Does Lowering Tax Rates Increase Tax Receipts Collected?

[buckshot24]

Exactly, what a completely worthless thing to try and argue. It's funny that he accuses me of making a straw man and then sets out to valiantly battle against an idea that no one holds.

Who is making this argument? You have continually overstated my points and strawmanned them. Congratulations.

 

[First]

buckshot24 isn't a serious poster. He literally just claimed in another thread that when he cited polls that favored Romney in the lead-up to the November election, he wasn't actually supporting the conclusions of the polls that showed Romney leading. He was just listing their conclusions to counter the vast majority of polls showing Obama leading. When you're that far gone from reality, no one should really take you seriously.

 

[First]

Who is making this argument? You have continually overstated my points and strawmanned them. Congratulations.

Read your own thread title, tard. "Does Lowering Tax Rates Increase Tax Receipts Collected?"

That's a causal statement. You only took the correlational position after eskimospy called you out on it making causal links. Man up.

 

[emperus]

The purpose of this thread wasn't what eskimo said it was. He attacked a strawman since I never concluded anything that he was "analyzing".

No matter what was said the facts are that decreased tax rates doesn't lower tax revenue in all cases.

Personally, I am not interested in increasing tax revenue that the government takes in. That is besides the point however.

Buckshot, I read the thread. I'm not a Fox News viewer(yeah I know cheap dig) and you don't have to tell me what to think. He is right. You make a plethora of assumptions in your analysis that makes it almost worthless. But what I found more interesting is that this has been a source of debate for the economic philosophies between the two parties and you believe that you found the answer in a 1 hour spreadsheet. I would instead have spent the hour reading analysis done by more informed people. But that would even probably take more than hour.

 

[buckshot24]

What's happening here is that you're engaged in motivated reasoning, Buckshot. You want to find a way to claim that lowering rates increases revenue, which is basically the whole right wing schtick about taxes in general. It was the GWB contention, too, that the economy would grow much faster as a result of tax cuts at the top, overcoming the effect of lower rates.

Adjusting for inflation its much easier to make the case that Bush's tax cut didn't work out too well in that regard. Revenues did increase eventually but its much easier to argue that Bush's tax cuts didn't have the positive effect as far as revenue as I thought it did before this thread. Although after the .com bubble bursted I think Bush's economy was behind the eight ball in comparison right from the start. Then again there was a housing bubble under Bush so maybe that was just as big a factor in his favor. This bubble caused a much larger shit storm too. It may be that Bush simply spent too much money. If he held spending in check we may have seen a much better return on the tax cuts than we did. Clinton (with pressure from congress) held spending in check which may be why the economy did so well during that time.

I put all this into the spreadsheet so we could have a discussion about it. If people thought any of my calculations was suspect I was hoping to get some feed back. I did get some (thanks!) and I got eskimopie wailing away at a strawman.

For tax cuts, I don't think anybody says that all tax cuts lead to increased revenue, that is a strawman. Going from 2% to 1% simply wouldn't create any different behavior for example. Conversely raising taxes from 1% to 2% wouldn't prohibit any activity either.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot24 isn't a serious poster. He literally just claimed in another thread that when he cited polls that favored Romney in the lead-up to the November election, he wasn't actually supporting the conclusions of the polls that showed Romney leading. He was just listing their conclusions to counter the vast majority of polls showing Obama leading. When you're that far gone from reality, no one should really take you seriously.

Lets see, every thing that one posts a link to must be a 100% endorsement? Get real.

 

[buckshot24]

Read your own thread title, tard. "Does Lowering Tax Rates Increase Tax Receipts Collected?"

Do I say I fucking answer the question moron?

That's a causal statement. You only took the correlational position after eskimospy called you out on it making causal links. Man up.

It is a question shit head. Please find anything in the OP that is controversial.

I'll say this, if I made it sound like I was saying what eskimopie was saying I was saying then that wasn't my intention. I don't believe my spreadsheet answers the thread title's question in the affirmative.

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshot, I read the thread. I'm not a Fox News viewer(yeah I know cheap dig) and you don't have to tell me what to think.

Be full of shit if you want. It's a free country.

He is right.

No he isn't.

You make a plethora of assumptions in your analysis that makes it almost worthless.

Such as?

But what I found more interesting is that this has been a source of debate for the economic philosophies between the two parties and you believe that you found the answer in a 1 hour spreadsheet. I would instead have spent the hour reading analysis done by more informed people. But that would even probably take more than hour.

Again this is simply ridiculous and it shows that you're employing the same tactics as eskimo. I don't believe any such thing. That is absolutely stupid for you to assume that. You really think that I was under the assumption that I have finally, once and for all, determined that lowering tax rates always in all circumstances create higher revenues?

 

[First]

Lets see, every thing that one posts a link to must be a 100% endorsement? Get real.

No, not 100%. It just needs to make any sense whatsoever. Citing polls to counter arguments you believe are misleading but not supporting the polls you cited? Get fucking real, lol.

