Beware the Soros zombies

[jem]

bullshit... I had to explain many times to you that normalizing the data is stupid because we are not trying to maximize govt revenues we are trying to maximize economic growth and keep more money in the pockets of citizens.

but thanks for lying your ass off again... sock puppet.

Regarding Art laffer.
1. Lets see the link.
2. Have I not shown you multiple times using govt data that tax revenues have gone up after bush, reagan, kennedy and melon tax cuts?

3. finally what sort of backwards freedom hating commie wants to take more money for the working people anyway. You want to take from the rentier class fine. They are the guys who run the democrat party. See if they are all for that.

You're just mad because you don't understand normalization (and you still don't understand what the chart says).

Just to add one more thing, Art Laffer was on CNBC a few years ago and even he stated that tax cuts do not increase revenues. (To further add, it is implied that tax rates are too low for tax cuts to increase revenues. We're not referring to the pre-JFK years).

 

[jem]

this is for the all the lefties who think that tax rate cuts can't lead to more.
revenue.

You will see why there is no debate... and that only leftist morons would deny the idea that tax cuts could lead to revenue increases in some parts of the curve.

 

[ETcallhome]

this is for the all the lefties who think that tax rate cuts can't lead to more.
revenue.

You will see why there is no debate... and that only leftist morons would deny the idea that tax cuts could lead to revenue increases in some parts of the curve.

if tax rates are zero will negative tax rates increase revenue?

 

[jem]

they could if there were other taxes that increased in revenue as the economy expanded.

if tax rates are zero will negative tax rates increase revenue?

 

[piezoe]

73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.

Have you ever heard of the roaring 20s or the market Crash in the Fall of twenty nine. What do you suppose happened to incomes and revenues going into 1929 and in 1930. Are you going to attribute the fall of revenue in the 30s to the Mellon Tax cuts? Oh, I see that was the recession's effect.

this is for the all the lefties who think that tax rate cuts can't lead to more.
revenue.

I know some "lefties," and the ones I know don't think this.

Though I am not a "lefty,", so I guess this doesn't count, but there is one tax cut that almost everyone agrees resulted in an increase in government revenue (not at first though) and that was the Mellon cuts in the 1920s (these were definitely "supply-side " cuts) This is one of my favorite periods of U.S. tax history, as so much can be learned from it. I don't have time right now to go into the Mellon cuts in any detail. Maybe later. I will just point here that at the time of the Melon cuts the bulk of income tax revenue came from the wealthy -- the opposite of the situation at the time of the Reagan supply-side cuts. (That is by no means the only important difference between these two periods of drastic tax cuts in the upper brackets.)

The Kennedy cuts were on balance "demand-side" cuts and some economists and studies have shown these cuts to have been responsible, in part, for higher revenues.

I'll caution you once more about just looking at revenue alone subsequent to tax cuts and drawing the conclusion that the cuts were responsible for a change in revenue. That would only be valid if all other factors remained unchanged, which is NEVER the case.

 

[Ricter]

Have you ever heard of the roaring 20s or the market Crash in the Fall of twenty nine. What do you suppose happened to incomes and revenues going into 1929 and in 1930. Are you going to attribute the fall of revenue in the 30s to the Mellon Tax cuts? Oh, I see that was the recession's effect.

I know some "lefties," and the ones I know don't think this.

Though I am not a "lefty,", so I guess this doesn't count, but there is one tax cut that almost everyone agrees resulted in an increase in government revenue (not at first though) and that was the Mellon cuts in the 1920s (these were definitely "supply-side " cuts) This is one of my favorite periods of U.S. tax history, as so much can be learned from it. I don't have time right now to go into the Mellon cuts in any detail. Maybe later. I will just point here that at the time of the Melon cuts the bulk of income tax revenue came from the wealthy -- the opposite of the situation at the time of the Reagan supply-side cuts. (That is by no means the only important difference between these two periods of drastic tax cuts in the upper brackets.)

The Kennedy cuts were on balance "demand-side" cuts and some economists and studies have shown these cuts to have been responsible, in part, for higher revenues.

