Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

But you don't know what the peak is. As you said, you don't know or care. Which questions your entire purpose of responding to this thread. Fact is, you have no idea what the "peak" is, and you don't care to know because doing so would probably undermine your entire argument against taxation.

So everything you have written, are writing, and will write isn't based on any actual evidence or facts...but rather your theory which comes from your feelings and instincts.

All I have to say to that is...yikes!

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.

It is only fine if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're one of those morons who thinks higher taxes mean people will keep more of their own money.

Higher taxes on the rich, yes. Those higher taxes can fund things like health care and education, which means everyone else spends less on those and more in the consumer economy, which is 70% of the entire economy and where most of the jobs are. And we want people spending money in the consumer economy, don't we?

When taxes were cut for the wealthy during Bush the Dumber, they didn't increase their spending. Instead, they increased their savings. So the trickle down promise never came to pass, nor would it ever because it's fantasy.

xcellent! Glad you finally pulled your head out of your ass....however briefly.

Of course, you cut out the rest of my sentence. But that's how you guys roll; lie by omission. Tax cuts have to paid somehow, and almost always that "somehow" involves higher excise and sales taxes, and/or higher user fees and costs for the middle and lower class.

That part of the equation you guys never account for. Like Trump's latest budget that has a $2T math error in it.

When taxes were cut for the wealthy during Bush the Dumber, they didn't increase their spending. Instead, they increased their savings.

You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.

But that's how you guys roll; lie by omission.

Like your omission of any evidence that Federal tax cuts result in Federal spending cuts. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

But you don't know what the peak is. As you said, you don't know or care. Which questions your entire purpose of responding to this thread. Fact is, you have no idea what the "peak" is, and you don't care to know because doing so would probably undermine your entire argument against taxation.

So everything you have written, are writing, and will write isn't based on any actual evidence or facts...but rather your theory which comes from your feelings and instincts.

All I have to say to that is...yikes!

But you don't know what the peak is. As you said, you don't know or care.

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.

I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

you don't care to know because doing so would probably undermine your entire argument against taxation.

What's my argument? Why would the peak undermine my argument?

Put up or shut up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.

It is only fine if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the drug war.

 

[The Derp]

You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.

So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts. OK, great. So that now takes us to the next step which is; since the wealthy do not increase their spending as a result of getting a tax cut, then the tax cut for the wealthy serves no economic purpose. So then, why do the tax cut at all? Since it won't trickle-down, what is the point? I'll answer for you; tax cuts create deficits which are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation. So you very cynically attack the budget by posturing deficit concerns, then pretending those concerns have enough merit to warrant cuts to social spending. That's what tax cuts are designed to do; produce deficits to use as an excuse to cut spending you have no prayer of cutting through legislation. To think, you are so opposed to social spending you are willing to throw the budget out of whack in order to achieve that goal. I think that's light treason, but that's just my opinion. Deliberately wrecking the budget in order to advance an ideological agenda feels like treason and terrorism.

Like your omission of any evidence that Federal tax cuts result in Federal spending cuts. DERP!

Well, the federal government doesn't have a BBA, so it isn't required to balance its budget at the end of the FY. However, many states do have BBA's and those states end up cutting spending in order to balance the budget (or they do what they did in KS and raise excise and sales taxes), so all you really do is transfer the burden to the states, who then transfer the burden to the taxpayers. That's why I quoted KS' Regents Board for you when they said that the reason they were raising tuition was because of state cuts to education funding. And why were those cuts enacted? Because the tax cuts reduced revenue so much, KS couldn't even meet its minimum revenue projection. Because tax cuts do not generate growth.

 

[The Derp]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.

Ridiculous. So you don't care what the rate is, even though your entire argument hinges on the premise of a "peak" rate. You're basically just masturbating at this point in the debate. That happened the minute you said you had no idea what the peak rate is.

I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

Of course, by your own admission you base this on absolutely nothing other than your precious feelings. What a snowflake! So consumed with feelings and shit...

What makes you think the top rate of 25% is "plenty", since you have no idea what the peak rate would be according to the Laffer Curve? Sounds like bullshit to me, pal.

What's my argument? Why would the peak undermine my argument? Put up or shut up.

Because by your own admission you have no idea what the peak is. We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago. It didn't produce the growth we were promised it would. So if it didn't work before, why would it magically start working now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.

