Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking

[Riprorin]

"the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth... it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking."

This quote, by a former president who proposed massive tax cuts holds true today.

Do you know who made this statement?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth... it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking."

This quote, by a former president who proposed massive tax cuts holds true today.

Do you know who made this statement?

If I had to guess I'd say Reagan, but for shock value I'd guess Kennedy.

In either case, it is an unsupported opinion, made by someone who is hardly an expert in economics or taxation, and is therefore of little value, at least in and of itself.

I'd be more impressed by such a statement from someone who did NOT propose massive tax cuts.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth... it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking."

This quote, by a former president who proposed massive tax cuts holds true today.

Do you know who made this statement?

If I had to guess I'd say Reagan, but for shock value I'd guess Kennedy.

In either case, it is an unsupported opinion, made by someone who is hardly an expert in economics or taxation, and is therefore of little value, at least in and of itself.

I'd be more impressed by such a statement from someone who did NOT propose massive tax cuts.

Yup, the statment was made by democratic president John F. Kennedy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure was- he proposed cutting the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%, hardly comparable to the current top marginal rate of ~34%.

Kennedy wasn't presented with annual deficits approaching 6% of GDP, either, or total indebtedness approaching 70% of GDP.

That's when Men were men, and Republicans were fiscal conservatives, rather than looters...

This whole routine about Bush cutting the deficits is like a pedophile priest taking over the parrish, molesting dozens of kids, then promising to cut down on the annual number of victims... And the congregation stands up, shouts halleluja...

Go ahead, Rip, sing halleluja- I can't believe they let you back in here...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Brackis
Riprorin, please stop bumping your 2 month old propaganda threads. You got just dessert with a 2 week vacation, so don't think of it as an excuse to bring attention to your old and ignorant posts.
If you want to be an evangelical sheep, at least make new arguments and threads.

 

[kage69]

Did the "no posting threads that are just links" rule go out the window? Have seen so many references to it in the past few months, and then I see this standard cheerleading thread of Rips with an excerpt and a link, but no actual commentary. Interesting.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i guess when i start feeling it, ill start talking about it.
until then: economy sucks for everyone i know.

Really, you must be a Democrat because all Republicans are feeling fine and say the Economy is doing fantastic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Tax cuts lead to economic growth and increased tax revenue. It's pretty obvious - unless you are a liberal.

Oh really, then why are Red State Republican Governors raising Taxes???

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Tax cuts lead to economic growth and increased tax revenue. It's pretty obvious - unless you are a liberal.

By your reasoning, we should lower the taxes to 0%. But that, obviously wouldn't produce any income. Its not as simple as you make it. The affect of tax % is not a linear relationship. Therefore, as we decrease taxes we see a benefit to a point. At that point the benefit becomes negative, because the affect of the tax reduction does not spur the economy enough to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. The question is, which side of that point are we on.

 

[shira]

Riprorin,

You do what so many other intellectually dishonest righties do: You initially claim the the huge budget deficit is irrelevant, and does not prove that the Bush adminstration's budget/tax policies are a disaster. Then you point to numbers that purportedly show that the budget deficit is less extreme than initially thought, and claim that that "proves" the the Bush adminstrations policies are effective. In other words, you ignore/discount the deficit when the deficit looks bad, but you surface the deficit when you think the numbers look good. To put this even more plainly: If it's bad, Bush's policies aren't the cause; if it's good, Bush gets the credit.

Of course, if this purported "trend" (shrinking deficit) ends up being a pipe dream, you'll go right back to saying the deficit doesn't matter and/or isn't a result of Bush's policies.

I really, really respect your mental gymnastics.

 

[Fausto]

*cough*

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fausto
*cough*

Sad.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: tss4
By your reasoning, we should lower the taxes to 0%. But that, obviously wouldn't produce any income. Its not as simple as you make it. The affect of tax % is not a linear relationship. Therefore, as we decrease taxes we see a benefit to a point. At that point the benefit becomes negative, because the affect of the tax reduction does not spur the economy enough to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. The question is, which side of that point are we on.

So few people understand that simple logic. Get out a piece of paper. We will draw a graph. So make an x-axis for average tax rate and a y-axis for revenue the government makes. Now this is just a sketch, so lets put a few data points and connect a smooth curve between them.
[*]At a 0% tax rate, the government makes no revenue at all. So put a data point at =0%, and y=$0.
[*]At a 100% tax rate, no one would bother to produce or sell anything so the government has no revenue. Put a data point at x=100% and y=$0.
[*]At 50% tax rate, the government WILL have some revenue. Depending on your beliefs it could be large or small. I don't care what. It will be positive though. So put at point at x=50% and y=whatever you want. Scale your y-axis so that this point is near the middle of your piece of paper.
[*]Draw a smooth curve that fits the three data points. It will look something like an upside down letter 'U'. It may be skewed to either side if you wish.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the right (higher tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you cut taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is correct that the possiblity exists for revenue to go up by cutting taxes.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the left (lower tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you RAISE taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is 100% incorrect in this region.

The debate comes down to the location of that maximum. A few studies have shown the maximum to be in the 30%-60% range. I'll leave it up to you to debate where we are.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Fausto
*cough*

Wow, Rip found a way to troll his own thread.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: tss4
By your reasoning, we should lower the taxes to 0%. But that, obviously wouldn't produce any income. Its not as simple as you make it. The affect of tax % is not a linear relationship. Therefore, as we decrease taxes we see a benefit to a point. At that point the benefit becomes negative, because the affect of the tax reduction does not spur the economy enough to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. The question is, which side of that point are we on.

