law.

Yes, it is.



There is a massive flaw inherent to this argument.

Based on the very same conservative theory that gave us this idea, the Laffer Curve, there is a point where lowering taxes stops raising revenue.

That is why it is called the Laffer "Curve" rather than the Laffer "Slope".

The apex of the Laffer Curve was reached during the Clinton administration, and has providing diminishing returns ever since, to the point where now we've reached the low point on the curve, and can no longer get a reward from lowering taxes any further.

Therefore, lowering taxes any further will LOWER total revenue, not raise it.

And that is according to right-wing theory, which I am not willing to admit is correct, but which Mitt is most assuredly referring to in his assertion that lowering taxes will raise more revenue.

True.

Not likely. See above. If you want to educate yourself on this, I recommend this book:

The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen: Arthur B. Laffer,Stephen Moore,Peter Tanous: Amazon.com: Books

A book written by the very same Arthur Laffer that developed the curve I was referring to.

Unfortunately, Arthur refuses to admit that, by his own math, lowering taxes will not raise revenue.

So much wrong here it is hard to decide what to piss all over first.

Let's just say that your assumption that lower taxes will not raise revenues assumes a zero sum economic fishbowl where GDP is a fixed pie.

That is, of course, utter horseshit.

The entire point is to grow the economy to grow the tax base. Reagan knew this, when even as a NET TAX CUTTER, he almost doubled Federal income tax receipts because he was able to DOUBLE GDP in just 8 years.

Reagan did no such thing and I've already proven it to you. Stop saying it. It's not true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney was clear that no deductions that benefit the middle class will be touched.

Then how does he pay for the middle class tax cut?

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

 

[SniperFire]

Then how does he pay for the middle class tax cut?

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

You aren't bright. I just told you.

Reagan was a net tax cutter, yet nearly doubled Federal tax receipts in just 8 years.

How, say?

By unleashing a tidal wave of liberty, freedom and entreprenurialism that fully DOUBLED OUR GDP IN JUST HIS 8 YEARS ALONE.


Now you know. Stop asking stupid questions.

 

[Charles_Main]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

If you are really for the Rich Paying more, you should be for Reforming of the Deductions and Loop Holes. They are the ones who benefit the most from them.

 

[Charles_Main]

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

?

It's been explained over and over to you. A Combination of Reforming Loop holes and Deductions, and Economic Growth can make up the Gap. There are roughly 23 Million Un, or Under Employed out there. Put a good chunk of them back to work, and you will see a large increase in Revenue right there, Both from their Incomes, and the Increased Economic Activity. Not to mention a reduction in the Demands on things like Unemployment, and Food stamps, and Direct Financial Aid.

I know you libs don't believe that works, but that is the Plan. You guys keep saying he does not explain how he will do it. That is simply not true, You just don't think his Explanation will work.

Of course then you run off and support your President who made all sorts of promises with out much to explain how he would do it 4 years ago, and failed to live up to most of them, and now is making the same kind of Promises, and thinks Raising Taxes on the Rich can pay for it all.

And you call Conservatives Stupid. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

?

You aren't bright. I just told you.

Reagan was a net tax cutter, yet nearly doubled Federal tax receipts in just 8 years.

How, say?

By unleashing a tidal wave of liberty, freedom and entreprenurialism that fully DOUBLED OUR GDP IN JUST HIS 8 YEARS ALONE.


Now you know. Stop asking stupid questions.

It's been explained over and over to you. A Combination of Reforming Loop holes and Deductions, and Economic Growth can make up the Gap. There are roughly 23 Million Un, or Under Employed out there. Put a good chunk of them back to work, and you will see a large increase in Revenue right there, Both from their Incomes, and the Increased Economic Activity.

I know you libs don't believe that works, but that is the Plan.[/QUOTE]

Reagan did no such thing.

Prove your claim. Give me the federal tax receipt number for 1980, then give me the federal tax receipt, adjusted for inflation,

for 1988.

I want to see what 'nearly double' looks like in your universe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

You aren't bright. I just told you.

Reagan was a net tax cutter, yet nearly doubled Federal tax receipts in just 8 years.

How, say?

By unleashing a tidal wave of liberty, freedom and entreprenurialism that fully DOUBLED OUR GDP IN JUST HIS 8 YEARS ALONE.


Now you know. Stop asking stupid questions.

Tax receipts did not even come close to being doubled between 1981 and 1988.

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

 

[SniperFire]

Reagan did no such thing.

Prove your claim.

1) Read


2) Weep

1980 Revenues = $517,112 B
1988 Revenues = $909,238 B

= Nearly doubled Federal Tax Receipts


No charge for your education.


LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

You aren't bright. I just told you.

Reagan was a net tax cutter, yet nearly doubled Federal tax receipts in just 8 years.

How, say?

By unleashing a tidal wave of liberty, freedom and entreprenurialism that fully DOUBLED OUR GDP IN JUST HIS 8 YEARS ALONE.


Now you know. Stop asking stupid questions.

