The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[danielpalos]

So what; a micro-boom and massive debt is what we get. solve that, right wingers, and you can cut taxes all you want.

why not start, with our War on Drugs?

 

[Boss]

/----- Got any proof?

Yes. Look at federal receipts from 2000-2004.

Federal Receipts (in 000's)
2000: $2,025.2
2001 (Bush Tax Cuts passed): $1,991.1
2002: $1,853.1
2003 (Bush Tax Cuts accelerated): $1,782.3
2004 (Bush Mortgage Bubble starts): $1,880.1

So you can clearly see there that revenue decreased during the Bush tax cuts below 2000 levels.

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue. My argument is for TOP MARGINAL tax rates only. When you cut the top marginals, the revenues increase because the incentive to invest and grow wealth is increased and top marginal wage earners tend to earn more income which produces more tax revenue. This happens every single time it is tried without fail.

Even with the Bush tax cuts, if you dissect the revenue and look at the portion which came from top marginal wage earners, you'll see they produced a substantial increase in revenue for their demographic. The numbers you are showing are the overall results which include the massive revenue lost due to cutting lower marginal income tax rates and also reducing the tax base (number of taxpayers.) When you add all of it up, the Bush tax cuts came out relatively revenue neutral. There was a slight decline at the end due to the market crash which had nothing to do with the tax rates.

 

[The Derp]

These are the top marginal income tax rates. You can clearly see which years we lowered the top marginal tax rates. Pick a year, any year.... then go to the next chart and find the year following the tax cut to see if it produced more or less revenue than the year before:

OK...Bush cut taxes in 2001.

Revenue for 2001-2004 was below what Revenue was in 2000.

That was easy.

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes needs to be offset by reductions in discretionary spending, like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Cut the Waste, right wingers and lower taxes!

 

[Spare_change]

Cutting taxes needs to be offset by reductions in discretionary spending, like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Cut the Waste, right wingers and lower taxes!

Just discretionary?

Cut it all .... unless, of course, it affects your free gifts from the government.

 

[The Derp]

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue

Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.

During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes needs to be offset by reductions in discretionary spending, like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Cut the Waste, right wingers and lower taxes!

Just discretionary?

Cut it all .... unless, of course, it affects your free gifts from the government.

There is no common Offense clause; there is a general welfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing only complains when the "hard working poor", expatriate money.

 

[The Derp]

Cutting taxes needs to be offset by reductions in discretionary spending, like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Why? The argument used to be that cutting taxes would result in all this increased spending and revenues, that we would run surpluses as far as the eye could see, thus negating any need for spending cuts. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument became that tax cuts needed time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument shifted again to one that tax cuts only work if coupled with spending cuts (?), even though spending cuts have nothing to do with tax cuts. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument became one of emotion; namely "letting people keep more of what they earned". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives ceased making any arguments in favor of the policy, choosing instead to willfully lie about its effects.

By saying there needs to be spending cuts, what Conservatives are admitting is that tax cuts do not generate enough economic activity to offset their costs. If they did, there would be no need to cut spending because there wouldn't be any deficits. Because the tax cuts produced all this magic revenue from increased consumption. Only that never happens. Instead what happens is that tax cuts result in massive deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending. When spending is cut, it almost always is operational and causes programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to the failing programs as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit at our expense while producing nothing better than the system that existed before. We can simply look at private prisons and charter schools to see the failure there. Conservatives only support tax cuts because they know they create deficits and want to do away with social programs they oppose, but lack the courage and/or support to repeal. So they practice fiscal terrorism by deliberately spiking the budget to manufacture deficits in order to push through an ideological agenda.

Thankfully, this scheme is being smoked out, as we saw in Kansas yesterday.

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes needs to be offset by reductions in discretionary spending, like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Why? The argument used to be that cutting taxes would result in all this increased spending and revenues, that we would run surpluses as far as the eye could see, thus negating any need for spending cuts. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument became that tax cuts needed time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument shifted again to one that tax cuts only work if coupled with spending cuts (?), even though spending cuts have nothing to do with tax cuts. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument became one of emotion; namely "letting people keep more of what they earned". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives ceased making any arguments in favor of the policy, choosing instead to willfully lie about its effects.

By saying there needs to be spending cuts, what Conservatives are admitting is that tax cuts do not generate enough economic activity to offset their costs. If they did, there would be no need to cut spending because there wouldn't be any deficits. Because the tax cuts produced all this magic revenue from increased consumption. Only that never happens. Instead what happens is that tax cuts result in massive deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending. When spending is cut, it almost always is operational and causes programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to the failing programs as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit at our expense while producing nothing better than the system that existed before. We can simply look at private prisons and charter schools to see the failure there. Conservatives only support tax cuts because they know they create deficits and want to do away with social programs they oppose, but lack the courage and/or support to repeal. So they practice fiscal terrorism by deliberately spiking the budget to manufacture deficits in order to push through an ideological agenda.