So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts. OK, great. So that now takes us to the next step which is; since the wealthy do not increase their spending as a result of getting a tax cut, then the tax cut for the wealthy serves no economic purpose. So then, why do the tax cut at all? Since it won't trickle-down, what is the point? I'll answer for you; tax cuts create deficits which are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation. So you very cynically attack the budget by posturing deficit concerns, then pretending those concerns have enough merit to warrant cuts to social spending. That's what tax cuts are designed to do; produce deficits to use as an excuse to cut spending you have no prayer of cutting through legislation. To think, you are so opposed to social spending you are willing to throw the budget out of whack in order to achieve that goal. I think that's light treason, but that's just my opinion. Deliberately wrecking the budget in order to advance an ideological agenda feels like treason and terrorism.

Like your omission of any evidence that Federal tax cuts result in Federal spending cuts. DERP!

Well, the federal government doesn't have a BBA, so it isn't required to balance its budget at the end of the FY. However, many states do have BBA's and those states end up cutting spending in order to balance the budget (or they do what they did in KS and raise excise and sales taxes), so all you really do is transfer the burden to the states, who then transfer the burden to the taxpayers. That's why I quoted KS' Regents Board for you when they said that the reason they were raising tuition was because of state cuts to education funding. And why were those cuts enacted? Because the tax cuts reduced revenue so much, KS couldn't even meet its minimum revenue projection. Because tax cuts do not generate growth.

So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.

No, I'm not. The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).

If those mean rich people increased their savings (investment), looky there, that's part of GDP.

federal government doesn't have a BBA, so it isn't required to balance its budget at the end of the FY.

Excellent! Glad you pulled your head out of your ass....however briefly.

However, many states do have BBA's

And if we ever stop talking about Federal tax cuts, that will matter.

so all you really do is transfer the burden to the states, who then transfer the burden to the taxpayers.

Yes, when states cut taxes the burden is on the state. Very astute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.

Ridiculous. So you don't care what the rate is, even though your entire argument hinges on the premise of a "peak" rate. You're basically just masturbating at this point in the debate. That happened the minute you said you had no idea what the peak rate is.

I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

Of course, by your own admission you base this on absolutely nothing other than your precious feelings. What a snowflake! So consumed with feelings and shit...

What makes you think the top rate of 25% is "plenty", since you have no idea what the peak rate would be according to the Laffer Curve? Sounds like bullshit to me, pal.

What's my argument? Why would the peak undermine my argument? Put up or shut up.

Because by your own admission you have no idea what the peak is. We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago. It didn't produce the growth we were promised it would. So if it didn't work before, why would it magically start working now?

Ridiculous. So you don't care what the rate is, even though your entire argument hinges on the premise of a "peak" rate.

Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
When I say, "I don't care what the peak rate is, cut taxes anyway", that's me saying my argument doesn't hinge on the peak rate.

What makes you think the top rate of 25% is "plenty",

Because people should keep more of their own money.
Because the government wastes enough, they don't deserve more money to waste.

Because by your own admission you have no idea what the peak is.

No one knows what the peak rate is.

We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago.

No we didn't.

 

[The Derp]

So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.
No, I'm not. The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

An idea debunked over and over and over. Why? Because giving money to suppliers doesn't increase consumer demand. Never has, never will. Secondly, it is not a matter for debate whether the wealthy increased their savings. It is a fact. So you have to concede that point because that point is reality. But you're not much of a realistic thinker. You prefer the magical thinking and faith that drives every single GOP idea simply because they don't have the merit. Supply-side tax cuts (aka trickle-down tax cuts) have not, and will not produce any jobs. Why? Because supply-side tax cuts do not increase revenue. Revenue is how you determine whether or not a business will expand. If your revenue increases each year, then your business is growing thus warranting a need to expand. If your revenue remains flat or declines, then your business is going to need to cut expenses in order to grow profits. And what is the #1 expense for any business? Labor. Supply-side tax cuts do nothing to increase revenue. Believing they do is akin to believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

If those mean rich people increased their savings (investment), looky there, that's part of GDP.

LOL! you think the wealthy's "savings" lead to increased investment? LOL! Wow, someone sure is naive! Again, this is where theory meets reality. Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses. The reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble. In 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts, 460,000 net private sector jobs were lost. So if the wealthy's "savings" were used to invest in new businesses or expand others, there would not have been net private sector job loss after 8 years, wouldn't there?

