1980s Fiscal Policy

[canceled.2021.1]

Nope.

We let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich, and revenues grew 13% and $325B - which was the largest single yearly revenue gain ever.

So if we got that from letting the rate return to 39.6%, it stands to reason that increasing the rate on the top bracket alone to 70% would increase revenues even more, because that's empirically what happened from 2012-2013.

What's sophistry is pretending that revenues will go down when tax rates are raised. Never in the history of our country has that happened.

But revenues have gone down when tax rates are cut. That's happened quite a few times, most recently from 2001-2004.




Now THAT is sophistry.

If spending bills are passed, then that is a guarabtee the money would go to those things.

So at least you're conceding that raising taxes would raise revenue, now your point of contention seems to be that the increase in revenue won't be spent on the things that Congress would pass spending bills for.

And that is a sophist's argument.

What a fucking fraud and intellectual lightweight. I see why you are compelled to declare victory, your ego is so fragile.

Let's try this argument from a different place shall we? You have been asked this question before, but for some reason (I think I know) you won't answer

Here is the question. How much revenue would be raised by raising the top marginal rate on incomes over $10,000,000 to 70%?

 

[LV426]

Here is the question. How much revenue would be raised by raising the top marginal rate on incomes over $10,000,000 to 70%?

I don't know how much would be raised. I never pretended to know that I did. What I do know is that revenue will be raised because math.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Some threads in this forum- you just ignore....... I mean based on their previous bullshit!

With the only exception being- making sure the author knows it! BLAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I don't know how much would be raised. I never pretended to know that I did. What I do know is that revenue will be raised because math.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I don't know how much would be raised. I never pretended to know that I did. What I do know is that revenue will be raised because math.

You don't know how much would be raised? Why not?

You don't know how many people who make more than $10,000,000 a year? How hard can that be for you to track down? Can't be that many people can it?

 

[LV426]

You don't know how much would be raised? Why not?

Because I don't know what incomes are going to be years from now.

We can safely assume that revenues will increase at least in the 13% range, and at least $325B, because that's how much they increased the last time we raised taxes on the rich.

 

[LV426]

You don't know how many people who make more than $10,000,000 a year? How hard can that be for you to track down? Can't be that many people can it?

Maybe you should track that down since it seems to be of such interest to you, then.

Raising the top rate to 70% will bring in at least the same amount that was brought in 2013 after the Bush tax Cuts for the rich expired.

You remember that, right? You all said the sky would fall if that happened. Turns out you were wrong.

So since you were wrong back then, why would you be right today?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Because I don't know what incomes are going to be years from now.

We can safely assume that revenues will increase at least in the 13% range, and at least $325B, because that's how much they increased the last time we raised taxes on the rich.

Not necessarily

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Maybe you should track that down since it seems to be of such interest to you, then.

Raising the top rate to 70% will bring in at least the same amount that was brought in 2013 after the Bush tax Cuts for the rich expired.

You remember that, right? You all said the sky would fall if that happened. Turns out you were wrong.

So since you were wrong back then, why would you be right today?

It isn't of interest to me. It is of interest to your new socialist gal pal AOC. It is her recommendation. You seem to have her back

 

[LV426]

Not necessarily

That's what the empirical data shows!

And your argument was that raising taxes on the rich will reduce revenues.

An argument that lacks any empirical evidence to support it.

It's just something you say because you think it makes you sound clever, when it really makes you sound like you're mathematically challenged.

 

[LV426]

It isn't of interest to me. It is of interest to your new socialist gal pal AOC. It is her recommendation. You seem to have her back

It's of interest to me.

It interests me greatly why you think after being wrong for the last 6 years, you'd magically be right about things today.

Explain that to me...explain at what point over the last 6 years your initial argument was right and validates what you're saying here?

Go ahead. I dare you.

 

[LV426]

It isn't of interest to me. It is of interest to your new socialist gal pal AOC. It is her recommendation. You seem to have her back

I am seriously interested to know what changed in the last 6 years that suddenly makes your invalid argument from 2012-13, valid?

What changed between 2013 and today where raising taxes on the wealthy won't increase revenues?

Back in 2012, you all said letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich would cause the sky to fall.

YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THAT.

So since you were hilariously wrong about it all then, why would you suddenly be right about it today?

^^NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I TRULY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE RIGHT^^

 

[canceled.2021.1]

That's what the empirical data shows!

And your argument was that raising taxes on the rich will reduce revenues.

An argument that lacks any empirical evidence to support it.

It's just something you say because you think it makes you sound clever, when it really makes you sound like you're mathematically challenged.

Show me where I made that claim? I have never said that you fucking liar.

What I have maintained and will always maintain is that revenues never seem to meet projections. I also know that at certain points tax rates will impact individual behavior. It is a fact. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not is up to you Toby

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I am seriously interested to know what changed in the last 6 years that suddenly makes your invalid argument from 2012-13, valid?

What changed between 2013 and today where raising taxes on the wealthy won't increase revenues?

Back in 2012, you all said letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich would cause the sky to fall.

YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THAT.

So since you were hilariously wrong about it all then, why would you suddenly be right about it today?

^^NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I TRULY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE RIGHT^^

You claim that I made that argument in 2013? Please go back and find me making that argument. I dare you. Sorry, but you don't get to put words in my mouth

 

[LV426]

Show me where I made that claim? I have never said that you fucking liar.

So your argument is not that raising taxes on the rich would lead to lower revenues?

Just so I'm clear, what is your position? That raising taxes on the rich won't increase revenues, or that it will?

 

[LV426]

What I have maintained and will always maintain is that revenues never seem to meet projections.

I'm not sure what projections you're referring to, which makes me think you're now trying to shift your argument to a different level entirely.

I never made projections of what revenue we'd see if we returned to the tax rates pre-1980. What I did say was that the empirical evidence of the last time taxes were raised on the wealthy saw the largest increase in revenue ever. And that was just 6 years ago. So it's pretty recent empirical evidence.

It sounds to me that you staked out a reflexive position against it, and have since been trying to backfill that position with bullshit and goalpost shifts when you can just simply say "I was talking out of my ass and can't create a coherent argument along any economic or fiscal lines against AOC's plan."

If you said that, then we can have a reasonable discussion. But you won't say that because it would be a tacit admission that the instincts and judgement that led you to the previous position were shitty.

 

[LV426]

I also know that at certain points tax rates will impact individual behavior. It is a fact

No, it's not a fucking fact.

It's you trying to substitute your shitty instincts for facts.

We had a top tax rate as high as 94% at one point in this country. From 1946-1980 the top tax rate was between 70% - 92%. Yet, the economy grew and the middle class was created.

So at what point are you just going to admit that you've been talking out of your ass this entire time?

 

[LV426]

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not is up to you Toby

There exists no data, no empirical evidence, nothing to support what you are saying.

All you have is a loose concept of the Laffer Curve, which itself doesn't establish any truths.

And what happened to Arthur Laffer? He was laughed out of Kansas when his tax cut experiment failed. Hasn't been heard from since.

There's a reason why; he's as full of shit as you are.

 

[LV426]

You claim that I made that argument in 2013?

No, no.

You don't get to float a lifeboat now.

Every single Conservative said the sky would fall if Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich.

Everything you're saying would happen if the rate went to 70% was what you all said 6 years ago when the rate went back to 39.6%.

So you were completely wrong then.

So since you were wrong then, why the fuck would you be right today? (Not a rhetorical question)