Does Lowering Tax Rates Increase Tax Receipts Collected?

[buckshot24]

I've already added considerably more than you by debunking your lame spreadsheet with links and commentary.

Oh, the data is miscalculated or something? If it is I'd welcome any corrections. If it isn't miscalculated then it isn't debunked.

You continue to pussy out of references to any studies from any credible sources on this matter. Entirely predictable.

Not sure why I need any references. The data I provided is unambiguous. Tax receipts went up after two major tax cuts. You're the one saying that there is something other than the cuts that caused it but you just call me names. The CBO paper may provide an explanation but as it stands it seems that it was looking at a cut that I may well agree would cause decreased revenue. It is up to you to extrapolate that CBO study to explain the cuts that were being discussed. I don't say every cut increases revenue.

First try linking credible sources and I'll deign to respond to you.

Do you promise to stop responding to me?

And what about this single footnote among 9 different footnotes about their assumptions and thinking in the CBO report is unclear or undetailed to you? Please delineate in detail because so far you're still pussying out of explaining why their assumptions are not adequate.

They may be perfectly adequate or they may be full of shit or they are looking at a small tax cut when the rates are already low which makes their analysis irrelevant to the cuts I was talking about.

Please cite credible sources to support your argument, and we can move forward. Your shitty Google docs spreadsheet does not meet the credibility test, you are an unqualified layman.

Yes I am a layman. But why is the spread sheet shitty? I'd like to improve it.

Yeah, we know, you're poorly educated. We get it.

My education has nothing to do with knowing how the CBO comes to their assumption models. Is that the standard now?

Then we can move forward to more specifics. I believe so far you've provided one link to a back-of-the-envelope hack analysis of the CBO report by a site with zero credibility. Try harder with your next reference.

I provided a link of somebody who was analyzing what a paper by Romer and Romer was implying the revenue maximizing rate of taxation was. It had nothing to do with the CBO paper.

Here's the thing though. I can't even tell you what the point of the thread title was meant to be. You wouldn't believe me if I told you that shit stunk. Why would I post references when all that would happen is you'd bitch about them? Furthermore we probably agree on more than you think. I think you'd agree that tax rates being decreased can in some cased increase the revenue collected. We may disagree on when that occurs but that doesn't mean you need to be a complete fucking dick about it.

 

[emperus]

Buckshot, part of growing is learning when you're wrong. You are wrong here. I understand your attempt at the spreadsheet. But, honestly, without a lot more analysis it was just a waste of an hour.

Btw, you shouldn't be dismissive of the CBO. Go look at the bios of some of the analysts. Everyone can be wrong. But, it's ridiculous to have 0 expertise in the area and to criticize the analysis of those with. It shows a certain level of arrogance and delusion.

 

[ohnoes]

i don't know, buckshot was pretty successful in this thread. maybe he can spend another hour and tell us the grand unified theory.

 

[buckshot24]

i don't know, buckshot was pretty successful in this thread. maybe he can spend another hour and tell us the grand unified theory.

I do have a paper I'm working on that you may be interested in. I will be presenting evidence and arguments in support of my theory.

The theory is that you're a douche and I think I have some very compelling evidence to support it that even you may be convinced by.

Buckshot, part of growing is learning when you're wrong. You are wrong here. I understand your attempt at the spreadsheet. But, honestly, without a lot more analysis it was just a waste of an hour.

I'm not sure where I am wrong. Only douches like ohnoes and pricks like First and eskimo (I hate to lump him in with those two wankers) thought I was saying something that I wasn't. The spread sheet was meant to be a starting point for discussion which was my first mistake. This place is more into dick measuring than discussion. I had a moment of charity and weakness and I've certainly learned my lesson.

Btw, you shouldn't be dismissive of the CBO. Go look at the bios of some of the analysts. Everyone can be wrong. But, it's ridiculous to have 0 expertise in the area and to criticize the analysis of those with. It shows a certain level of arrogance and delusion.

Perhaps not but it shouldn't be used as definitive proof either when they clearly say that their projections could be wrong if their assumptions were wrong. They also looked at a modest situation where even I would agree that the modest cut from 25% to 22.5% would probably not create much incentive to the economy.

I simply wasn't saying what the strawmen constructors were saying I was saying. They built up the strawmen and beat the shit out of it then for good measure fucked it in the ass.