Do I say I fucking answer the question moron?

Why propose it in the title then, knuckle-dragger? Don't wimp out, answer that question.

It is a question shit head. Please find anything in the OP that is controversial.

I'll say this, if I made it sound like I was saying what eskimopie was saying I was saying then that wasn't my intention. I don't believe my spreadsheet answers the thread title's question in the affirmative.

Then change your thread title, kid. Why propose questions you don't have answers for while simultaneously claiming that tax revenues tend to do ok after tax cuts? You sound like a jackass trying to slither your way out of your original positions after the fact, when see people clearly sourcing and citing studies showing how shitty your positions really are. If you had gone to college or taken some Econ courses maybe you would have figured this out long ago.

 

[ohnoes]

No matter what was said the facts are that decreased tax rates doesn't lower tax revenue in all cases.

God you're dumb. this is exactly what everyone is telling you is wrong with your argument. Your "fact" i.e. conclusion is based on an "analysis" (i hesitate to use that word as calling what you did analysis is an insult to analysis everywhere) that is entirely incorrect.

 

[buckshot24]

God you're dumb. this is exactly what everyone is telling you is wrong with your argument. Your "fact" i.e. conclusion is based on an "analysis" (i hesitate to use that word as calling what you did analysis is an insult to analysis everywhere) that is entirely incorrect.

haha

Ok so the revenues decreased? What are you saying exactly? The spreadsheet isn't really analysis at all. It's just data.

 

[ohnoes]

haha

Ok so the revenues decreased? What are you saying exactly? The spreadsheet isn't really analysis at all. It's just data.

here's a simple analogy that you can understand.

You have a pickup truck currently with a V8 that gets 20mpg. The engine is downsized to a V4 and the pickup is loaded with 20 cows. You drive the car again and find that it now gets 15MPG.

In this grossly simplified analogy, your "fact" would be that ZOMG going from a V8 to a V4 decreases MPG. LOOK AT THE DATA!!! herp derp.

 

[buckshot24]

No, not 100%. It just needs to make any sense whatsoever. Citing polls to counter arguments you believe are misleading but not supporting the polls you cited? Get fucking real, lol.

Citing countering evidence doesn't require that you believe it or that you think it matters more than the other evidence.

Why propose it in the title then, knuckle-dragger? Don't wimp out, answer that question.

Why not, shit dick? I guess this place is too far gone to have meaningful discussions. If I am a moron it is believing that there could be discussions on these issues. The idea around the title was to discuss it like adults. Which you seem to be incapable of along with others.

Then change your thread title, kid. Why propose questions you don't have answers for while simultaneously claiming that tax revenues tend to do ok after tax cuts?

The data suggests that, but there may be alternative explanations which I would be happy to entertain. All I get is "you're stupid" instead.

You sound like a jackass trying to slither your way out of your original positions after the fact, when see people clearly sourcing and citing studies showing how shitty your positions really are. If you had gone to college or taken some Econ courses maybe you would have figured this out long ago.

I did take econ but just the minimum.

Can we once and for all get to the subject of the thread? If I in any way made it sound like I was saying that I have "proof" that tax rate decreases always causes tax revenue increases then I apologize as that was not what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to say that the 3 cases I posted in the OP didn't have other ways to explain the increased revenue either. If that is what was conveyed then that was a mistake.

Is that good enough?

 

[buckshot24]

here's a simple analogy that you can understand.

You have a pickup truck currently with a V8 that gets 20mpg. The engine is downsized to a V4 and the pickup is loaded with 20 cows. You drive the car again and find that it now gets 15MPG.

In this grossly simplified analogy, your "fact" would be that ZOMG going from a V8 to a V4 decreases MPG. LOOK AT THE DATA!!! herp derp.

Then where are the cows? Please show me.

 

[ohnoes]

Then where are the cows? Please show me.

do you not read other people's posts? They pointed out other relevant variables, but you don't listen. population, gdp, and whatever else eskimospy mentioned.

 

[ohnoes]

even if you wanted to try and incorporate these other variables, would you even know how? here's the hint again. you don't use a spreadsheet.

you're like a 5th grader that just got a shiny new casio calculator watch for xmas and now want to use it for trigonometry.

 

[Engineer]

Have you people not learned that it's impossible to give any argument to persuade the OP of anything? It's like hitting a steel anvil with a rubber mallet. It's pointless.

 

[buckshot24]

do you not read other people's posts? They pointed out other relevant variables, but you don't listen. population, gdp, and whatever else eskimospy mentioned.

I fudged a population increase at 1.3% annually and it didn't make much of a difference.

But here's the thing I am not trying to make a perfect model or a model at all. All I am doing is presenting data for discussion.

 

[buckshot24]

even if you wanted to try and incorporate these other variables, would you even know how? here's the hint again. you don't use a spreadsheet.

you're like a 5th grader that just got a shiny new casio calculator watch for xmas and now want to use it for trigonometry.