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending, is undermined by your own admission! So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth, and now require spending cuts in order to be offset; what ******* benefit do they even have? None as far as I can see. We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush. 460,000 net jobs were lost. So the wealthy, who you say invested that money, did what with it instead? Not invest in new businesses (because there was net job loss). So your premise is tossed right out the window.

And if we ever stop talking about Federal tax cuts, that will matter.

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will.

 

[hunarcy]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

The poor (bottom 50%) don't pay taxes , so how can they be forced to pay for tax cuts to corporations?

 

[The Derp]

Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
When I say, "I don't care what the peak rate is, cut taxes anyway", that's me saying my argument doesn't hinge on the peak rate.

Oh right, you support cutting taxes regardless of what it does to the budget. So, curious, why are you so consumed with deficits and debt? From where do you think they come? Your argument does hinge on a peak rate. You said the rate yourself was 25%...of course, you base that on nothing other than your feelings and emotions because in the absence of a factual argument, you can't just come out and admit you're full of shit because of your ego. So you have to make an argument based on what's going on in that gut of yours. So everything is emotional and hysterical, and not grounded in facts or reality. Which makes your argument not grounded in facts and reality, which makes your belief system not grounded in facts and reality. Which makes you delusional. Seems to me you just pulled that 25% number out of thin air. No justification for it other than emotion and bad rhetoric.

Because people should keep more of their own money.
Because the government wastes enough, they don't deserve more money to waste.

So again, it's an emotional and biased argument from someone who has no grasp on facts or reality. I know why you want to make this an emotional argument; because you cannot win an argument on the merits of the idea. So you say the merits of the idea don't matter, what matters is how you feel about it. Which makes you a snowflake, does it not? Your ego has to be preserved by entertaining an economic point-of-view that is not grounded in facts or reality, but rather emotion and hysterics.

Basically, you are bringing a feather to a gunfight.

And what waste? There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid. Any "waste" you'll have to cut to have any meaning on the budget deficit (BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET) will have to come from one of those three. Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you've done nothing to replace that demand in the economy. You don't bother to account for where that demand will be made up. You can't, of course, because the fundamental premise to your belief system relies entirely, 100% on faith.

The Church of Wishful Delusion, more specifically.

No one knows what the peak rate is.

Actually, many economists say it should be between 50-75%. They've done tons of studies on it. None of them say it should be as low as it is now.

We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago.No we didn't.

Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90. And, a recession started in 1990. Coincidence? The recession ended in 1991, after Bush the Elder created the top rate to 31% in 1991.

 

[The Derp]

The poor (bottom 50%) don't pay taxes , so how can they be forced to pay for tax cuts to corporations?

And why do they not pay taxes? Because Conservatives cut their taxes. So you cut taxes, then complain that people don't pay taxes, so your solution is to...cut taxes.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe the problem is you?

 

[The Derp]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.

It is only fine if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the drug war.

fiscal Responsibility does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.
No, I'm not. The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

An idea debunked over and over and over. Why? Because giving money to suppliers doesn't increase consumer demand. Never has, never will. Secondly, it is not a matter for debate whether the wealthy increased their savings. It is a fact. So you have to concede that point because that point is reality. But you're not much of a realistic thinker. You prefer the magical thinking and faith that drives every single GOP idea simply because they don't have the merit. Supply-side tax cuts (aka trickle-down tax cuts) have not, and will not produce any jobs. Why? Because supply-side tax cuts do not increase revenue. Revenue is how you determine whether or not a business will expand. If your revenue increases each year, then your business is growing thus warranting a need to expand. If your revenue remains flat or declines, then your business is going to need to cut expenses in order to grow profits. And what is the #1 expense for any business? Labor. Supply-side tax cuts do nothing to increase revenue. Believing they do is akin to believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

If those mean rich people increased their savings (investment), looky there, that's part of GDP.

LOL! you think the wealthy's "savings" lead to increased investment? LOL! Wow, someone sure is naive! Again, this is where theory meets reality. Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses. The reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble. In 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts, 460,000 net private sector jobs were lost. So if the wealthy's "savings" were used to invest in new businesses or expand others, there would not have been net private sector job loss after 8 years, wouldn't there?

