Tax cut dont increase revenue

[Cancel 2016.2]

Whether tax cuts are beneficial to the economy is a separate (albiet related) issue altogether. The issue is impact of tax cuts on revenues, not the economy. The relevant inquiry is whether the economic growth resulting from the tax cuts is large enough and lasting enough to cause an increase in revenues despite the lower tax rates.

Yes, that was an add on to my comments on the benefits of tax cuts. Revenues tend to increase in the short term, but are unsustainable in the long term without spending cuts. UNLESS you have extreme situations like the cuts that Kennedy and Reagan did on the top rates. Those were drastic cuts and did indeed have long term benefits to the health of the economy and thus revenues.

But as I said, Laffer understands that a tax cut/increase is not the only thing effecting the economy and revenues. Thus it would be silly to base a decision simply off of the Laffer curve.

 

[gonzojournals]

You go desh.

I knew it was a matter of time, before the cons launched the gender-related insults.

Gender-related insults? I would call her a cunt if she were a dude.

Hell, Cypress, you're a cunt.

 

[evince]

Desh, another person would be able to laugh at them. You can not, because you are without a doubt the least intelligent person I have ever known--- therefore you have lost your right to condescend.

It is funny as hell that you find reason to insult me for merely posting an article that puts straight a missconception held by the right.

Then you try to claim its only because you think Im stupid(which funny enough you seem to think should curtail my right to speach).


You are one lost little fool who fails to even understand himself fully.

These are facts I presented and they do a fair bit to proving what the left has been saying for years and your inclination is to attack the messenger?

You dont even understand your own motivations little boy.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, that was an add on to my comments on the benefits of tax cuts. Revenues tend to increase in the short term, but are unsustainable in the long term without spending cuts. UNLESS you have extreme situations like the cuts that Kennedy and Reagan did on the top rates. Those were drastic cuts and did indeed have long term benefits to the health of the economy and thus revenues.

But as I said, Laffer understands that a tax cut/increase is not the only thing effecting the economy and revenues. Thus it would be silly to base a decision simply off of the Laffer curve.

I've discussed this issue to death with you folks before and I don't intend to rehash the debate.

The bottom line is this: Some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues, but as a general rule tax cuts do not result in increased revenues as Republican politicians would have you believe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've discussed this issue to death with you folks before and I don't intend to rehash the debate.

The bottom line is this: Some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues, but as a general rule tax cuts do not result in increased revenues as Republican politicians would have you believe.

No need to rehash anything, because I agree with the above when talking about the long term effects of tax cuts.

 

[gonzojournals]

It is funny as hell that you find reason to insult me for merely posting an article that puts straight a missconception held by the right.

No, I'm insulting you for gloating over an article, when you lost your right to any sort of elevated status long ago.

Then you try to claim its only because you think Im stupid(which funny enough you seem to think should curtail my right to speach).

Correction, I know you are stupid, and yes, I believe that curtails any rights you have--- I'd send you to a work camp if I had my way.

You are one lost little fool who fails to even understand himself fully.

Care to elaborate, because we can sit here and make baseless accusations all day....or have you decided to hide your stupidity behind the veil of pseudo-intellectual comments as if you were some sort of psychologist.

These are facts I presented and they do a fair bit to proving what the left has been saying for years and your inclination is to attack the messenger?

Attacking the messenger would be attacking Time magazine...I'm attacking the retard that is bragging about research she did not make, conclusions she has no basis for, and someone is completely oblivious to the way in which both the economy and the government actually function.

You dont even understand your own motivations little boy.

Again, more pseudo-psychological crap. You can't even defend that statement.

 

[Topspin]

again your wrong dungshit, I could care less what a repub or dem politician says.
Most economist will say they raise collections except under rare circumstances.
Maybe on a simpleton example if you and desh's taxes are cut $100 you'll both spend all of it. NO?

 

[Bonestorm]

again your wrong dungshit, I could care less what a repub or dem politician says.
Most economist will say they raise collections except under rare circumstances.
Maybe on a simpleton example if you and desh's taxes are cut $100 you'll both spend all of it. NO?

My statement is a paraphrase of a quote from Bruce Bartlett. Take it up with him toptard.