Thankfully, this scheme is being smoked out, as we saw in Kansas yesterday.

Fiscal policy takes time, it is a lagging indicator and relies on monetary policy and that lag time.

In the mean time, all that happens is, our debt increases and the micro-boom ends and we get a hopefully only mini-bust and more debt.

 

[imawhosure]

That's a bit Fact Intensive....
Do you have anything I can fit on this bumper sticker?

Tax Cuts = Debt

BULLSH**. Every tax cut from Coolidge, to Kennedy, to Reagan, to GW INCREASED the amount of money brought in to the treasury after being adjusted for inflation. DO YOU WANT TO BET!

 

[The Derp]

Fiscal policy takes time, it is a lagging indicator and relies on monetary policy and that lag time.

Yeah...you know what, though? That's what Brownback said after he said tax cuts "would be a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy", but weren't.

I'm no doctor, but even I know that adrenaline doesn't take 5 years to start working.

Those people are bullshitters. Their beliefs should be treated as bullshit.

 

[danielpalos]

Fiscal policy takes time, it is a lagging indicator and relies on monetary policy and that lag time.

Yeah...you know what, though? That's what Brownback said after he said tax cuts "would be a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy", but weren't.

I'm no doctor, but even I know that adrenaline doesn't take 5 years to start working.

Those people are bullshitters. Their beliefs should be treated as bullshit.

mostly just fallacy induced fantasy.

 

[The Derp]

BULLSH**. Every tax cut from Coolidge, to Kennedy, to Reagan, to GW INCREASED the amount of money brought in to the treasury after being adjusted for inflation. DO YOU WANT TO BET!

Simply NOT TRUE! You cannot prove this. I, however, can prove that what grew revenues was spending, not tax cuts. You are trying to push trickle down bullshit on the rest of us. They tried to do the same thing in Kansas, and that shit just got repealed yesterday. The Kansas Experiment was billed by Conservatives as the standard by which their tax policy would be nationally. McConnell said, in 2012 of the Brownback Tax Cuts, that they were "what we want to do in Washington DC but can't for now". Those Brownback Tax Cuts were just repealed yesterday by the KS State Legislature that overrode Brownback's veto. Here's why:

 

[Boss]

These are the top marginal income tax rates. You can clearly see which years we lowered the top marginal tax rates. Pick a year, any year.... then go to the next chart and find the year following the tax cut to see if it produced more or less revenue than the year before:

OK...Bush cut taxes in 2001.

Revenue for 2001-2004 was below what Revenue was in 2000.

That was easy.

Again, my argument is not that "cutting taxes" produces more revenue. My argument is (and it's true) that cutting the TOP MARGINAL TAX RATES increases revenues. Revenue was lower in 2001-2004 because Bush cut ALL tax rates. If you dissect the tax revenues for 2001-2004 and look at only the tax revenues from top marginal income earners, their revenues increased significantly. But because their increase was offset by many more lower income taxpayers revenue decreases, and the fact that Bush also cut thousands from the tax rolls altogether, the end result for the overall tax revenues were less.

 

[danielpalos]

That's a bit Fact Intensive....
Do you have anything I can fit on this bumper sticker?

Tax Cuts = Debt

BULLSH**. Every tax cut from Coolidge, to Kennedy, to Reagan, to GW INCREASED the amount of money brought in to the treasury after being adjusted for inflation. DO YOU WANT TO BET!

means nothing, since we have massive debt. raising taxes simply, better ensures more fiscal responsibility, even if Only for better tax avoidance purposes.

 

[Boss]

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue

Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.

During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.

Now you're jumping to an example of a STATE which has a myriad of mitigating circumstances involved which do not apply nationally.

Increasing spending DOES NOT increase tax revenues. Cutting TOP MARGINAL tax rates does increase revenues. Spending, debts and deficits are a different subject. That has nothing to do with tax rates and revenues produced by them.

I've shown you the stats... Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% and tax revenues increased from $517 billion to $909 billion in his 8-years. We had similar results when Kennedy's tax cuts were done in the early 60s and even when Clinton lowered top marginal rates in the 90s. And if you look at revenues from only the top marginal rates, even the Bush tax cuts produced more revenue. This is a FACT... not a theory.

ALL Free Market economy is "trickle down" ....that's how a free market system works. When you say "trickle down doesn't work" you are essentially claiming "free market doesn't work!" That is asinine.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Another Jimmy Carter, fot the people !!!!!!!

Lmfao

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue

Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.

During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.

/---- You're either too stupid to understand or too partisan to to admit you're wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue

Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.

During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.

Now you're jumping to an example of a STATE which has a myriad of mitigating circumstances involved which do not apply nationally.

Increasing spending DOES NOT increase tax revenues.

Are you trying to single-handedly, trying to deny and disparage, a positive multiplier effect?