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending, is undermined by your own admission! So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth, and now require spending cuts in order to be offset; what ******* benefit do they even have? None as far as I can see. We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush. 460,000 net jobs were lost. So the wealthy, who you say invested that money, did what with it instead? Not invest in new businesses (because there was net job loss). So your premise is tossed right out the window.

And if we ever stop talking about Federal tax cuts, that will matter.

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will.

Because giving money to suppliers doesn't increase consumer demand.

Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.

Never has, never will.

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Secondly, it is not a matter for debate whether the wealthy increased their savings. It is a fact.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

Supply-side tax cuts (aka trickle-down tax cuts) have not, and will not produce any jobs.

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

you think the wealthy's "savings" lead to increased investment?

Rich people are investing all the time.
That's how they got rich.

Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.

Yup.

The reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts

Why would they do that?

or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending

The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,

They do both.

We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.

And 4 years under Obama.

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will

You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
When I say, "I don't care what the peak rate is, cut taxes anyway", that's me saying my argument doesn't hinge on the peak rate.

Oh right, you support cutting taxes regardless of what it does to the budget. So, curious, why are you so consumed with deficits and debt? From where do you think they come? Your argument does hinge on a peak rate. You said the rate yourself was 25%...of course, you base that on nothing other than your feelings and emotions because in the absence of a factual argument, you can't just come out and admit you're full of shit because of your ego. So you have to make an argument based on what's going on in that gut of yours. So everything is emotional and hysterical, and not grounded in facts or reality. Which makes your argument not grounded in facts and reality, which makes your belief system not grounded in facts and reality. Which makes you delusional. Seems to me you just pulled that 25% number out of thin air. No justification for it other than emotion and bad rhetoric.

Because people should keep more of their own money.
Because the government wastes enough, they don't deserve more money to waste.

So again, it's an emotional and biased argument from someone who has no grasp on facts or reality. I know why you want to make this an emotional argument; because you cannot win an argument on the merits of the idea. So you say the merits of the idea don't matter, what matters is how you feel about it. Which makes you a snowflake, does it not? Your ego has to be preserved by entertaining an economic point-of-view that is not grounded in facts or reality, but rather emotion and hysterics.

Basically, you are bringing a feather to a gunfight.

And what waste? There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid. Any "waste" you'll have to cut to have any meaning on the budget deficit (BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET) will have to come from one of those three. Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you've done nothing to replace that demand in the economy. You don't bother to account for where that demand will be made up. You can't, of course, because the fundamental premise to your belief system relies entirely, 100% on faith.

The Church of Wishful Delusion, more specifically.

No one knows what the peak rate is.

Actually, many economists say it should be between 50-75%. They've done tons of studies on it. None of them say it should be as low as it is now.

We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago.No we didn't.

Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90. And, a recession started in 1990. Coincidence? The recession ended in 1991, after Bush the Elder created the top rate to 31% in 1991.

Oh right, you support cutting taxes regardless of what it does to the budget

We need to cut spending...a lot.
And regulations...a lot.

So, curious, why are you so consumed with deficits and debt?

I don't like idiotic wasted spending.

From where do you think they come

From idiotic wasted spending.

Your argument does hinge on a peak rate. You said the rate yourself was 25%..

25% should be the top rate, I don't think 25% is the peak rate on the Laffer Curve.

So everything is emotional and hysterical, and not grounded in facts or reality.

It's a fact, government is wasteful and inefficient.

There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid.

Yup, lots of waste there too.

(BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET)

If a tax cut lets people keep $100 billion more of their own money and that cut reduces government revenues by $80 billion, I'm still in favor of that cut.

Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you've done nothing to replace that demand in the economy.

It's funny that you think more money in the hands of the people doesn't increase demand.

None of them say it should be as low as it is now.

None of them? LOL! Prove it.

Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90. And, a recession started in 1990. Coincidence?

The previous recession ended in November 1982, when should the next recession have started? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

But it's not the peak, is it?

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.

It is only fine if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the drug war.

fiscal Responsibility does.

Hard labor for drug offenders.

You can help rebuild infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.

So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.

It is only fine if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the drug war.

fiscal Responsibility does.

Hard labor for drug offenders.

You can help rebuild infrastructure.

lol. We don't need alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror that the right wing is to, "chicken" to pay for.

We have a Second Amendment; better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia out of gun lovers, is Always a solution.

10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; be "legal" to our own laws!