 

[Topspin]

I even hear dem pundits saying now is not the time to raise taxes. ie. it would hurt the economy. Dungshit.

 

[evince]

No, I'm insulting you for gloating over an article, when you lost your right to any sort of elevated status long ago.


Correction, I know you are stupid, and yes, I believe that curtails any rights you have--- I'd send you to a work camp if I had my way.



Care to elaborate, because we can sit here and make baseless accusations all day....or have you decided to hide your stupidity behind the veil of pseudo-intellectual comments as if you were some sort of psychologist.


Attacking the messenger would be attacking Time magazine...I'm attacking the retard that is bragging about research she did not make, conclusions she has no basis for, and someone is completely oblivious to the way in which both the economy and the government actually function.


Again, more pseudo-psychological crap. You can't even defend that statement.

This from the guy who resorted to calling me a cunt because the facts scared his ass so bad.

 

[Chapdog]

I've discussed this issue to death with you folks before and I don't intend to rehash the debate.

The bottom line is this: Some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues, but as a general rule tax cuts do not result in increased revenues as Republican politicians would have you believe.

its a balance. rise them to much and u will shrink the motivation to work and invest and increase the motivation to find tax shelters for capital. lower them to much and you simply take away the governments ability to collect revenue.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

again your wrong dungshit, I could care less what a repub or dem politician says.
Most economist will say they raise collections except under rare circumstances.
Maybe on a simpleton example if you and desh's taxes are cut $100 you'll both spend all of it. NO?

Incorrect. Most economists would tell you that tax cuts are typically unsustainable for the long term, unless they are accompanied by corresponding cuts in spending. In the short term you are correct, in the short term they tend to spur revenue growth. But as mentioned before, it depends on what rates are cut and how much they are cut.

 

[evince]

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.


http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html

 

[Chapdog]

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

or like saying the tax increase in 90's was responsible for that economy. cant have your cake and eat it 2.

 

[Chapdog]

we all know what the basis of the liberal left of the party is doing.. constructing an image that tax increases are good. just as th neocons did that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. in this day in age its no surprise that in anticipation of a clean sweep in 08 the dems plan to raise taxes.


end result.. if hillary does not say that she wont raise your taxes = 100% chance she will. If obama or other say they will not raise your taxes = 50% they will.

 

[Bonestorm]

Incorrect. Most economists would tell you that tax cuts are typically unsustainable for the long term, unless they are accompanied by corresponding cuts in spending. In the short term you are correct, in the short term they tend to spur revenue growth. But as mentioned before, it depends on what rates are cut and how much they are cut.

Most economists would tell you pretty matter-of-factly that tax cuts don't increase revenues except is very unique circumstances.

 

[evince]

Nope never said they were the only reason the economy was good but I did say that the 1993 budget reduction act passed without one single R vote was in great part responsible for the surpluses. The GAO ,he CBO agree. Now it seems Laffer give Clinton the credit himself.

 

[Topspin]

Dumbasdung would be better than dungshit. Do you ever listen to nonpartisan economist?

SF your a tard, we are not talking spending dorkface. Tax cuts and spending.
If your $300,000 broker salary is taxed at 50% and is next year lowered to 30% your not going to spend and invest a good deal of the 20%. LOFL

 

[Chapdog]

Nope never said they were the only reason the economy was good but I did say that the 1993 budget reduction act passed without one single R vote was in great part responsible for the surpluses. The GAO ,he CBO agree. Now it seems Laffer give Clinton the credit himself.

tho we went over this lots of times in past there are some that say the tax increase actually stifled the golden tech boom such as the heritage group.

 

[Bonestorm]

we all know what the basis of the liberal left of the party is doing.. constructing an image that tax increases are good. just as th neocons did that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. in this day in age its no surprise that in anticipation of a clean sweep in 08 the dems plan to raise taxes.

Chap - That's hilarious. The opposite is actually true. Republicans want you to believe that tax cuts increase revenues so that they can cut taxes and without doing any corresponding spending cuts. In fact, they can pay for all their wildest programs not through tax hikes, but through tax cuts. See the beauty of that? They can increase spending while cutting taxes. Ponies for everyone!

Democrats, on the other hand, take a realistic approach to these issues. It's not that tax increases are a good thing. It's just that they are necessary after eight years of Bush mis-management.