I'm quite convincible about the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy cuts causing less revenue than it would have collected if the cuts weren't enacted. I don't think the CBO paper does that. I don't think the treasury paper does that (especially since it uses static scoring).

 

[emperus]

I do have a paper I'm working on that you may be interested in. I will be presenting evidence and arguments in support of my theory.

The theory is that you're a douche and I think I have some very compelling evidence to support it that even you may be convinced by.


I'm not sure where I am wrong. Only douches like ohnoes and pricks like First and eskimo (I hate to lump him in with those two wankers) thought I was saying something that I wasn't. The spread sheet was meant to be a starting point for discussion which was my first mistake. This place is more into dick measuring than discussion. I had a moment of charity and weakness and I've certainly learned my lesson.


Perhaps not but it shouldn't be used as definitive proof either when they clearly say that their projections could be wrong if their assumptions were wrong. They also looked at a modest situation where even I would agree that the modest cut from 25% to 22.5% would probably not create much incentive to the economy.

I simply wasn't saying what the strawmen constructors were saying I was saying. They built up the strawmen and beat the shit out of it then for good measure fucked it in the ass.

I'm quite convincible about the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy cuts causing less revenue than it would have collected if the cuts weren't enacted. I don't think the CBO paper does that. I don't think the treasury paper does that (especially since it uses static scoring).

I think the arguments against you have been very rational and people have gone a long way to show you what is wrong with your analysis.

I just think you have to let it go. At this point it is akin to you going to a highly respected doctor with something you found on WebMD and telling him his prognosis is wrong. Noone is arguing the highly respected doctor can never be wrong. But the probability of ur untrained analysis being better than his? Low.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

No. Taxes collected increased in the 80's and 90's due to emerging new markets through the growth of technology. You know this, so do the rest of us, so this is a very fucking stupid thread. The people in charge knew this was about to happen so they rallied their troops in Washington to lower taxes by huge amounts so they could stack up piles of cash. Now they are addicted to the profit and worshipping at it's shrine. Time to reject the new religion that is Greedism.

 

[First]

Oh, the data is miscalculated or something? If it is I'd welcome any corrections. If it isn't miscalculated then it isn't debunked.

Already debunked, search pages 1-5 if you're still confused.

Not sure why I need any references. The data I provided is unambiguous. Tax receipts went up after two major tax cuts. You're the one saying that there is something other than the cuts that caused it but you just call me names. The CBO paper may provide an explanation but as it stands it seems that it was looking at a cut that I may well agree would cause decreased revenue. It is up to you to extrapolate that CBO study to explain the cuts that were being discussed. I don't say every cut increases revenue.

Stop wimping out and cite studies and/or corroborated data to support your claims.

They may be perfectly adequate or they may be full of shit or they are looking at a small tax cut when the rates are already low which makes their analysis irrelevant to the cuts I was talking about.

Stop wimping out and cite studies and/or corroborated data to support your claims.

Yes I am a layman. But why is the spread sheet shitty? I'd like to improve it.

Yes, we know you're a horribly, horribly misinformed laymen. The spreadsheet is shitty because you continue to lack comprehension of basic correlation vs. causation, which is why you continually pussy out of addressing the differences.

My education has nothing to do with knowing how the CBO comes to their assumption models. Is that the standard now?

The standard is that you be educated and experienced, yes. You are neither, but are welcome to present your credentials to show why we should take your shitty spreadsheet more seriously the the non-partisan governmental agency that is widely respected known as the CBO.

I provided a link of somebody who was analyzing what a paper by Romer and Romer was implying the revenue maximizing rate of taxation was. It had nothing to do with the CBO paper.

True, you provided a link, it just didn't support your claims at all as it was entirely uncredible. You're of course more than welcome to try and support the veracity of, erm, ricochet.com. Lol.

Here's the thing though. I can't even tell you what the point of the thread title was meant to be. You wouldn't believe me if I told you that shit stunk. Why would I post references when all that would happen is you'd bitch about them? Furthermore we probably agree on more than you think. I think you'd agree that tax rates being decreased can in some cased increase the revenue collected. We may disagree on when that occurs but that doesn't mean you need to be a complete fucking dick about it.

Look, your posts are awful and you deserve to be treated with ridicule because you lack basic reasoning skills. You don't understand statistics or probabilities (see re: your horrid 2012 election prediction) and you don't understand the tax code, yet in multiple threads have had the hubris to assume you know better than experts, pollsters, economists, statisticians, et al. It's sad, we've all pointed out why (with facts, analysis, credible references, etc.), while you have linked to and supported your claims with spreadsheet data you made up and drew fallacious conclusions of on your own (despite being a self-admitted layman) and cited well-respected sources like ricochet.com (that's sarcasm).