So few people understand that simple logic. Get out a piece of paper. We will draw a graph. So make an x-axis for average tax rate and a y-axis for revenue the government makes. Now this is just a sketch, so lets put a few data points and connect a smooth curve between them.
[*]At a 0% tax rate, the government makes no revenue at all. So put a data point at =0%, and y=$0.
[*]At a 100% tax rate, no one would bother to produce or sell anything so the government has no revenue. Put a data point at x=100% and y=$0.
[*]At 50% tax rate, the government WILL have some revenue. Depending on your beliefs it could be large or small. I don't care what. It will be positive though. So put at point at x=50% and y=whatever you want. Scale your y-axis so that this point is near the middle of your piece of paper.
[*]Draw a smooth curve that fits the three data points. It will look something like an upside down letter 'U'. It may be skewed to either side if you wish.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the right (higher tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you cut taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is correct that the possiblity exists for revenue to go up by cutting taxes.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the left (lower tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you RAISE taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is 100% incorrect in this region.

The debate comes down to the location of that maximum. A few studies have shown the maximum to be in the 30%-60% range. I'll leave it up to you to debate where we are.

Riprorin is 100% incorrect in this region

^^^ That's the truly sad part especially bringing up worn and incorrect over many months.

But that is where the Country is at now, wrong and incorrect so par for the course.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: tss4
By your reasoning, we should lower the taxes to 0%. But that, obviously wouldn't produce any income. Its not as simple as you make it. The affect of tax % is not a linear relationship. Therefore, as we decrease taxes we see a benefit to a point. At that point the benefit becomes negative, because the affect of the tax reduction does not spur the economy enough to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. The question is, which side of that point are we on.

So few people understand that simple logic. Get out a piece of paper. We will draw a graph. So make an x-axis for average tax rate and a y-axis for revenue the government makes. Now this is just a sketch, so lets put a few data points and connect a smooth curve between them.
[*]At a 0% tax rate, the government makes no revenue at all. So put a data point at =0%, and y=$0.
[*]At a 100% tax rate, no one would bother to produce or sell anything so the government has no revenue. Put a data point at x=100% and y=$0.
[*]At 50% tax rate, the government WILL have some revenue. Depending on your beliefs it could be large or small. I don't care what. It will be positive though. So put at point at x=50% and y=whatever you want. Scale your y-axis so that this point is near the middle of your piece of paper.
[*]Draw a smooth curve that fits the three data points. It will look something like an upside down letter 'U'. It may be skewed to either side if you wish.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the right (higher tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you cut taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is correct that the possiblity exists for revenue to go up by cutting taxes.

Now choose any point on the x-axis that is to the left (lower tax rate) of your maximum in that graph. Notice in this region, if you RAISE taxes, government revenue goes up. Riprorin is 100% incorrect in this region.

The debate comes down to the location of that maximum. A few studies have shown the maximum to be in the 30%-60% range. I'll leave it up to you to debate where we are.

You're correct, except that maximum revenue does not necessarily occur at 50% tax, or even at the same tax rate in different countries.

More importantly, maximizing tax revenue is not a legitimate goal for government; minimizing the tax revenue needed to fulfill their mandate is the correct goal.

Your are correct that according to the best studies available, the US and most every other first world nation is below the revenue maximizing tax rate, therefore tax cuts may lead to economic growth, but not to increased government revenues.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You're correct, except that maximum revenue does not necessarily occur at 50% tax, or even at the same tax rate in different countries.

Where did I ever say 50% was the maximum. I specifically said you can skew it to either side. That means you could put the maximum to the left or to the right of 50% if you wish. Then I said the studies can't narrow it down from the broad range of 30% to 60%.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You're correct, except that maximum revenue does not necessarily occur at 50% tax, or even at the same tax rate in different countries.

Where did I ever say 50% was the maximum. I specifically said you can skew it to either side. That means you could put the maximum to the left or to the right of 50% if you wish. Then I said the studies can't narrow it down from the broad range of 30% to 60%.

then there's no need to arbitrarily choose 50% as the 3rd anchor point

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
then there's no need to arbitrarily choose 50% as the 3rd anchor point

No there isn't. You can choose any point. But it would be difficult to choose, say 1% or 99%, and get a graph that is scaled to a reasonable height. Simply choosing a point in the middle and putting a curve through it takes care of that. Remember this arbitrary point isn't the maximum.

 

[Tom]

Interesting. But I'm relatively sure that what the government spends the revenue on has wildly varying effects on the economy, which I think would undermine the model you've outlined.

example- government builds a road between 2 cities, or buys 14 gross of musket balls. Both expenditures might be necessary but they don't have the same effect on the economy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Tom
Interesting. But I'm relatively sure that what the government spends the revenue on has wildly varying effects on the economy, which I think would undermine the model you've outlined.

example- government builds a road between 2 cities, or buys 14 gross of musket balls. Both expenditures might be necessary but they don't have the same effect on the economy.

As governments so ably indicate, spending and taxation are rarely linked directly

 

[NyteCrawler]

Pleasing info

 

[Riprorin]

If you libs want to see the impact of high taxation, protectionism, and runaway social spending just look at Europe.

The consequences: Slow growth rates, high unemployment, massive debt, and low productivity.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If you libs want to see the impact of high taxation, protectionism, and runaway social spending just look at Europe.

The consequences: Slow growth rates, high unemployment, massive debt, and low productivity.

Tell you what Rip, let's just eliminate all taxes and watch the growth skyrocket.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If you libs want to see the impact of high taxation, protectionism, and runaway social spending just look at Europe.

The consequences: Slow growth rates, high unemployment, massive debt, and low productivity.

Tell you what Rip, let's just eliminate all taxes and watch the growth skyrocket.

With no tax revenue, how many americans do you know willing to lay down cash for invasions similar to iraq...
there may be benifits to that plan