REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

When Lower Tax RATES Produce Higher Tax Revenue

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, December 8, 2017 15:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 438
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:22 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:31 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


They don't know what they actually think JSF.

Half of the time they're saying that lower taxes are bad, half of the time they're flipping out because of ridiculous figures they put out about how much taxes are going to go up.

The only thing they know for sure is that whatever Trump does, it is bad.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:31 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.



So you only had to go back 96 years - good catch. [ / snarkasm ]

BTW, do you have any HISTORICAL CONTEXT you want to use to give that some deeper understanding? Like how we were still coming out of WW1? And what happened right after that 1921-29 period? Something called "Great" but wasn't so great?? You just illustrated the dangers of using raw data to prove things.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:42 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The only thing they know for sure is that whatever Trump does, it is bad.



I'd be happy to see a list of all the good things he's done - do you have one?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:44 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:37 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.



So you have zero good things?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:59 AM

THGRRI


We have a 4.1% unemployment rate. Goldman Sacks predicts 4% growth next year. Trump tweeted "there is a 10% rise in home ownership and the stock market is performing at record levels."

Why would tax breaks for the rich that would add one and a half trillion dollars to our deficit, be good for the economy at this time? They are not going to stimulate anything positive. What it will do is negatively affect the incomes of small business owners slowing growth. It will also negatively affect the amount others can spend. Spending that would stimulate the economy in a positive way.

As I've said in other posts, this is purely a giveaway to the donor class that will decimate small business.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:04 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.



So you have zero good things?

==============================



Jack has zero forethought G. He is unable through careful consideration to determine what will be necessary, or may happen in the future.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In the history of the USA, lower tax rates have never lead to higher revenues. I can link the Treasury's "revenues" tables, if you like.

And while Reagan may have cut the tax RATES, his "reforms" eliminated a lot of deductions for the middle class (such as interest rate payments on loans in general, not just mortgages) and actually INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class by subjecting more of their income to taxes.

The concept (lower tax rates/ lower taxes = higher growth = higher revenues) is a valid theoretical one, but it's on the SAME CURVE where higher tax rates = higher revenues. This connection only comes into play when the taxes and tax rates are SO high (90% across the board) that they reduce consumption and therefore demand, and only in a closed economy where that increased demand does not translate to more jobs ...in China.

We should have this discussion with data on the table, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. But I can tell you from a historical standpoint that as far as I can tell, for the USA and for every European nation that I can think of, this concept remains theoretical.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:03 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the history of the USA, lower tax rates have never lead to higher revenues. I can link the Treasury's "revenues" tables, if you like.

And while Reagan may have cut the tax RATES, his "reforms" eliminated a lot of deductions for the middle class (such as interest rate payments on loans in general, not just mortgages) and actually INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class by subjecting more of their income to taxes.

The concept (lower tax rates/ lower taxes = higher growth = higher revenues) is a valid theoretical one, but it's on the SAME CURVE where higher tax rates = higher revenues. This connection only comes into play when the taxes and tax rates are SO high (90% across the board) that they reduce consumption and therefore demand, and only in a closed economy where that increased demand does not translate to more jobs ...in China.

We should have this discussion with data on the table, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. But I can tell you from a historical standpoint that as far as I can tell, for the USA and for every European nation that I can think of, this concept remains theoretical.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake



The tax rate was over 70% when Reagan took office. It made sense to lower it. He lowered them to 28%. He then raised them 11 times in the form of doing away with deductions.

What the republicans are attempting to do now, is what they've always done. Take care of those at the top who fund their campaigns.

I would note, most of wall street funds democrats. They speak out on occasion about the bullshit the Republicans pull concerning taxes. It's the ones who fund the lobbyists for these tax breaks that hold the most power in Washington. They are the Republican donor class.

It's like the racists and bigots that are now controlling the Republican Party. They only represent 30 or so percent of the Republican Party, but if they withdraw their support the party is doomed. It's the same when it comes to the Republican donor class.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:12 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.


==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:19 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.


==============================



That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.

Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:10 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


If there were any kind of remotely plausible way to generate an analysis that said this tax plan would pay for itself — or even come close to paying for itself — the Republican Party would find some way to produce the actual analysis. They haven’t produced such an analysis.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has been saying that his team will release a “dynamic” analysis of the Republican tax plan that will reveal its growth-boosting effects to be so incredible that they put deficit worries to rest.