Frankly, I'm not the only one here who will continue to make sure you are made fun of. And btw, notice no one on your ideological side is coming to your rescue, not that that would add much to your case without them presenting good data, of course.

 

[buckshot24]

Already debunked, search pages 1-5 if you're still confused.

Yes I am confused, the data in the spreadsheet hasn't been debunked at all. Facts are facts. If there is some calculation that is wrong then I'd like to fix it.

The standard is that you be educated and experienced, yes. You are neither, but are welcome to present your credentials to show why we should take your shitty spreadsheet more seriously the the non-partisan governmental agency that is widely respected known as the CBO.

I doubt the CBO itself would have a problem with the data that is in the spreadsheet. These numbers were taken from whitehouse.gov

If any of the numbers are incorrect in the sheet I'd be happy to fix it. You're addressing the spreadsheet as if it is saying one thing or the other. All it is doing is showing revenue normalized for inflation and population.

True, you provided a link, it just didn't support your claims at all as it was entirely uncredible. You're of course more than welcome to try and support the veracity of, erm, ricochet.com. Lol.

What claims were those?

while you have linked to and supported your claims with spreadsheet data you made up and drew fallacious conclusions of on your own

You are simply factually incorrect. I did not make up a single number. The conclusion I drew from the data is exactly what happened. After two large tax cuts revenues increased (after adjusting for inflation and population (fudged as it is). Is it because of the tax cuts? Or is it because of some other undiscovered phenomenon? You've been obfuscating on that this whole thread. I'm perfectly willing to accept that revenues went up for some other reason. You haven't presented jack shit to explain the facts. CBO doesn't explain the facts either. They projected a minor tax cut when tax rates were already low.

(despite being a self-admitted layman) and cited well-respected sources like ricochet.com (that's sarcasm).

You are a fucking moron. I wasn't trying to lend any credibility to anything. I was explaining a mistake I made in saying Romer said the revenue maximizing tax rate was 33% when it was that other guy who abstracted that from her work. You call me a hack? Fuck you.

Frankly, I'm not the only one here who will continue to make sure you are made fun of. And btw, notice no one on your ideological side is coming to your rescue, not that that would add much to your case without them presenting good data, of course.

I couldn't care less, you're a pompous prick. You've taken just about everything I said out of context and constructed arguments that didn't take place.

So if you'd like to address the two large tax cuts that were followed by increasing revenue that would be great. Why did those revenue increases take place? Tax rate reduction? World economy? Technological advances? War? Low crude oil prices? My spreadsheet has bad data or miscalculated figures? You're a dick? The Beatles? Spending restraint? Spending increases?

 

[First]

Yes I am confused, the data in the spreadsheet hasn't been debunked at all. Facts are facts. If there is some calculation that is wrong then I'd like to fix it.

Your conclusions and title are all wrong as you continue to fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation. FYI refer to pages 1-5, as you're clearly still confused.

I doubt the CBO itself would have a problem with the data that is in the spreadsheet. These numbers were taken from whitehouse.gov

Your conclusions and title are all wrong as you continue to fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation. FYI refer to pages 1-5, as you're clearly still confused.

If any of the numbers are incorrect in the sheet I'd be happy to fix it. You're addressing the spreadsheet as if it is saying one thing or the other. All it is doing is showing revenue normalized for inflation and population.
What claims were those?

Your conclusions and title are all wrong as you continue to fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation. FYI refer to pages 1-5, as you're clearly still confused.

You are simply factually incorrect. I did not make up a single number. The conclusion I drew from the data is exactly what happened. After two large tax cuts revenues increased (after adjusting for inflation and population (fudged as it is). Is it because of the tax cuts? Or is it because of some other undiscovered phenomenon? You've been obfuscating on that this whole thread. I'm perfectly willing to accept that revenues went up for some other reason. You haven't presented jack shit to explain the facts. CBO doesn't explain the facts either. They projected a minor tax cut when tax rates were already low.

CBO gave a very detailed breakdown of why tax cuts don't raise revenue, and they explained why larger ones wouldn't either. It is not my concern you are literally too stupid to read a report carefully.

