What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

[LV426]

That is what I said--that Obama signed the bill to increase taxes on those above $400,000 in 2013.

Moron.

The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire at the end of 2012, regardless of what Obama did.

You said that revenue wouldn't hit until 2014, but that's wrong. You were wrong. Now you're trying to retroactively correct yourself, when the entire crux of your argument was that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012 didn't affect rev-GDP when the stats you posted showed that it clearly did.


Enough.

 

[LV426]

You look for things to argue about even when you know when you are wrong (or cannot understand what you read).

No.

Stop.

What's happening is that you're using a metric, the only metric you can use, to try and make an argument against raising taxes on the rich, while ignoring those metrics when they don't support your argument.

 

[LV426]

Changing the rate by 1% makes the incorrect assumption everybody is paying 1% more in taxes on total GDP. The higher rates do not apply to all income but only after reaching a certain income threshold. So a person could be in the 39.5 bracket but only pay 22% (for example) on total income because they were paying the lower rates on lower income. Also, we do not pay taxes on total GDP.
Marginal rates do not show what we actually pay--that is what effective rates show us.
Simple economics.

Again, you're being a sophist.

Changing the rev-GDP rate by 1% is a difference of $200 BILLION.

$200B would fully fund free public colleges for 25 years.

An incremental change in rev-GDP has a massive effect on the amount of gross revenue collected. Every 1% change in rev-GDP is $200B.

So you're admitting that raising taxes would nominally increase rev-GDP, but what you're not admitting is that nominal changes to rev-GDP has massive effects on the amount of revenue collected.

1% of GDP = $200B.

$200B is 1/4 of our current deficit.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I can understand muni's being tax free. It allows municipalities to float bonds at a reasonable rate.

But stuff like capital gains...should be considered...well, INCOME...and should be taxed just like any other income.

Inheritances should be taxed as income.

And the rates should go WAY up...over 75% on top income.

Most of the reason given for not doing so...really do not rise above rationalizations in order to favor the rich.

Just sayin.'

 

[LV426]

Tax rates do not determine how much revenue is collected because you don't know how much income people will pay taxes on and how people will change their behavior to avoid higher taxes (like buying municipal bonds for income). Also, tax rates do not tell you how much people will earn in each income bracket unless you can predict the income of everybody.You are confused about taxation.

Now you're arguing tax rates don't collect revenue.

So you're in crazytown now, all because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Using your own data, you see that an incremental, nominal change to the rev-GDP rate has a massive effect on the total gross revenue collected. So much so that a single 1% change to the rev-GDP rate is the difference of $200B.

What are some individual things $200B can pay for?
1. 1/2 of Medicaid.
2. 1/4 of the deficit.
3. 1/3 of the defense budget
4. 25 years of free public college

So yeah, raising taxes does result in more revenue to pay for things. You just don't want to admit that because doing so would be an admission that I'm right, AOC is right, and all mainstream economists are right.

Admitting that we're all right and you're wrong is simply something your fragile ego cannot handle.

 

[LV426]

We don't pay taxes on the entire GDP; so, 1% increase in the tax rate does not increase government revenue by 1% of GDP. Much of the GDP is not subject to federal income taxes.

Flash, bubbulah, you made rev-GDP the metric by which your entire argument hinges.

So when I point out that the rev-GDP percentage going up by 1% translates to $200B (because 1% of GDP is $200B), you now are trying to go back on your previous argument and conflate the issue.

Your insistence was that we had to look at rev-GDP as the metric to determine that raising taxes won't increase revenue, even though your data shows that rev-GDP nominal increases happened once tax rates were raised. Those nominal, incremental increases translate to substantial revenues. From 2012-2013 alone, when Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthy, rev-GDP increased by 1.4%, which was an increase of $233B in revenue.

So that slight, incremental change to one single tax bracket resulted -partially or wholly- in an increase to the rev-GDP rate.

Therefore, if we increase taxes we are increasing rev-GDP, and increases to rev-GDP result in increases to gross revenues collected.

That's the argument your data makes.

 

[LV426]

I can understand muni's being tax free. It allows municipalities to float bonds at a reasonable rate.

But stuff like capital gains...should be considered...well, INCOME...and should be taxed just like any other income.

Inheritances should be taxed as income.

And the rates should go WAY up...over 75% on top income.