I'll caution you once more about just looking at revenue alone subsequent to tax cuts and drawing the conclusion that the cuts were responsible for a change in revenue. That would only be valid if all other factors remained unchanged, which is NEVER the case.

Deja vu all over again.

 

[jem]

1. Here you go again with that leftist canard about Reagan's cuts.
Yet just on this thread a few posts ago... I showed you that the share the rich paid went up and the share the poor paid went down with the Reagan tax cuts.

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

2. I never state the cuts were the only possible factor. That is why I state tax cuts were followed by revenue increases. The point is I don't care and neither should you. If we can cut taxes and revenue would still go up because of inflation caused by FED policies of printing tons of money. We should keep cutting taxes.

(I note for those just recently reading my posts... Govt spending if borrowed really should not cause general inflation absent Federal Reserve Printing.)

Have you ever heard of the roaring 20s or the market Crash in the Fall of twenty nine. What do you suppose happened to incomes and revenues going into 1929 and in 1930. Are you going to attribute the fall of revenue in the 30s to the Mellon Tax cuts? Oh, I see that was the recession's effect.

I know some "lefties," and the ones I know don't think this.

Though I am not a "lefty,", so I guess this doesn't count, but there is one tax cut that almost everyone agrees resulted in an increase in government revenue (not at first though) and that was the Mellon cuts in the 1920s (these were definitely "supply-side " cuts) This is one of my favorite periods of U.S. tax history, as so much can be learned from it. I don't have time right now to go into the Mellon cuts in any detail. Maybe later. I will just point here that at the time of the Melon cuts the bulk of income tax revenue came from the wealthy -- the opposite of the situation at the time of the Reagan supply-side cuts. (That is by no means the only important difference between these two periods of drastic tax cuts in the upper brackets.)

The Kennedy cuts were on balance "demand-side" cuts and some economists and studies have shown these cuts to have been responsible, in part, for higher revenues.

I'll caution you once more about just looking at revenue alone subsequent to tax cuts and drawing the conclusion that the cuts were responsible for a change in revenue. That would only be valid if all other factors remained unchanged, which is NEVER the case.

 

[Ricter]

1. Here you go again with that leftist canard about Reagan's cuts.
Yet just on this thread a few posts ago... I showed you that the share the rich paid went up and the share the poor paid went down with the Reagan tax cuts.

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

2. I never state the cuts were the only possible factor. That is why I state tax cuts were followed by revenue increases. The point is I don't care and neither should you. If we can cut taxes and revenue would still go up because of inflation caused by FED policies of printing tons of money. We should keep cutting taxes.

(I note for those just recently reading my posts... Govt spending if borrowed really should not cause general inflation absent Federal Reserve Printing.)

So why did "Morning in America" increase the deficit and raise our foreign debt? I mean it's not like Reagan was the "Food stamp president"-- the changes were discretionary.

 

[jem]

and I have agreed... with you when you bring that up... spending could be part of it.... when the govt spending is on useful stuff.

Its hard to "regress" out variables such as increased spending and Federal Reserve actions. That is why I keep going back to the point that as long as revenues are going up... we may as well keep cutting taxes if we are not going to cap spending or Fed money creation.

The way the govt and the FED do things now... taxes are a way to stop typically businesses and familes from accumulating enough money to buy the politicians and compete for the assets the cronies get to purchase because taxes force sales.

So why did "Morning in America" increase the deficit and raise our foreign debt? I mean it's not like Reagan was the "Food stamp president"-- the changes were discretionary.

 

[piezoe]

Govt spending if borrowed really should not cause general inflatio

Actually there is a strong link between deficits and inflation. But relatively few understand it. That's why deficits, rather than tax increases, are a far more popular way among politicians to pay for our continuous wars and outrageous "defense" spending than increasing taxes, which everyone understands and dislikes. Few people associate higher prices with money poured down a rat hole fighting a pointless war.

Recessions tend to counter inflation of course. It is all good so long as you are not one of those losing their jobs.