Washington Post: Mitt Romney Tax Plan 'Garbage'

[Epic]

Quote from jem:



2. Also note, Keynes stated a way out of a recession is to cut taxes...

True, as long as taxes are increased during the expansion. Both sides try to use half of what Keynes said. It can't just be never ending cuts to promote growth and/or never ending increases to pay for programs and debt.

 

[jem]

Quote from Epic:

True, as long as taxes are increased during the expansion. Both sides try to use half of what Keynes said. It can't just be never ending cuts to promote growth and/or never ending increases to pay for programs and debt.

not exactly ... he said you could grow your way out...
there would be no need to raise taxes if you cap spending til the budget is balanced.

 

[jem]

I am not arguing all tax cuts cause the economy to expand enough to pay for themselves directly.

What I am saying is there is no need to worry about that... angle.
The Fed has been systematically debasing our currency for years.
As long as that is happening if you cap spending you will eventually balance.

----

so cut taxes to stimulate - and keep cutting if necessary.
cap spending....
we will either grow into balance (hopefully)
or inflate into balance
or both... (likely).

Quote from Epic:

I think it is a lot less cut and dry than you are making it sound. Define what aspects of the tax cuts worked in the past, then we can go with what worked. If you are simply saying that tax cuts resulted in increased revenue, then there is definitely room to debate that.

For every tax cut that resulted in higher tax revenues, there is an instance of a tax increase that also led to higher revenues.

My point is that in order to claim that a tax cut will result in higher revenues, you must also take the opinion that a tax increase will result in lower revenues. That has never in history proven to be true. The periods of 5 & 10 years immediately following tax increases have increased revenues by as much or more than the periods immediately following tax cuts.

What we can say is that for the periods that we have on record, typically when there are dramatic tax cuts, GDP growth is higher than tax receipt growth. Visa versa for tax increases.

So if you want to make the argument that the national debt isn't top priority right now, and the main thing should be increasing GDP, then tax cuts are preferred. If you think that the national debt and expenses are top priority, then a tax increase would be preferred. The problem with the GOP is that they are screaming for a tax cut, and declaring that the national debt is too high. Those are conflicting stances in today's tax environment.

 

[Covertibility]

Tax cuts below the theoretical Laeffer optimum don't pay for themselves. Where is the optimum? Most definitely above today's rates. And why the heck are people trying to claim tax cuts pay for themselves??

If you don't like the chart:

then go straight to the data:

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Covertibility:

Tax cuts below the theoretical Laeffer optimum don't pay for themselves. Where is the optimum? Most definitely above today's rates. And why the heck are people trying to claim tax cuts pay for themselves??

Ah another welfare queen preaching the virtues of the rest of us paying more taxes.

 

[jem]

your statement and the naming of that green line on the chart is a complete misrepresentation..... yet your link proves my point..... perfectly.

That is right check the data... you know what that green line is... is not
revenue... is revenue as a percentage of GDP.


That line shows shows what every american is hoping for right now.... and tax cuts made it happen in the past... .

a. tax cut.
b. GDP expands because of private sector growth. so green line goes down because economy expands faster than increse in revenues... but
c. Overall govt revenues are up.... a complete econ win for the people... win for the govt.
d. because the GDP is up higher the people are better off and the govt still gets more money.

remember we are not trying make govt a larger part of the economy we are trying to make the economy larger and pay for the govt remaining stable or even growing a bit.

you had it all confused.



you just proved tax cuts work.... beautifully... better than I could have.

Quote from Covertibility:

Tax cuts below the theoretical Laeffer optimum don't pay for themselves. Where is the optimum? Most definitely above today's rates. And why the heck are people trying to claim tax cuts pay for themselves??

If you don't like the chart:

then go straight to the data:

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from jem:

your statement and the naming of that green line on the chart is a complete misrepresentation..... yet your link proves my point..... perfectly.

