Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[Thinker101]

Only tax increases for the rich until our debt is making money for us, again.

Imagine that, if you live in California, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown feels if you have any money whatsoever then you are rich.

Red Herrings really are worthless, for real fishmongers.

Definitely something fishy about your comment...are you really Moonbeam Brown?

 

[Boss]

We don't have debt because we don't collect enough taxes. We have debt because we spend more money than we take in with taxes.

This filthy ass combined governments (Federal, State and Local) already takes 40% of the GDP for the cost of government and that is despicable.

If we cut taxes when we are running a balanced budget, and that tax cut gives us a budget deficit, then IT IS THE TAX CUT that's the problem...., No?

Again... tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue. Not sometimes... Not theoretically... always!

Now...according to the Laffer Curve, there is a point where decreasing the tax rate will result in less revenue, but we are far from that.

Any gains are short term
Problem is....you have to produce more revenue EVERY year
Reagan's tax cuts are still in place....we are still paying for them

The tax cuts produced more revenue! What part of that are you missing? We received $514 billion in tax revenue for 1980... in 1988, we received $909 billion. Even adjusted for inflation, we received more tax revenue at the lower rate. This is because more wealth was generated from the prosperity, more new jobs, more taxpayers, more revenue. And this is the result every time. Again, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the data... you can't.

 

[danielpalos]

It's a proven fact... it's not even debatable... reducing the top marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Historically, we can look at 1920, 1960, 1983, 1997 and 2003... these are years we cut top marginal tax rates... in every instance, tax revenues increased.

And there again is the reagan lie. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues dropped both years, that is the proven fact! So what does the dishonest do, they ignore 1981 and 1982. In 1983 Reagan made the largest tax peacetime tax increase so the deceitful Right start with the revenues from 1983.

To refresh the failing/selective memory of the Right:

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97–34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut", was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an act "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates.

The right wing has nothing but fallacy, but proclaim they are for the "gospel Truth" of any given argument.

 

[edthecynic]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

No tax revenue went DOWN in 1982 and 1983 by 3.7% and 7.11% respectively after St Ronnie's 1981ETRA 3 year tax cut was passed. By the end of 1982 it was obvious even to Reagan that supply side trickle down had failed and so he passed the TEFRA tax increase rolling back the third year ETRA tax cuts and only then did revenue increase, which is why the dishonest Right ALWAYS start with the tax revenue AFTER 1983.

 

[rightwinger]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

The government needs to BALANCE THE BUDGET while the economy is strong. That means INCREASING taxes, not lowering them, as well as cutting spending.

Agree...now is the time
Make everyone pay
Increase taxes on the wealthy only until the $20 trillion debt is paid off

Seems fair

 

[edthecynic]

The tax cuts produced more revenue! What part of that are you missing? We received $514 billion in tax revenue for 1980... in 1988, we received $909 billion.

And there is the same lie yet again, ignoring the tax increases between 1983 and 1988!
The Right ALWAYS lie to your ignorance by telling only part of the story leaving it up to you to search out what they left out.

 

[Zander]

Steal from the rich and give to the poor!! It worked in Robin Hood!! And Look how great it worked in Venezuela! It's a workers paradise there!!

All Democrats and LWNJ's should be forced to vacation in Caracas. Ya know, to live the dream!!


Venezuela is on the brink of a complete economic collapse
Venezuela Reaches the End of the Road to Serfdom

 

[Boss]

It's a proven fact... it's not even debatable... reducing the top marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Historically, we can look at 1920, 1960, 1983, 1997 and 2003... these are years we cut top marginal tax rates... in every instance, tax revenues increased.

And there again is the reagan lie. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues dropped both years, that is the proven fact! So what does the dishonest do, they ignore 1981 and 1982. In 1983 Reagan made the largest tax peacetime tax increase so the deceitful Right start with the revenues from 1983.

To refresh the failing/selective memory of the Right:

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97–34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut", was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an act "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates.

I've posted the link before to taxpolicycenter.org where you can look it up for yourself. The Reagan tax cuts generated 75% more tax revenue.

What you are calling a Reagan tax increase is actually the second part of his economic policy which was to broaden the tax base. This did add many new taxpayers to the rolls but the revenues were already increasing.

 

[Boss]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

No tax revenue went DOWN in 1982 and 1983 by 3.7% and 7.11% respectively after St Ronnie's 1981ETRA 3 year tax cut was passed. By the end of 1982 it was obvious even to Reagan that supply side trickle down had failed and so he passed the TEFRA tax increase rolling back the third year ETRA tax cuts and only then did revenue increase, which is why the dishonest Right ALWAYS start with the tax revenue AFTER 1983.

No, tax revenue didn't go down. You're full of shit.

 

[edthecynic]

It's a proven fact... it's not even debatable... reducing the top marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Historically, we can look at 1920, 1960, 1983, 1997 and 2003... these are years we cut top marginal tax rates... in every instance, tax revenues increased.

And there again is the reagan lie. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues dropped both years, that is the proven fact! So what does the dishonest do, they ignore 1981 and 1982. In 1983 Reagan made the largest tax peacetime tax increase so the deceitful Right start with the revenues from 1983.

To refresh the failing/selective memory of the Right:

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97–34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut", was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an act "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates.

I've posted the link before to taxpolicycenter.org where you can look it up for yourself. The Reagan tax cuts generated 75% more tax revenue.

