Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[JonKoch]

One thing at a time.

But they're intrinsically linked. A worker increasing their productivity should result in a wage increase, right? Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant. So to where are all those profits going?

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

Actually, a tax cut for the rich is a tax increase for the poor. The reason is because tax cuts result in revenue drops, and those revenue drops result in deficits. To close deficits, spending is cut or excise taxes are raised. In the case of spending cuts for example, the first thing always on the chopping block is education. So a state misses revenue projections because of tax cuts, then the state has a BBA that requires them to balance the budget, so they do that by cutting finding to education and health care, and/or they raid the welfare block grant, or they raise excise and sales taxes. So that's how the poor end up paying for tax cuts for the rich, who are supposed to trickle-down, right???

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.Correct?

That's exactly correct.

Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant.

Liar!!

View attachment 127561

LET'S USE THE CORRECT GRAPH BUBS

 

[JonKoch]

Yes.

No, it didn't. Unemployment numbers would contradict that claim. As would the poor economy prior to 1983. We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn;t.

By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?

As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980. And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway? Wasn't cutting taxes supposed to create all this revenue there would be no need for spending cuts? Isn't that what "tax cuts pay for themselves" means?

Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.

Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised, plus there's inflation...all of which puts more of a burden on the middle and lower classes who must spend the money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy, on things that aren't a part of the consumer economy (education, health care), or go into debt (which is why household debt always seems to skyrocket after tax cuts are passed). Household debt doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts. Most of that debt growth occurred before the bubble even popped. So by cutting taxes, all you do is force most workers to go into debt to afford things they previously could afford because they were well-funded (like colleges, for example). You get that, right? Tax cuts are just a transfer of wealth to the top 1%, as is evidenced by their growing share of wealth.

No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.

Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!

Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!

Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut. They just did it in Kansas to pay for the tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves.

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?

Taking over student lending has nothing to do with state funding for public colleges. That's why tuition costs rise. You're talking about student loans, not tuition. Loans pay the tuition. And the tuition goes up because less state funding because of tax cuts. States pass tax cuts, which reduce revenue, which result in cuts to things like education, which results in state schools having to raise tuition, which results in increased borrowing by students and their families. No tax cuts = no education cuts = no student debt. It's really very simple to understand. So what your excuse for not getting it?

When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?

Clinton did, actually. Depending on what your calendar is, there was a debt reduction if you look December-to-December. Of course, since the government doesn't collect revenues all at once, some months when revenues run high, it's put toward the debt (which is what Clinton did several times). We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code. But they can't even do nothing right. SAD!

and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". Link?

Here ya go, buttmunch.

So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?

The stats show that to be the case, your unverifiable personal account notwithstanding. So why is it that you guys always seem to fall back on things you know you can't prove to make your argument? Personal things, I mean. It's a disturbing pattern on the right that generally reflects an insecurity on the facts, so rather than take personal responsibility, you retroactively justify it by saying you personally experienced it, even though you cannot prove that (or won't because you're too afraid to divulge personal details on an MB). So we are left to "take your word for it". My question is; why the **** should I take your word for it?

Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?

LOL! So veering into personal anecdote land, we get a glimpse into the flaws of your argument; namely that you have nothing factual to support your position so you just invent or exaggerate your own personal history to rig the argument after the fact. You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable. At least, that's how I was taught to debate. But I didn't go to Trump University like you did.

Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.

You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect? Or maybe the 4 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 70,000 jobs disappear? Or the 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 460,000 jobs disappear? Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand. How? Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives. So if you're spending more on tuition and health care, you're spending less on consumer goods. Increased out-of-pocket spending on education and health care doesn't create jobs, it takes demand out of the consumer economy, causing revenues to stagnate, which means businesses have no motivation to expand and hire more people. Flatlining revenues also result in layoffs because corporations have to increase profits each year. So if your revenues aren't increasing and the tax rate stays the same, that means in order to increase profit, you have to reduce expenses. That means jobs disappear.

<chart showing unemployment spiking the year Reagan's tax cuts went into effect>

LOL indeed. Thanks for providing the same ******* chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts. Also, that chart of yours it total employment, which includes government jobs (that don't count as real jobs, according to you all). Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?

We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn't.


Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
So what?
The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.

As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980.

Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?

And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway?

Because of whining about the deficit.

Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised

Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.

Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!

I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.

Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut.

Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.

Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?

Taking over student lending has nothing to do with state funding for public colleges.

Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?

Clinton did, actually.

Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL!
Prove it.

We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code.

Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!

The stats show that to be the case,

The stats show people were forced? Try again.

You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable.

Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.
You just can't prove it.