Most of the reason given for not doing so...really do not rise above rationalizations in order to favor the rich.

Just sayin.'

All income should be taxed in the same progressive system regardless from where it comes.

OR

We abandon an income tax altogether and replace it with a carbon tax.

I am actually in favor of a Carbon Tax to replace the Income Tax.

 

[LV426]

Way to self-own Flashy

"I'm going to prove that raising taxes on the wealthy won't increase revenue, and here's some figures that shows revenue increases after taxes are raised"

 

[Flash]

You did that specifically because you know that if you showed it year-by-year, you would see a jump in rev-GDP when taxes are raised, and a drop in rev-GDP when taxes are cut.


$200B would fund free public college for 25 years.

Colleges take in over $60 billion a year in tuition and tuition does not cover most of the expenses of public universities. So, even using the $60 billion figure, the $200 billion would fund free public colleges for about 3 years, not 25. Because, math.

Listing revenue as a percent of GDP shows large variations which cannot be explained by tax cuts or increases.

For example,
2008: 17.1%
2009: 14.6%
2010: 14.4%

There was no tax cut or increase in 2008, yet, we saw a large drop in revenue as a percent of GDP in 2009-2010. That is why we can't look at single years and try to blame changed on tax cuts/increases.

Look at actual revenue for recent years:
2015: $3.25 trillion
2016: $3.27 trillion
2017: $3.32 trillion
2018: $3.34 trillion
2019: $3.42 trillion (estimated)

We should see a decline in revenue based on your economics because we saw a tax cut in 2017; instead, revenue has increased. Maybe that is because revenue usually increases whether we have no changes, tax cuts, or tax increases.

 

[LV426]

Colleges take in over $60 billion a year in tuition and tuition does not cover most of the expenses of public universities. So, even using the $60 billion figure, the $200 billion would fund free public colleges for about 3 years, not 25. Because, math.

Fine!

One year of raised taxes would fund three years of free public college.

So this proves your point, how?

 

[LV426]

Listing revenue as a percent of GDP shows large variations which cannot be explained by tax cuts or increases.
For example,
2008: 17.1%
2009: 14.6%
2010: 14.4%

That is explained by the recession.

A recession caused, in part, by tax cuts.

After all, your guy Bush tied his tax cuts to the housing market in 2004 - the same housing market that would later crash the economy.

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
March 26, 2004
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership

How embarrassing for you.

 

[Flash]

Flash, bubbulah, you made rev-GDP the metric by which your entire argument hinges.

So when I point out that the rev-GDP percentage going up by 1% translates to $200B (because 1% of GDP is $200B), you now are trying to go back on your previous argument and conflate the issue.

Your insistence was that we had to look at rev-GDP as the metric to determine that raising taxes won't increase revenue, even though your data shows that rev-GDP nominal increases happened once tax rates were raised. Those nominal, incremental increases translate to substantial revenues. From 2012-2013 alone, when Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthy, rev-GDP increased by 1.4%, which was an increase of $233B in revenue.

So that slight, incremental change to one single tax bracket resulted -partially or wholly- in an increase to the rev-GDP rate.

Therefore, if we increase taxes we are increasing rev-GDP, and increases to rev-GDP result in increases to gross revenues collected.

That's the argument your data makes.

No, my data [government budget figures] make the argument that revenue as a percent of GDP tends to go up and down whether we have tax cuts or increases but that revenue ($) tends to increase.

But my main argument was the the higher 70-91% tax rates of the 50's-70's brought in about the same or less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower tax rate since the 1980's; so, returning to those rates does not give us a big increase in revenue.

 

[LV426]

There was no tax cut or increase in 2008, yet, we saw a large drop in revenue as a percent of GDP in 2009-2010. That is why we can't look at single years and try to blame changed on tax cuts/increases.

That's because of the giant fucking recession caused, in part, by your tax cuts.

So why are you exercising sophistry?

Simple; you've lied so much in your life that you cannot even make a statement without it being bullshit.

Your mind has been so destroyed by your capacity for lying that you don't even know what it is to tell the truth anymore.

It's something you are physically and mentally incapable of doing.

 

[Flash]

Fine!

One year of raised taxes would fund three years of free public college.

So this proves your point, how?