Thats check the data... you know what that green line is... is not
revenue... is revenue as a percentage of GDP.


Which is exactly what we are hoping for...

a. tax cut.
b. GDP expands because of private sector growth.
c. Overall govt revenues are up.
d. because the GDP is up higher the people are better off and the govt still gets more money.

you just proved tax cuts work.... beautifully... better than I could have.

I really don't have time to debunk a lot of liberal lies about tax rates and revenue, but the chart is an obvious attempt at gross deception. First it is titled "Do tax cuts increase revenues?" the chart itself however does not track revenues at all. It tracks the relationship between revenues and GDP, something entirely different.


The implied assumption is that tax cuts are a bad idea because the ratio fell. In reality however, that is exactly what we want to happen. We want to expand the economy faster than we expand government's share of it. In reality the Reagan tax cuts lead to a bonanza of increased revenues.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

your statement and the naming of that green line on the chart is a complete misrepresentation..... yet your link proves my point..... perfectly.

That is right check the data... you know what that green line is... is not
revenue... is revenue as a percentage of GDP.


That line shows shows what every american is hoping for right now.... and tax cuts made it happen in the past... .

a. tax cut.
b. GDP expands because of private sector growth. so green line goes down because economy expands faster than increse in revenues... but
c. Overall govt revenues are up.... a complete econ win for the people... win for the govt.
d. because the GDP is up higher the people are better off and the govt still gets more money.

remember we are not trying make govt a larger part of the economy we are trying to make the economy larger and pay for the govt remaining stable or even growing a bit.

you had it all confused.

you just proved tax cuts work.... beautifully... better than I could have.

Lol! Not sure I ever asked, but what was your undergrad degree in?

 

[jem]

econ - B.A.
almost went for my masters... went to work on hill for democratic policy committee. Wanted to get into economics for them.

Saw byrd, biden others lie their ass off about the mail they were receiving on bork. (i flirted with and wanted to date the women in charge of the mail for Byrd... so she told me the real tally was very favorable for bork. In fact it was so pro bork... she was told to cease the tally.)

In the economic policy room... the dems had signs in spanish which read the land belongs to the people who work it. all sorts of other anti american crap in spanish. and the funny thing was no one was spanish speaking there at the time... or very very few. It was mostly white guys with beards... very well groomed... and lesbian women. I worked for a few women... they were very nice to me but I could not work with such leftists... I had no problem with lesbians... when we had beers they would talk about setting me up with the girl in the mail room.... of course they did not know she was apparently not interested.... the lesbian part was fun the politics sucked.

my political connections were democrat... so I decided to leave the hill and go to law school.

but I rally wanted to go into econ at the time.

Quote from Ricter:

Lol! Not sure I ever asked, but what was your undergrad degree in?

 

[Epic]

Quote from jem:

econ - B.A.
almost went for my masters... went to work on hill for democratic policy committee. Wanted to get into economics for them.

Saw byrd, biden others lie their ass off about the mail they were receiving on bork. (i flirted with and wanted to date the women in charge of the mail for Byrd... so she told me the real tally was very favorable for bork. In fact it was so pro bork... she was told to cease the tally.)

In the economic policy room... the dems had signs in spanish which read the land belongs to the people who work it. all sorts of other anti american crap in spanish. and the funny thing was no one was spanish speaking there at the time... or very very few. It was mostly white guys with beards... very well groomed... and lesbian women. I worked for a few women... they were very nice to me but I could not work with such leftists... I had no problem with lesbians... when we had beers they would talk about setting me up with the girl in the mail room.... of course they did not know she was apparently not interested.... the lesbian part was fun the politics sucked.

my political connections were democrat... so I decided to leave the hill and go to law school.

but I rally wanted to go into econ at the time.

Good background. BS Econ/Finance here. Also thought about masters, but no time while running my business.

I commend you for your political efforts. Tough space to work for me. hard enough dealing with the politics of the corporate space, let alone the politics of the politics space.