It's been explained over and over to you. A Combination of Reforming Loop holes and Deductions, and Economic Growth can make up the Gap. There are roughly 23 Million Un, or Under Employed out there. Put a good chunk of them back to work, and you will see a large increase in Revenue right there, Both from their Incomes, and the Increased Economic Activity.

I know you libs don't believe that works, but that is the Plan.

Reagan did no such thing.

Prove your claim. Give me the federal tax receipt number for 1980, then give me the federal tax receipt, adjusted for inflation,

for 1988.

I want to see what 'nearly double' looks like in your universe.

1980 Revenues = $517,112 B
1988 Revenues = $909,238 B

= Nearly doubled Federal Tax Receipts


No charge for your education.


LOL[/QUOTE]

Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation you moron. I know what the numbers are.

 

[SniperFire]

Reagan nearly doubled Federal Tax receipts.:


1980 Revenues = $517,112 B
1988 Revenues = $909,238 B

= Nearly doubled Federal Tax Receipts


Romney is going to attempt to duplicate the strategy.

Wish him luck!

 

[SniperFire]

Now that you understand that Romney is going to attempt to use Reagan's proven model to drive productivity to create wealth for the masses in America, are you still a supporter of Obama plan of trickle down Obamaphones and foodstamps as an alternative?

ROTFL

 

[buckeye45_73]

Then how does he pay for the middle class tax cut?

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

Good point.....he envisions economic growth of 3%+ which will help and better paying jobs, which will also make a huge stride....

But the thing Im most proud of you NY....you just reallized that most of the money is in the middle class......purely based on population and that taxing the rich doesnt mount to shit..So raising taxes on the rich doesnt net much and can kill revenue if it kills......growth......the problem is the rich and upper middle class folks create the jobs..welcome aboard!!!!!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Can you show anywhere he ever said he would cut taxes on the rich?

Yes. In the GOP primary Arizona debate:

ROMNEY: There were so many misrepresentations there, it's going to take me a little while. Number one, I said today that we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.

Link:

Transcript of Tonight's CNN Republican Debate in Arizona | The Weekly Standard

I am not 100% sure on this, but I believe the confusion lies in using the word 'rates.'

I heard Romney say in the debate that the rich would not pay less of their SHARE of the tax burden than they pay now.

Of course, since the rich presently pay their greatest share of the Federal income tax burden EVER in our history, they are paying plenty from a perspective of share.

Romney's idea is to get more taxpayers working and contributing to the tax base, which would be increasing the share of total taxes paid by the working class (who consume much much more than their share of the bennies) but not increasing anybody's RATE.

Bullshit.

 

[Claudette]

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

Good point.....he envisions economic growth of 3%+ which will help and better paying jobs, which will also make a huge stride....

But the thing Im most proud of you NY....you just reallized that most of the money is in the middle class......purely based on population and that taxing the rich doesnt mount to shit..So raising taxes on the rich doesnt net much and can kill revenue if it kills......growth......the problem is the rich and upper middle class folks create the jobs..welcome aboard!!!!!!!

Yup. Looks like NY finally got it. LOL.

Gold star for NY.

As you say, the money is in the middle class. There just aren't enough of the rich to make a difference.

Of course the lefties are all about taxing the rich. They positively drool over that and get that feel good feeling. They think those that prosper should pay the freight for all. No problem that loads pay nothing.

Get rid of the tax loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies and EIC and see how much revenue that generates.

Romney and Ryan have the plan and it will work just as it did for JFK, Reagan and Bush.

Barry should have read a little more history to see what worked. If he had he would have learned that FDR's polices did nothing but extended the GD.

 

[zeke]

You retugs crack me up. Lets look at Reagan, lets look at Clinton, lets look at any President EXCEPT the most recent Rethug President. ( a great champion of lower rates)

So you all say that we just got to lower those rates and all things will be fine. To bad you don't have the last 6 years of the Bush Presidency to point out what a rousing success his tax cuts were.

I got to ask; if lower tax rates were the ticket to economic success, why in the fuk are we in the mess we are in right now? Lower tax rates have been in effect how many years?
And what is the UE rate? So much for lower rates making jobs.

And what Romney isn't telling you is that most of the wealth of the super rich (like Romney) is taxed at a capital gains rate. Which is 15%. And they deserve another tax break.

Like one poster says succintly; Bullshit.

 

[SniperFire]

You retugs crack me up. Lets look at Reagan, lets look at Clinton, lets look at any President EXCEPT the most recent Rethug President. ( a great champion of lower rates)

So you all say that we just got to lower those rates and all things will be fine. To bad you don't have the last 6 years of the Bush Presidency to point out what a rousing success his tax cuts were.

I got to ask; if lower tax rates were the ticket to economic success, why in the fuk are we in the mess we are in right now? Lower tax rates have been in effect how many years?
And what is the UE rate? So much for lower rates making jobs.

And what Romney isn't telling you is that most of the wealth of the super rich (like Romney) is taxed at a capital gains rate. Which is 15%. And they deserve another tax break.

Like one poster says succintly; Bullshit.