Tax Cuts and Revenue

lotek771 said:
piezoe, you crack me up. You define success as to how much revenue the government consumes. The rest of us define success as to how efficient and little of our money the government consumes.
More...
You are free to characterize my views as you wish; your characterization is nonsense of course.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
All this theorizing is unnecessary in the real world. We know that congress and the president will spend something like 105% of tax revenues, probably more when you account for all the dishonest accounting. The only exception in the last 40 years or so was a brief period in Clinton's presdiency when the internet bubble produced booming tax revenues and gridlock with a republican congress blocked more spending.

So high or higher taxes are not a matter of fiscal rectitude. They are purely a means of taking from one group and giving to another to buy votes. If you approve of that, you are likely a democrat and no amount of anaysis willchange your opinion. Legions of liberal economists labor to sell us on what we all know is nonsense, namely that higher taxes are good for the economy. Others, like the idiot savant Krugman, have as their mission selling us on the idea that a government running a gigantic deficit and printing money at unprecedented rates is strangling the economy by being insufficiently stimulative.

Quoting some academic means zero to me. Few have any credibility. Like the AGW cultists, they have an agenda, either political or financial, and they have traded their integrity for the cause.
More...
Recent politics has proven you right, for the most part. We have been spending 105% or more of revenues. Coming out of a severe recession that is to be expected, but it isn't good policy in boom times. There is no one that tninks that higher taxes per se are good for the economy. But there are times, such as now, when Congress can't get their act together long enough to adjust expenditures in less productive areas. It is petty bickering and failure of a majority in both parties to agree on an agenda and they get behind it and make it work efficiently. The carping in Congress is wasting all of our money. Spending 105% of revenues and cutting taxes on top of that is bad policy. We all want lower taxes and there is plenty of money to allow this. It's what we do with the money that needs revision.

Other's comments to the contrary, my point, and no one here that has any understanding of economics can offer a reasonable refutation, is that cutting taxes does not pay for itself in increased revenue. When taxes are cut but spending is not, the result is increased debt and a shift of the tax burden from direct taxation to indirect. It is irresponsible to champion lower taxes, unless the cuts are coordinated with equivalent reductions in expenditures. I am not seeing that.
 
while I agree we should also cut spending...
I need to give you an idea about where we may be on laffer curve and sort of a primer on real world numbers. We know you are a smart guy, I fear you may have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by pre fascists you have never seen the real numbers.


1. If after the Bush tax cuts... receipts went up and the budget deficit went down for 3 straight years... would you agree the tax cuts paid for themselves?
If not why not?
then tell us how much of your answers was nebulous to avoid admitting the truth a leftist can not handle?

here is a hint...

04.... -412
05.... -318
06.... -248
07.... -160
 
piezoe said:
Recent politics has proven you right, for the most part. We have been spending 105% or more of revenues. Coming out of a severe recession that is to be expected, but it isn't good policy in boom times. There is no one that tninks that higher taxes per se are good for the economy. But there are times, such as now, when Congress can't get their act together long enough to adjust expenditures in less productive areas. It is petty bickering and failure of a majority in both parties to agree on an agenda and they get behind it and make it work efficiently. The carping in Congress is wasting all of our money. Spending 105% of revenues and cutting taxes on top of that is bad policy. We all want lower taxes and there is plenty of money to allow this. It's what we do with the money that needs revision.

Other's comments to the contrary, my point, and no one here that has any understanding of economics can offer a reasonable refutation, is that cutting taxes does not pay for itself in increased revenue. When taxes are cut but spending is not, the result is increased debt and a shift of the tax burden from direct taxation to indirect. It is irresponsible to champion lower taxes, unless the cuts are coordinated with equivalent reductions in expenditures. I am not seeing that.
More...

+1 (just so you know you're not talking to yourself)
 
Remember Rick Santelli's rant and the ''Santelli for President'' applause he got here on ET ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporter Whose Rant Helped Launch Tea Party Gets Put In His Place.



The CNBC reporter whose rant helped launch America's tea party movement was told off Monday amid -- what else -- one of his epic rants.

As Rick Santelli shouted from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade against the Federal Reserve's policies on "Fast Money Halftime Report," CNBC reporter Steve Liesman took him down a peg.

"It's impossible for you to have been more wrong, Rick," Liesman said. "Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the U.S. economy to rebound... The higher interest rates never came, the inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened, the dollar never crashed Rick, there isn't a single one that's worked for you."

"Every single bit of advice you gave would've lost people money," Liesman told Santelli. "There is no piece of advice you've given that's worked."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/rick-santelli_n_5586448.html
 
jem said:
while I agree we should also cut spending...
I need to give you an idea about where we may be on laffer curve and sort of a primer on real world numbers. We know you are a smart guy, I fear you may have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by pre fascists you have never seen the real numbers.


1. If after the Bush tax cuts... receipts went up and the budget deficit went down for 3 straight years... would you agree the tax cuts paid for themselves?
If not why not?
then tell us how much of your answers was nebulous to avoid admitting the truth a leftist can not handle?

here is a hint...

04.... -412
05.... -318
06.... -248
07.... -160
More...

It was Bush's crazy, discretionary spending during those years that pumped GDP, and revenues.
 
Tsing Tao said:
You do realize that a good portion of us here think that you're pretty much full of nonsense, right?
More...
Yes, of course, I realize that. What would you expect, considering the reasoning of many of the participants in these lower reaches of ET Forums. If you know nothing of economics, you'll not be able to educate yourself here. You'll have to read widely elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top