I have never discussed the subject of how the money should be spent or reduced. I was only addressing the issue that the 70-91% tax rates did not give us more revenue.

During the 1950's-1970's government also spent less money as a percent of GDP.

 

[LV426]

Look at actual revenue for recent years:
2015: $3.25 trillion
2016: $3.27 trillion
2017: $3.32 trillion
2018: $3.34 trillion
2019: $3.42 trillion (estimated)
We should see a decline in revenue based on your economics because we saw a tax cut in 2017; instead, revenue has increased. Maybe that is because revenue usually increases whether we have no changes, tax cuts, or tax increases.

THE TAX CUT WASN'T IN 2017.

The Russia Tax Cut started in 2018.

Again, you are a fucking liar.

You just make shit up as you go, don't you?

And now you're using actual revenue? What happened to the rev-GDP metric? You know, the one you said before was the only one worth looking at and the one on which you were basing your conclusion?

Oh right, you abandoned it because in the end, it ended up disproving your argument.

Got it.

 

[LV426]

No, my data [government budget figures] make the argument that revenue as a percent of GDP tends to go up and down whether we have tax cuts or increases but that revenue ($) tends to increase.

NO!

Your data doesn't show that!

Your data does not show that cutting taxes results in higher rev-GDP.

Numbers don't mean different things just because you want to win a debate on a message board.

 

[Flash]

No.

Stop.

What's happening is that you're using a metric, the only metric you can use, to try and make an argument against raising taxes on the rich, while ignoring those metrics when they don't support your argument.

You make unfounded assumptions. I never made any argument for or against raising taxes on the rich. I only attempted to show the much higher tax rates did not raise more revenue.

Showing how your facts are wrong does not necessarily constitute support or opposition to policy proposals---you assume it does because you interpret everything based on simplistic liberal-conservative dichotomy.

 

[LV426]

But my main argument was the the higher 70-91% tax rates of the 50's-70's brought in about the same or less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower tax rate since the 1980's; so, returning to those rates does not give us a big increase in revenue.

SIGH.

Once again, nominal changes to rev-GDP result in massive changes to actual revenues.

A measly, nominal, seemingly insignificant 1% change to the rev-GDP percentage is a difference of $200B.

$200B is about half of Medicaid's budget.

So you're a sophist who is trying to ignore the fact that our GDP is $20T and thus, 1% of it is a substantial amount of cash. Enough cash to pay for three years of free public college. Enough cash to pay for half of Medicaid.

 

[Flash]

Your data does not show that cutting taxes results in higher rev-GDP.

Correct, that is what I said. It also does not show tax increases result in higher revenue. Revenue tends to increase annually (even if it is lower rev-GDP).

I never said cutting taxes results in higher revenue. I said the higher tax rates resulted in lower (or the same) levels of revenue as lower tax rates. That is not the same thing.

 

[LV426]

Correct, that is what I said. It also does not show tax increases result in higher revenue. Revenue tends to increase annually (even if it is lower rev-GDP).

It does show tax increases result in higher revenues. Again, we just went through this when you posted the data!

I think the disconnect here is that you keep jumping from one metric to the other.

You say rev-GDP doesn't increase after a tax increase, then you say it does increase but a nominal amount, but then you ignore that a nominal change to that metric results in a massive change to the revenue metric.

That's what your data shows. You might not think an incremental increase to rev-GDP is significant...and it's not when you're looking strictly within the confines of rev-GDP, but your argument was that the rev-GDP number reflects the ability to "afford" something. In that regard, you'd be completely wrong because nominal changes to that rev-GDP has massive effects on the amount of revenue collected that is then used to "pay for" things.

I never said cutting taxes results in higher revenue. I said the higher tax rates resulted in lower (or the same) levels of revenue as lower tax rates. That is not the same thing.

"Levels of revenue"

That's the problem here.

"levels of revenue" is a goalpost that you shift according to how your argument is faring.

If rev-GDP is how you're determining the "levels of revenue", then when you look at the rev-GDP numbers you provided, you see that they are higher after tax increases than tax cuts, which means more revenue collected.

If gross revenues are how you're determining the "levels of revenue", then when you look at those numbers you provided, you also see that they increase at higher rates after tax increases than tax cuts, which means more revenue collected.

There exists no world in which raising taxes results in less revenues collected, and you didn't prove that in anything you wrote.