You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mitt Romney Tax Plan: Study Shows Deduction Caps Don't Pay For Tax Cuts
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
you just failed any logic course in america as my logic was bullet proof. ...
but coming back to your analogy.
you are asking me to state that tax cuts cause increased revenue.
having studied econ as my major and have trading for a living for a Iwhaile I understand dynamic moving systems are hard to pin down.
Proving a causation in economics requires a regression analysis... and even then you are really just ruling out other variables.
So rather than play your silly game... I am making it easier for you to digest.
if 4 tax cuts in the past were followed by increased revenue.... and massive spending is not working now... ... lets try tax cuts.
but coming back to your analogy.
you are asking me to state that tax cuts cause increased revenue.
having studied econ as my major and have trading for a living for a Iwhaile I understand dynamic moving systems are hard to pin down.
Proving a causation in economics requires a regression analysis... and even then you are really just ruling out other variables.
So rather than play your silly game... I am making it easier for you to digest.
if 4 tax cuts in the past were followed by increased revenue.... and massive spending is not working now... ... lets try tax cuts.
Quote from Ricter:
All that talk does not matter to the logic. (And you got the entities wrong, anyway.)
If tax cuts then revenue increases.
Revenue increased.
Therefore there were tax cuts?
Quote from Ricter:
All that talk does not matter to the logic. (And you got the entities wrong, anyway.)
If tax cuts then revenue increases.
Revenue increased.
Therefore there were tax cuts?
Dear Jem:
I'll bet you thought I was kidding.
Be more convoluted. You need to speak their language.
Quote from Ricter:
That's not bullshit at all. Without context the value is meaningless. Some guy owes $10k, is it a big debt?
it is in context...
lets say you and any rational govt statist or leftist would want increased govt revenue in real dollars.
right...
What has a best long term outlook for increased govt revenue in real dollars.
a. Increasing govt revenue in a stagnant or shrinking economy.
b zero change in everything.
c. Holding the percent of revenue steady in a modestly growing economy
d. taking a smaller percentage of a growing economy which still results in consistently higher net revenue.
You are using your conclusions as premises here.Quote from jem:
it is in context...
lets say you and any rational govt would want increased govt revenue in real dollars.
What has a better long term outlook for increased govt revenue in real dollars. .
a. Increasing govt revenue in a stagnant or shrniking economy.
b zero change in everything.
c. Holding the percent of revenue steady in a modestly growing economy
d. taking a smaller percentage of a growing economy which still results in consistently higher net revenue.
Quote from Ricter:
You are using your conclusions as premises here.
no... that is the range of outcomes you can pick from when talking about tax policy the way we have been.
do you want a bigger pie and the subsequent bigger govt or is your goal bigger govt regardless of the size of the pie.
my goal would actually be smaller govt. but that is not even in the conversation right now.