Can we overlay that with wage growth?
Tax Cuts and Revenue
- Thread starter Spike Trader
- Start date
Can we overlay that with wage growth?
We could, but understanding that would go way beyond jem's two variable algorithm, dragging in big discretionary spending increases, garbage assets, collateral debt chain money printing, bubble economies, deleveraging, and whatever else I've missed.
Actually, the data is valid and reliable, the methodology is sound, and the conclusion is solid.
65% of the Bush tax cuts went to the lowest and middle income earners. Bush cut the lowest tax bracket 33% 15% to 10%
Only 35% went to the top bracket and it only took the rate back to where it was in 1992.
"Rob the American taxpayer" Hard to rob your own money
This illustrates why it is virtually pointless to debate liberals. They seem incapable of reason and logic, only responding to emotion, resentment and demagoguery, which of course is pretty much the democrats' platform.
Just as an example, Obama's compliant Fed Reserve has been desperately trying to ramp up inflation for years. The failed Obama economic polices have been such a drag that zero interest rates and massive money printing on an unprecedented scale have proven ineffective. Now somehow, we are uspposed to see this as evidence of Obama's success?
This is why I have certain people on ignore. it's a total waste of time debating them.
Just as an example, Obama's compliant Fed Reserve has been desperately trying to ramp up inflation for years. The failed Obama economic polices have been such a drag that zero interest rates and massive money printing on an unprecedented scale have proven ineffective. Now somehow, we are uspposed to see this as evidence of Obama's success?
This is why I have certain people on ignore. it's a total waste of time debating them.
Right back at ya.
You have a "certain" person on ignore because you made a claim about a Reagan-Thatcher economic miracle, and that "certain" person posted a chart of GDP showing... utterly nothing unusual for those years. In a hissy fit, you put that "certain" person on ignore. (Jaysus, what if that "certain" person had also posted a chart of foreign debt? You might have hung yourself!) So it looks to me like it's you who can't debate. You may (lol) not see this reply, and that's awesome. : )
We've been through this many times, so my comments are bound to fall on the same deaf ears. You can not use government revenue growth, by itself, in periods of inflation and expanding government expenditures to evaluate the effectiveness of tax cuts in producing increased revenue. Economists who have made a serious study of the effect of actual tax cuts purported to have increased government revenue have concluded that the tax cuts actually decreased revenue and expanded debt. Revenue increases that occurred following tax cuts were due to inflation and increased government expenditure fueled by borrowing. This is too well-known in economics to require further comment. Those who want to can go to the internet for the many extensive studies by legitimate economists.
This is all part of the Trickle-Down and Laffer curve Era of the Reagan Presidency. Now, in retrospect, recognized as rather naive if not outright silly. Reagan himself said that his greatest disappointment was the failure of tax cuts to pan out as planned.
I could highly recommend "Zombie Economics" by the Australian Economist, John Quiggan, as an entertaining and instructive read. Quiggan addresses the subject of tax cuts and their effects on government revenue in detail in Chapter 4 on "Trickle Down Economics", which he introduces with this delightful Will Rogers quote:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands.
This is all part of the Trickle-Down and Laffer curve Era of the Reagan Presidency. Now, in retrospect, recognized as rather naive if not outright silly. Reagan himself said that his greatest disappointment was the failure of tax cuts to pan out as planned.
I could highly recommend "Zombie Economics" by the Australian Economist, John Quiggan, as an entertaining and instructive read. Quiggan addresses the subject of tax cuts and their effects on government revenue in detail in Chapter 4 on "Trickle Down Economics", which he introduces with this delightful Will Rogers quote:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands.
piezoe. Your statements manifest fraudulent intent or total misunderstanding of what economics and stats can actually do.
No method exists which can show that the 2003 Bush (when the cuts were accelerated) , Reagan's or Kennedy's cuts did not contribute to revenue growth.
If you have such articles they are deficient as the the one cited in the opening post.
But... note the constant is crazy govt spending is virtually a constant.
The question is - did revenues go up after melon, kennedy, reagan and bush tax cuts.
yes they did.
I read the the statist crap from that author.
He saddles the laffer curve with the idea that for it to be accurate tax cuts would have to increase revenue more rapidly than would be expected as a result of normal income growth.
No... thats baselining bullshit... that leftist liars like to produce. That is not the test of the laffer curve.
Leftists like to claim revenues would be here in their model and since we are not there tax cuts do not work. (but there is no evidence our economy should be there... because we were in a recession and Obama shows that leftist policies can result in very slow or no growth for a long time.)
The reality is that as long as revenues go up... the tax cuts worked.
Tax rates were down... revenues were not hurt.
We do not care about how much the tax cuts cost the govt in additional revenue.
We are not here to maximize revenue for the govt.
We don't care if the govt could have made more money in a world where the economy always grows... because as we can see from Obama... the economy does not always grow fast.
No method exists which can show that the 2003 Bush (when the cuts were accelerated) , Reagan's or Kennedy's cuts did not contribute to revenue growth.
If you have such articles they are deficient as the the one cited in the opening post.
But... note the constant is crazy govt spending is virtually a constant.
The question is - did revenues go up after melon, kennedy, reagan and bush tax cuts.
yes they did.
I read the the statist crap from that author.
He saddles the laffer curve with the idea that for it to be accurate tax cuts would have to increase revenue more rapidly than would be expected as a result of normal income growth.
No... thats baselining bullshit... that leftist liars like to produce. That is not the test of the laffer curve.
Leftists like to claim revenues would be here in their model and since we are not there tax cuts do not work. (but there is no evidence our economy should be there... because we were in a recession and Obama shows that leftist policies can result in very slow or no growth for a long time.)
The reality is that as long as revenues go up... the tax cuts worked.
Tax rates were down... revenues were not hurt.
We do not care about how much the tax cuts cost the govt in additional revenue.
We are not here to maximize revenue for the govt.
We don't care if the govt could have made more money in a world where the economy always grows... because as we can see from Obama... the economy does not always grow fast.