Your point about an even larger tax cut leading to a different result is pretty sad too, as you would think you'd figure out that that would lead to even less revenue given all the data we have (and the reality that larger tax cuts mean literally less direct tax receipts, der lol). You'd think this would be entirely self-evident, like Euclid's axiom that any point outside of a line can have only one other parallel line be drawn. But alas, I'm speaking to a self-admitted layman claiming he knows better than the CBO.

You are a fucking moron. I wasn't trying to lend any credibility to anything. I was explaining a mistake I made in saying Romer said the revenue maximizing tax rate was 33% when it was that other guy who abstracted that from her work. You call me a hack? Fuck you.

lol. You're a hack, kid, and you're poorly informed, educated and inexperienced on these matters. But you're more than welcome to man up and show us your economic/statistical chops. Try not to wimp out this time, as your silence on all my challenges to you haven't gone unnoticed by anyone paying attention.

I couldn't care less, you're a pompous prick. You've taken just about everything I said out of context and constructed arguments that didn't take place.

So if you'd like to address the two large tax cuts that were followed by increasing revenue that would be great. Why did those revenue increases take place? Tax rate reduction? World economy? Technological advances? War? Low crude oil prices? My spreadsheet has bad data or miscalculated figures? You're a dick? The Beatles? Spending restraint? Spending increases?

It has already been explained to you in excruciating detail, refer to pages 1-5 and please cite credible sources to back up your conclusions. Remember, in the field of science and peer reviews, if no one else backs up your assertions your theories aren't taken seriously by anyone.

 

[buckshot24]

Your conclusions and title are all wrong as you continue to fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation. FYI refer to pages 1-5, as you're clearly still confused.

The conclusion is that the data shows an increase of revenue after those tax cuts. I didn't say the tax cuts caused it. You're simply reading invisible letters.

CBO gave a very detailed breakdown of why tax cuts don't raise revenue, and they explained why larger ones wouldn't either. It is not my concern you are literally too stupid to read a report carefully.

Typical straw man. I point out that the CBO was talking about a tax cut when taxation was already low. If there is a large tax cut when tax rates are low you'd get the same effect. When you have taxation at 91% and you give a large tax cut then that is totally different.

It has already been explained to you in excruciating detail, refer to pages 1-5 and please cite credible sources to back up your conclusions.

My conclusions are that after some very large tax cuts revenues actually increased adjusted for inflation. The data clearly shows this. There hasn't been much discussion why this happened. CBO doesn't analyze these tax cuts. Like I said I'm willing to be convinced. This pissing match isn't very convincing.

Remember, in the field of science and peer reviews, if no one else backs up your assertions your theories aren't taken seriously by anyone.

My assertions are that revenues increased. These aren't really assertions but are a statement of fact. Is it because of tax rates? Or because you have a small penis? Or because of something else?

 

[First]

The conclusion is that the data shows an increase of revenue after those tax cuts. I didn't say the tax cuts caused it. You're simply reading invisible letters.

Yes you did. Sorry you can't man up, wimp.

Typical straw man. I point out that the CBO was talking about a tax cut when taxation was already low. If there is a large tax cut when tax rates are low you'd get the same effect. When you have taxation at 91% and you give a large tax cut then that is totally different.

lol.

Btw, still pussying out of listing your credible studies and personal credentials, kid?

My conclusions are that after some very large tax cuts revenues actually increased adjusted for inflation. The data clearly shows this.

Data here clearly shows individual taxes paid increase with age. Therefore, it's clear getting younger is the best way to pay fewer taxes.

There hasn't been much discussion why this happened. CBO doesn't analyze these tax cuts. Like I said I'm willing to be convinced. This pissing match isn't very convincing.

What's convincing; analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, with their non-partisan make-up, well known bi-partisan support and bi-partisan respect in gov't, and their extremely well qualified staff of economists, statisticians, et al. All listed here.

What's unconvincing; a layman named buckshot24 on an IT Internet forum creating a spreadsheet (a whole hour's worth of work!) trying to pimp his ideology by taking a non-position position (after being called out of course) while failing to list any corroborating references or studies and failing to admit the strongest case is against tax cuts creating revenue based on the evidence presented by everyone. Oh, and simultaneously failing to list his own credentials.

My assertions are that revenues increased. These aren't really assertions but are a statement of fact. Is it because of tax rates? Or because you have a small penis? Or because of something else?

It's because you touch yourself at night.