What you are calling a Reagan tax increase is actually the second part of his economic policy which was to broaden the tax base. This did add many new taxpayers to the rolls but the revenues were already increasing.

LIAR!

From the Right-wing Heritage Foundation.

 

[edthecynic]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

No tax revenue went DOWN in 1982 and 1983 by 3.7% and 7.11% respectively after St Ronnie's 1981ETRA 3 year tax cut was passed. By the end of 1982 it was obvious even to Reagan that supply side trickle down had failed and so he passed the TEFRA tax increase rolling back the third year ETRA tax cuts and only then did revenue increase, which is why the dishonest Right ALWAYS start with the tax revenue AFTER 1983.

No, tax revenue didn't go down. You're full of shit.

And you are a liar! Even the Heritage Foundation shows that revenue went DOWN after the Reagan tax cuts before the tax increases went into effect.

 

[rightwinger]

Steal from the rich and give to the poor!! It worked in Robin Hood!! And Look how great it worked in Venezuela! It's a workers paradise there!!

All Democrats and LWNJ's should be forced to vacation in Caracas. Ya know, to live the dream!!


Venezuela is on the brink of a complete economic collapse
Venezuela Reaches the End of the Road to Serfdom

Taxes are not stealing and we are not Venezuela

Our wealthy pay at the lowest rate in 35 years

 

[Boss]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

No tax revenue went DOWN in 1982 and 1983 by 3.7% and 7.11% respectively after St Ronnie's 1981ETRA 3 year tax cut was passed. By the end of 1982 it was obvious even to Reagan that supply side trickle down had failed and so he passed the TEFRA tax increase rolling back the third year ETRA tax cuts and only then did revenue increase, which is why the dishonest Right ALWAYS start with the tax revenue AFTER 1983.

No, tax revenue didn't go down. You're full of shit.

And you are a liar! Even the Heritage Foundation shows that revenue went DOWN after the Reagan tax cuts before the tax increases went into effect.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[edthecynic]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

 

[Fenton Lum]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

When did you complain about Obama's spending?

All the time shoog, the twit turned 2 wars into 7.

 

[Boss]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Don't you mean frivolous wars and military spending, corporate tax breaks, and wage subsidies to America's richest corporations.

You want the government to protect you from terrorists - you need to pay for it.

Taxes are not theft of what is yours. Taxes are the cost you pay for infrastructure, safety and security of living in a first world country, where you have educated workers you can hire and make money from, where you don't have to barricade yourself against those who really would steal everything you have. You could move to Mynamar where there are no taxes. Or maybe Lebanon, where they pay no income tax. There are lots of countries in the world where you pay no income tax, but they're all dangerous shit holes, where you need bodyguards to protect you from criminals and thieves.

But at least the government wouldn't be stealing what is "yours".

You start off whining about wars.... EVERY SINGLE nation Trump is involved in is a nation war Obama or Bush started, not Trump, you stupid old woman.
The rest of your nonsensical bullshit response is not worth commenting on as it's the usual leftist drivel

This may be tough for you to get your own head wrapped around, but some folks are against all these dumbass wars of occupation and empire which are economically draining our own society regardless of who "started" them. They are all a bipartisan continuum that allows concentrated corporate wealth and power to engage in societal wealth extraction and redistribution across the globe.

 

[edthecynic]

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

No tax revenues went up, deficit went up because Reagan greatly increased spending, which was a stark contrast to Carson who was actually pretty fugal. Yes Reagan spent A LOT, but it was part of a plan to accelerate the soviet collapse by forcing their hand to try to compete with military developments on their own with a tech embargo impeding them, while we're propping up the mujahideen making the soviets hemorrhage 8 billion per our 1 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

No tax revenue went DOWN in 1982 and 1983 by 3.7% and 7.11% respectively after St Ronnie's 1981ETRA 3 year tax cut was passed. By the end of 1982 it was obvious even to Reagan that supply side trickle down had failed and so he passed the TEFRA tax increase rolling back the third year ETRA tax cuts and only then did revenue increase, which is why the dishonest Right ALWAYS start with the tax revenue AFTER 1983.

No, tax revenue didn't go down. You're full of shit.

And you are a liar! Even the Heritage Foundation shows that revenue went DOWN after the Reagan tax cuts before the tax increases went into effect.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Your own chart using constant 2009 dollars in billions shows a DROP in revenue from 1981, when the Carter rates were last used minus 5%, to 1982 and 1983. So your OWN link exposes your lie, but as a CON$ervoFascist you will continue to lie.

From your own link:
1981 $1,364.8
1982 $1,308.5
1983 $1,211.5

 

[edthecynic]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

Your OWN link shows the same facts, just using different constant dollars, 1996 for my data and 2009 for your data.

Man up and admit your Right-wing sources made a SUCKER out of you, as they ALWAYS do!

 

[bripat9643]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

It's not true that if you cut taxes, then government has less money. That's false primary thinking. Cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts (of course it depends on how you do it). In the 3 most drastic tax cuts in the past century, tax revenue increased by no less than 40%, upwards to 64%. It's called the laffer curve.

And I find it interesting that the left suddenly cares about the debt again. If y'all care about the debt, let's balance the freaking budget please. Let's take all spending down to zero, then see where spending is doing good for the citizens, and cut what's not helping citizens. Does that not sound reasonable??

Got a link to back up your claims that cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts?

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative.