Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

[Bonestorm]

Do tell us who stated that it was the sole reason.

Jesus?

Link?

If I had a nickel for every time I posted it:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

yes, the standard dem line.... 'well golly gee, if something hasn't happened in the past, it can never happen, therefore we should never try'....

such a convenient comment as it means we should just follow the Dems dream of 'spend spend spend'

It isn't happening. In exchange for spending increases the Republicans demanded tax cuts, not spending offsets. And no, we shouldn't spend, spend, spend. My personal preference is for a plan for short-term high deficit spending to promote economic growth followed by significant cuts once the economy has rebounded coupled with increased taxes. Spend when we have to and save when we don't.

Democrats tax and spend. Republicans tax cut, borrow and spend.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There isn't anything in the link to refute. It doesn't support the idea that tax cuts increase revenues and, if you look at the actual data, you would see that when Regan cut taxes revenues decreased, when Clinton raised taxes revenues increased and when Bush cut taxes revenues decreased.

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

you bash my link and then give me a lefty rag time magazine...lmao

you said never, you haven't prove that yet, not even close nigel...i want links as to your claims as well....because the link i gave you said the opposite

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Revenues from individual income taxes increased 0.6
percentage points, from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003 to 8.0 percent in 2006

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

 

[Bonestorm]

you bash my link and then give me a lefty rag time magazine...lmao

you said never, you haven't prove that yet, not even close nigel...i want links as to your claims as well....because the link i gave you said the opposite

First, I bashed your link because it's garbage and doesn't even say what you claim it says.

Second, you're an ankle-biting nitwit.

 

[Bonestorm]

Revenues from individual income taxes increased 0.6
percentage points, from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003 to 8.0 percent in 2006

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

And in 2000, before the tax cuts were passed, individual income taxes were at 10.3% of revenues. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, the last time revenues from individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP were as low as they were in 2006 was 1995.


Edit: And you fucked up the math.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Jesus?




If I had a nickel for every time I posted it:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf




It isn't happening. In exchange for spending increases the Republicans demanded tax cuts, not spending offsets. And no, we shouldn't spend, spend, spend. My personal preference is for a plan for short-term high deficit spending to promote economic growth followed by significant cuts once the economy has rebounded coupled with increased taxes. Spend when we have to and save when we don't.

Democrats tax and spend. Republicans tax cut, borrow and spend.

um....your link proves you wrong

there was increase under reagan and decrease after bush I raised taxes

further, revenues from individual taxes rose after reagan's tax cuts every single year

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And in 2000, before the tax cuts were passed, individual income taxes were at 10.3% of revenues. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, the last time revenues from individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP were as low as they were in 2006 was 1995.

LMAO....

1) The Bush tax cuts were done in 2001.

2) The market collapse that began in March of 2000 and continued through October of 2002 significantly reduced revenues from cap gains.

3) quit being a dishonest hack.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

First, I bashed your link because it's garbage and doesn't even say what you claim it says.

Second, you're an ankle-biting nitwit.

temper tantrum alert

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Jesus?

So no one did. Thanks.

If I had a nickel for every time I posted it:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

So essentially it remained stable throughout the duration of the bull market. Thanks. That is all you needed to say.

And yes, it did spike in the late 1990'2 tech bubble due to cap gains (you know that tax Clinton lowered).

It isn't happening. In exchange for spending increases the Republicans demanded tax cuts, not spending offsets. And no, we shouldn't spend, spend, spend. My personal preference is for a plan for short-term high deficit spending to promote economic growth followed by significant cuts once the economy has rebounded coupled with increased taxes. Spend when we have to and save when we don't.

We get it. Your masters told you it was not possible and you believe them.

Democrats tax and spend. Republicans tax cut, borrow and spend.

Let me guess, the above doesn't infer that the Dems don't borrow?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO....

1) The Bush tax cuts were done in 2001.

2) The market collapse that began in March of 2000 and continued through October of 2002 significantly reduced revenues from cap gains.

3) quit being a dishonest hack.

So looking at the pre-tax cut revenues as compared to the post-tax cut revenues is dishonest while looking at a subset of the post-tax cut years (2003-2006) is not? Interesting.

 

[Bonestorm]

um....your link proves you wrong

there was increase under reagan and decrease after bush I raised taxes

further, revenues from individual taxes rose after reagan's tax cuts every single year

No, it doesn't.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So looking at the pre-tax cut revenues as compared to the post-tax cut revenues is dishonest while looking at a subset of the post-tax cut years (2003-2006) is not? Interesting.

LMAO... when you again ignore other factors like the FACT that the recession that started before Bush took office had a serious negative impact on revenue. Yeah... that is being dishonest.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I keep repeating it because it is true, notwithstanding the link to a document that Dixie loves prepared by the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee from 1996 that does not support the idea that tax cuts increase revenue.