 

[buckshot24]

hahaha

If the data in my spreadsheet doesn't really say what it says then there must either be something wrong with the data (nobody has really said this) or my calculations (nobody has said this either).

If the data is incomplete then please tell me how I can make it more complete. I've taken one suggestion about population growth already. I'm willing to accept that the two tax cuts (net tax cuts) didn't really cause the revenue increases.

First, and others, are assuming that I think the spreadsheet proves beyond any doubt that tax cuts (all of them) creates more revenue.

The bottom line is that in at least two periods where the net tax rates have been cut fairly drastically revenues didn't fall drastically but they increased. In one case by 40% over the next 5 years. This is simply a mathematical fact. If the tax rate cuts had nothing to do with the increases (or held back further increases) then what caused the increases? Inflation couldn't because I account for inflation (assuming I calculated correctly).

 

[First]

hahaha

If the data in my spreadsheet doesn't really say what it says then there must either be something wrong with the data (nobody has really said this) or my calculations (nobody has said this either).

The data in your spreadsheet is worse than wrong; it's irrelevant. It's a spreadsheet with domestic cow dung frequency juxtaposed with annual iPad sales.

If the data is incomplete then please tell me how I can make it more complete. I've taken one suggestion about population growth already. I'm willing to accept that the two tax cuts (net tax cuts) didn't really cause the revenue increases.

First, and others, are assuming that I think the spreadsheet proves beyond any doubt that tax cuts (all of them) creates more revenue.

The bottom line is that in at least two periods where the net tax rates have been cut fairly drastically revenues didn't fall drastically but they increased. In one case by 40% over the next 5 years. This is simply a mathematical fact. If the tax rate cuts had nothing to do with the increases (or held back further increases) then what caused the increases? Inflation couldn't because I account for inflation (assuming I calculated correctly).

All of this has been explained to you in this thread. You just a stubborn, wimpy poster too proud to admit he's out of his league. Meh.

 

[Bowfinger]

hahaha

If the data in my spreadsheet doesn't really say what it says then there must either be something wrong with the data (nobody has really said this) or my calculations (nobody has said this either).

If the data is incomplete then please tell me how I can make it more complete. I've taken one suggestion about population growth already. I'm willing to accept that the two tax cuts (net tax cuts) didn't really cause the revenue increases.

First, and others, are assuming that I think the spreadsheet proves beyond any doubt that tax cuts (all of them) creates more revenue.

The bottom line is that in at least two periods where the net tax rates have been cut fairly drastically revenues didn't fall drastically but they increased. In one case by 40% over the next 5 years. This is simply a mathematical fact. If the tax rate cuts had nothing to do with the increases (or held back further increases) then what caused the increases? Inflation couldn't because I account for inflation (assuming I calculated correctly).

I offered you that explanation quite early in the thread, yet you ignored it. This only reinforced the impression that your goal is not actual discussion but rather pushing the usual right-wing dogma. Well that, and the fact you cherry-picked data supporting your premise while ignoring the whole data set showing revenues almost always increase. If you are truly interested in good discussion, you need to start being more intellectually honest.

 

[buckshot24]

I offered you that explanation quite early in the thread, yet you ignored it. This only reinforced the impression that your goal is not actual discussion but rather pushing the usual right-wing dogma. Well that, and the fact you cherry-picked data supporting your premise while ignoring the whole data set showing revenues almost always increase. If you are truly interested in good discussion, you need to start being more intellectually honest.

I didn't ignore any data. I highlighted a few cases where tax rates were reduced. The sheet has every year from 1934 to 2011. However since you brought it up (again :wub I think we can check the average increase and see if that gives any more insight.

 

[buckshot24]

The data in your spreadsheet is worse than wrong; it's irrelevant. It's a spreadsheet with domestic cow dung frequency juxtaposed with annual iPad sales.

I'll add those two factors and I bet you anything that it will show that you're a fucking asshole.

All of this has been explained to you in this thread. You just a stubborn, wimpy poster too proud to admit he's out of his league. Meh.

Damn right I'm stubborn. I won't accept bullshit out of hand, especially when its coming from a prick like you.

 

[First]

I'll add those two factors and I bet you anything that it will show that you're a fucking asshole.

If anything those two things might improve upon your OP's shitty non-premise premise.

Damn right I'm stubborn. I won't accept bullshit out of hand, especially when its coming from a prick like you.

Don't worry, I'll be here to continually remind you just how out of your league you are.