Everyone who has ever ******* proposed them. But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth. There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues. There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs. So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the ******* point of them? Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation. Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.
But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....
You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created? Because that's exactly what happened. I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%. Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession. Wrong on all three. So if you all were so ******* wrong then, why would you be right now? BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013. In other words, the opposite result of what Conservatives were predicting. So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?
So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what? 90%? 70%? When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth. I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument. What a pathetic and shitty thing to do. Shame!
NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:
So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves"). However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as: health care, education). So you keep using theory, but the reality tells a different story. Why are you so dependent on theory? Why can't you deal with facts?
"A portion"? So moving the goalposts there, I see. What "portion" exactly? And the growth just isn't there. It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues. Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut. Right? That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth. All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth. You do not have good instincts. Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path. I mean I feel humiliated for you. How's that for empathy!?
Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth. However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.
No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise. That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said. Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here. Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss. That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.
So you don't know? Why are you talking about things you don't know anything about? Why even open your mouth? Are you that starved for attention because you're so insecure? Sheesh. The point is that you make promises and claims of a policy, both of which simply are not true. So that's why your stupid arguments always seem to veer into this unintelligible space of hypothetical and "if's". You use "If" more than any other Conservative poster I've seen on my limited time on these boards. Everything with you is a hypothetical or a theory. None of it is grounded in fact or law.
FACT: Income tax cuts result in revenue reduction, which results in deficits, which results in spending cuts, which results in increased tuition costs.
You don't have to believe me, you just have to accept the facts.
So you just switched the subjefct because you realized you were full of shit. The standards of your loan have no bearing on the value of the house you are trying to buy. It has bearing on your interest rate, but not on the value of the house.
Do you...do you know what a "loan" is?
So you moved the goalposts again, because we weren't talking about federal income tax, we were talking about just income tax. So if you are going to continue to redefine the parameters of the debate, a heads-up would be appreciated. The difference between Kansas and the Feds, is that Kansas has a BBA and the Feds do not. So the Feds aren't required to cut spending in order to balance a budget. But Kansas is. Setting aside your obvious goalpost shifting...
Ah, but I can...do you really want me to? Do you know what you're getting yourself into?
Ummm....the Treasury statements show a reduction in the debt, therefore DEBT WAS PAID DOWN. I don't know how clearer I can make it for you. I mean, do you speak English? Maybe you need a better Russian-to-English Google translator.
It's actually true because Reagan immediately raised taxes, starting in 1982. Why would he have done that if tax cuts paid for themselves? Oh right, now you're arguing from the laughable position that they don't pay for themselves. Just "a portion". LOL! Hilariously pathetic.
A poster already did that on this thread. I can also point to THIS CHART, showing household debt skyrocketing during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. So why did household debt skyrocket if tax cuts were supposed to let people keep more of what they earned? You haven't answered that very fundamental question that cuts to the heart of, well, your entire belief system.
Because it's not just you, shithead, it's everyone in that top income bracket. (NOTE: I reject the premise you are in the top bracket, for full disclosure)
So lower interest rates caused job loss? How so?
Before 1982, we had a tax cut that were promised would pay for themselves and create jobs. It didn't. BTW - we didn't enter a recession until after Reagan's tax cuts. Stagflation is not the same thing as a recession. BTW - the unemployment rate remained relatively static until taxes were cut. Then it shot up. Why?
they earn it from the middle class and poor by offering them goods that are worth more to them than their money. If not, they would not part with their money. Next??
You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.
You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.
Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?
No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).
Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.
According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.
And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the **** should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?
Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.
Did it, though?
Yes.
Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term.
By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?
No.
Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.
View attachment 127550
Real Disposable Personal Income
It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something,
No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.
when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students.
Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!
When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees.
Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?
(how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?)
When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?
and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders".
Link?
And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact.
So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?
I don't believe you when you make these wild claims.
Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?
The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth.
Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.
And walk thru the steps.....
1) Cut taxes...
2)???
3)???
4)???
5) Jobs are cut...
Feel free to show more steps if you need them.
We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982.
View attachment 127556
LOL!
I am trying to convince the right wing to advance a "second wave" to end the drug war. They prefer to "hate on the poor", and cut social services, instead.