Reagan cut taxes and revenue decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Bush cut taxes and revenues decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Conclusion

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that was the JEC report from 1996, which Nigel hates. The thing is, studies from the Heritage Foundation support the findings as well. Liberals have often rejected this analysis, and it's very easy to manipulate numbers to make it appear to support their case. The problem is, liberals are clueless about economics, they believe the economy exists in a vacuum, and all things are static with regard to prosperity. If you made $500k this year, you are going to make $500k next year, it's a given to a liberal. So it makes sense, 39% is greater than 35%, your tax revenues will increase! The problem is, the economy doesn't operate in a vacuum, and prosperity is not static and never-changing. A millionaire who was thinking of cashing in and investing in Belize condos, might have decided to stay around with 35% taxes, but raise them to 39%, and he is again looking at Belize condos, where he would pay no income tax. So while the liberal is anticipating a pure 4% windfall by increasing taxes by 4%, the reality is not static and the subsequent economic decisions not made in a vacuum.

We can go back and forth with graphs, numbers, statistics, data... what matters is reality, and how humans behave. Increasing taxes on those who have the wealth to create new jobs and spark new economic growth, is a recipe for economic catastrophe. This is what Clinton spent over an hour explaining to you fuckwits yesterday! I guess, like Obama, you had better things to do than listen?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, it doesn't.

way to prove your point

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Conclusion

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that was the JEC report from 1996, which Nigel hates. The thing is, studies from the Heritage Foundation support the findings as well. Liberals have often rejected this analysis, and it's very easy to manipulate numbers to make it appear to support their case. The problem is, liberals are clueless about economics, they believe the economy exists in a vacuum, and all things are static with regard to prosperity. If you made $500k this year, you are going to make $500k next year, it's a given to a liberal. So it makes sense, 39% is greater than 35%, your tax revenues will increase! The problem is, the economy doesn't operate in a vacuum, and prosperity is not static and never-changing. A millionaire who was thinking of cashing in and investing in Belize condos, might have decided to stay around with 35% taxes, but raise them to 39%, and he is again looking at Belize condos, where he would pay no income tax. So while the liberal is anticipating a pure 4% windfall by increasing taxes by 4%, the reality is not static and the subsequent economic decisions not made in a vacuum.

We can go back and forth with graphs, numbers, statistics, data... what matters is reality, and how humans behave. Increasing taxes on those who have the wealth to create new jobs and spark new economic growth, is a recipe for economic catastrophe. This is what Clinton spent over an hour explaining to you fuckwits yesterday! I guess, like Obama, you had better things to do than listen?

Nothing in the document shows that tax cuts increase revenues. At best, the document states that tax cuts on the rich can (not do) increase the amount the rich pay in taxes. That's a far different claim than the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

And it's total bullshit that the tax code becomes more progressive by making it less progressive.

 

[Bonestorm]

way to prove your point

Thanks. I thought I done pretty good too

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nothing in the document shows that tax cuts increase revenues. At best, the document states that tax cuts on the rich can (not do) increase the amount the rich pay in taxes. That's a far different claim than the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

And it's total bullshit that the tax code becomes more progressive by making it less progressive.

CAN as opposed to CAN'T you dimwit! What part of that are you missing? You claim tax cuts for the rich CAN'T increase revenues, and they say it CAN! And I think they've probably studied it a little more than you!

The tax code doesn't need to be progressive or regressive, it needs to be FAIR! Where did the fucking Crazy Train leave the station, that we adopted this mindset that people who are more prosperous are automatically obligated to pay more of a share for our collective bullshit? Yeah, I get they make more money, but why is their percentage higher? If we are all equal, if we live in a society where we all have the same rights, why is a different standard applied to those with wealth?

Jobs are not created by the middle class. Jobs are not created by the indigent. If you ever want to create jobs, other than government jobs, you have to give an incentive to those who can create jobs. This isn't rocket science. Extending the existing conditions another two years, is not a "tax cut" at all, and Romney is right in that analysis, I said the same thing, Charles Krauthammer agrees. If the tax cuts were made permanent, it might be different, but still, it wouldn't be a tax cut. Something has to spur job creation, and I'm sorry, but waging war on the wealthy and promising to increase their taxes, is probably not the brightest idea for that.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Thanks. I thought I done pretty good too

unfortunately for you, facts say you're wrong

revenue from taxes actually increased when taxes were cut and over all revenues increased during tax cut periods

your own link shows that, good lord nigel, do you think you can just give a link and then hope no one will read it and prove you wrong?

 

[Bonestorm]

CAN as opposed to CAN'T you dimwit! What part of that are you missing? You claim tax cuts for the rich CAN'T increase revenues, and they say it CAN! And I think they've probably studied it a little more than you!

They say that tax cuts for the rich can increase the proportion of taxes that rich people pay, not that tax cuts can increase revenues.

 

[Bonestorm]

unfortunately for you, facts say you're wrong

revenue from taxes actually increased when taxes were cut and over all revenues increased during tax cut periods

your own link shows that, good lord nigel, do you think you can just give a link and then hope no one will read it and prove you wrong?

Following the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, revenues were basically flat in 1983. As a percentage of GDP, revenues dropped precipitously.