You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect?

Yes, you need to prove causation.

Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand. How? Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives.

Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?

Cool. Prove it.

Thanks for providing the same ******* chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts.

Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!

Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?

Feel free.

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997.
Bill Clinton says his administration paid down the debt


YES INTRA GOV'T DEBT WENT UP BECAUSE WE HAD MORE REVENUES COMING INTO TREASURY FROM SS, MEDICARE, OTHER TRUST FUNDS, ETC WHICH IS CALLED DEBT!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

 

[JonKoch]

So? Who said they must?

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.

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.

But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....

Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.

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?

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.

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!

They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.

NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:

If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,

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?

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

"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!?

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

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.

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!

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.

Everyone who has ever ******* proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the ******* point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

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").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

 

[JonKoch]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

cut and paste so what??? do you know what your point is?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????

 

[JonKoch]

Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...

"Where does the rich get their money from?"

Your ability to try to stick to one talking point is noted Bubs

You'll note CONTEXT that tax cuts for the rich ARE and have been the biggest gain by those "job creators" since 1980's

(Hint it's called TAX POLICY)...

Where does the rich get their money from?

From who?

PLENTY OF IT VIA GOP TAX CUTS BUBBA

 

[JonKoch]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

cut and paste so what??? do you know what your point is?

Besides you being dumb as a rock special Ed?

 

[JonKoch]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????

If you are opposed to freedom and the principle of America why not tell us why rather than post cartoons like a liberal goof??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

cut and paste so what??? do you know what your point is?

Besides you being dumb as a rock special Ed?

violent personal attack because as typical liberal you lack IQ for substantive response.

 

[JonKoch]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????

If you are opposed to freedom and the principle of America why not tell us why rather than post cartoons like a liberal goof??

 

[danielpalos]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????

Only in right wing fantasy. Our "wars on crime, drugs, and terror" are anything but, limited government.

 

[JonKoch]

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

Yup. 100%. Laffer was even making that stupid claim as recent as 5 years ago in Kansas.

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

Oh, "can" cause growth? Notice how the narrative starts to crumble. Before, you were assured that they do create growth, now you're saying they "can" create growth? Well, I can have a lovely evening banging Carla Gugino. But that doesn't mean I will.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

Again, there's that word again..."can". A squishy word thrown in almost under the radar to allow yourself the wiggle room to weasel out of the conversation later on. My cat "can" play the piano. But it doesn't.

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

Wait, wait...you just said before they "can", not that they do. So you got tripped up in your own narrative. Again. This is getting SAD!

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

So we've already established the first two are not true. You did that yourself when you said they "can". The third one is actually right on the money. Tax cuts are designed to increase deficits an manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation. Because you're a chickenshit.

Oh, "can" cause growth? Notice how the narrative starts to crumble.

Well, I can probably come up with several examples of tax cuts that won't necessarily lead to more jobs.

Before, you were assured that they do create growth, now you're saying they "can" create growth?

If you want to limit the claim to income taxes, then sure, they do create growth.

Again, there's that word again..."can".

If Illinois cuts cigarette taxes by a buck a carton, will that lead to economic growth?
Maybe? I wouldn't count on it.

So we've already established the first two are not true.

You've established no such thing.

Tax cuts are designed to increase deficits

If they result in a one-to-one spending cut, as you've claimed, they wouldn't increase deficits.

`

 

[JonKoch]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

YOO-HOO BUBBA FOR THE THIRD TIME, YOU SEEM TO HAVE "ACCIDENTALLY" SKIPPED THIS POST?????



Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax?


US TREASURY STUDY 2012:

DISTRIBUTING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX: REVISED U.S. TREASURY METHODOLOGY

...In summary, 82% of the corporate income tax burden is distributed to capital income and 18% is distributed to labor income.


Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

AGAIN, I'LL PATIENTLY AWAIT YOUR ANSWER

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

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.

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

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.

My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

 

[JonKoch]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

cut and paste so what??? do you know what your point is?

Besides you being dumb as a rock special Ed?

violent personal attack because as typical liberal you lack IQ for substantive response.

`

HOW ABOUT YOU BUBBA, YOU CLAIMED TAXES ON THE RICH TRICKLE TO THE POOR RIGHT? Can YOU step up where your right wing buddy has chosen to ignore it? lol

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

 

[JonKoch]

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.

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER

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.

My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So? Who said they must?

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.

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.

But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....

Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.

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?

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.

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!

They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.

NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:

If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,

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?

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

"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!?

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

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.

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!

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.

Everyone who has ever ******* proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the ******* point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

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").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.