Why do you think I'm trying to create a model? Did I say that I made a model? Maybe I did but I don't think I did.

This is a chart filled with data, thats it.

 

[soundforbjt]

Does Lowering Tax Rates Increase Tax Receipts Collected?

Not necessarily, usually No.

 

[ohnoes]

I fudged a population increase at 1.3% annually and it didn't make much of a difference.

But here's the thing I am not trying to make a perfect model or a model at all. All I am doing is presenting data for discussion.

I'll fall for it. How did you fudge the population? Did you isolate the interaction between population and GDP growth? Was it statistically significant?

 

[buckshot24]

I'll fall for it. How did you fudge the population? Did you isolate the interaction between population and GDP growth? Was it statistically significant?

Its in the spreadsheet.

I set the 1934 population at 1. I then add 1.3% every year to get a "population factor" then I simply divided the revenue by this population factor to get a normalized to 1934 (in population and inflation) spending and revenue number.

Under "Fudged Revenue" is where you can find this number.

After thinking about it I may need to shift the inflation column up a row if tax receipts are taken from the prior year. This may make a difference in some of the years.

 

[First]

Citing countering evidence doesn't require that you believe it or that you think it matters more than the other evidence.

Except you believed the shit polls you cited, because you kept telling people it was ridiculous to believe 2012 turnout would be similar to 2008 and predicted 300+ electoral votes for Romney. Basically regurgitating the few isolated polls you cited (Gallup, Rasmussen) instead of looking at the bigger picture. To deny you supported polls you cited is simple spinelessness.

Like I said, no one buys your shit arguments.

Why not, shit dick? I guess this place is too far gone to have meaningful discussions. If I am a moron it is believing that there could be discussions on these issues. The idea around the title was to discuss it like adults. Which you seem to be incapable of along with others.

Another wimp-out. Explain why you made a causal link between tax revenue increases and tax cuts in the title, or continue to be ridiculed. You can always change the title and we can move on.

The data suggests that, but there may be alternative explanations which I would be happy to entertain. All I get is "you're stupid" instead.

The data suggests nothing of the sort, you did! The data is just data, raw and without context until someone gives one to it. Your context was inadequate to say the least, a now well-established fact with voluminous sources you have not been able to counter except with crappy right-wing dreck of a source.

I did take econ but just the minimum.

Can we once and for all get to the subject of the thread? If I in any way made it sound like I was saying that I have "proof" that tax rate decreases always causes tax revenue increases then I apologize as that was not what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to say that the 3 cases I posted in the OP didn't have other ways to explain the increased revenue either. If that is what was conveyed then that was a mistake.

Is that good enough?

Then you should clearly now agree that this thread (eskimospy in particular) has provided a significant amount of evidence that tax cuts do not lead to higher revenue than you would have otherwise had, as seen most visibly in the CBO link. Any other opinion is not based in facts and has much weaker assumptions than the CBO or any other source, since you decided to challenge their assumptions without actually understanding what the hell you were talking about.

 

[Tom]

Look at the years you didn't include, years when the tax rate didn't change..and revenue went up.

So how is that possible ?

The flaw in your research is you are looking for something..and finding it. You discount the years that don't fit and then conclude the years that do fit are because of the tax rate change.

Common sense tells us that a tax rate that's way to high, like 95%, would stifle growth, and way too low, like 3%, wouldn't provide enough revenue.

But we can't draw from that that going from 35% to 39% on the very highest bracket is going to do anything to growth.

Why would it ? If people think there's demand for a product or service, there aren't going to create businesses to meet the demand ? Makes no sense.

 

[buckshot24]

-more polling bullshit-

Done with that topic.

Another wimp-out. Explain why you made a causal link between tax revenue increases and tax cuts in the title, or continue to be ridiculed. You can always change the title and we can move on.

I'm not changing shit. I told you what the point is and was, either accept it or not.

The data suggests nothing of the sort, you did! The data is just data, raw and without context until someone gives one to it.

The data is unambiguous. Whether the data should be adjusted for some reason that i would be happy to discuss is another question. As it stands the data is showing what it is showing. If you have a reason why it isn't showing what it is showing then please address that.

Your context was inadequate to say the least, a now well-established fact with voluminous sources you have not been able to counter except with crappy right-wing dreck of a source.

That source says nothing about the data. I'm not arguing what the maximizing tax rate is so that has nothing to do with the threads point.

Then you should clearly now agree that this thread (eskimospy in particular) has provided a significant amount of evidence that tax cuts do not lead to higher revenue than you would have otherwise had, as seen most visibly in the CBO link. Any other opinion is not based in facts and has much weaker assumptions than the CBO or any other source, since you decided to challenge their assumptions without actually understanding what the hell you were talking about.

Perhaps. The CBO projection may or may not be making incorrect assumptions and they really don't get into any detail on those assumptions. The other source looked like they used static scoring.