Guess what? Mnuchin was lying:

www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html
?_r=0


Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.

Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:23 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
If there were any kind of remotely plausible way to generate an analysis that said this tax plan would pay for itself — or even come close to paying for itself — the Republican Party would find some way to produce the actual analysis. They haven’t produced such an analysis.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has been saying that his team will release a “dynamic” analysis of the Republican tax plan that will reveal its growth-boosting effects to be so incredible that they put deficit worries to rest.

Guess what? Mnuchin was lying:

www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html
?_r=0


Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.

Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.



On the money SECOND. This, as the health care plan, is being done without regard to due process. It is being done behind closed doors by a few without the input of the Senate or the house.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:33 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.

Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.




Approving of and encouraging hate is like a drug for some people, and Trump is the dealer. It was interesting to read an article that interviewed Trump voters who to a person said they will vote for him again in 2020.

"Why?"
"He does what he says he will."
"Like what? There's no wall."
"Not his fault..."

like that on and on and after each item, "not his fault."

They seem most perturbed about the NFL players and happy at how Trump had called them out.

"You know what N-F-L stands for? N*ggers For Life."

I don't know if I already posted this here but it dawned on me the other day that apart from Trump being president the biggest thing the bugged me about now is this isn't a glitch. No matter what level of Russian influence there was, the Trump voter is real, they live here, and they'll vote again. How can he still have a 30% approval rating? It is unbelievable.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:06 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.

Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.




Approving of and encouraging hate is like a drug for some people, and Trump is the dealer. It was interesting to read an article that interviewed Trump voters who to a person said they will vote for him again in 2020.

"Why?"
"He does what he says he will."
"Like what? There's no wall."
"Not his fault..."

like that on and on and after each item, "not his fault."

They seem most perturbed about the NFL players and happy at how Trump had called them out.

"You know what N-F-L stands for? N*ggers For Life."

I don't know if I already posted this here but it dawned on me the other day that apart from Trump being president the biggest thing the bugged me about now is this isn't a glitch. No matter what level of Russian influence there was, the Trump voter is real, they live here, and they'll vote again. How can he still have a 30% approval rating? It is unbelievable.

==============================



Populism 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'? It works both ways. The minorities against the corrupt whites. To me, both parties are guilty of this destructive messaging. Both parties are responsible for Trump.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...
IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.

What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China

There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.




-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:45 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...
IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.

What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China

There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.




While I do have some problems with globalization I am not the fatalist you are. Which is why you present a fatalist populist message whenever you discuss it.

Where something is made does not tell the whole story. For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there. The goods are shipped into this country. So much of that process provides Americans with jobs... so on and so on.

The point is to expose your posting as populist and destructive. This applies to most of the issues you post about.


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.
And are paid so poorly that Walmart actually hands out brochures on how to apply for food stamps and other government aid.

Service jobs are not manufacturing jobs.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:54 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.
And are paid so poorly that Walmart actually hands out brochures on how to apply for food stamps and other government aid.

Service jobs are not manufacturing jobs.




I love that we are having this discussion. Brief as it will be because you are an asshole troll who I'll tire of.

My response to you this time, is that no matter what is posted that has a positive outlook, you'll go negative, because that's the populist message. Unless it concerns Putin, Trump and Putins' ally's, like Trump. Did I mention Trump?


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know this is somewhat off-topic, but THUGR, you need to think this through more completely.

We've offloaded our manufacturing to other nations and become a nation of service-workers and banksters. In order to bring those manufacturing jobs back home, we would need to be more "efficient" (ie have lower costs) than the manufactures elsewhere.

In some cases, shoddy third-world work imposes its own costs, and there is SOME incentive to manufacture here, closer to the goods-market and with better quality control than some other nations. But mostly wages here would have to be lowered, or automation would have to be utilized, or environmental controls would have to be reduced, or taxes would have to be trimmed ... in one way or another, we would have to PAY to return the manufactures here.

But is that really necessary?
It is, but only if you subscribe to the ideas that profits can never be touched, and that we HAVE to compete in the world market. Both of those assumptions should be questioned, because in reality, the ONLY ENTITIES which benefit from that POV are transnational companies and banks. Average people on both ends of the trade deals are hurt by this collective competition to the bottom of the barrel.


I personally think that ....

1) We need to be more self-sufficient for security and "ruggedness" purposes. That means that there should be the fewest possible "critical" commodities and supplies NOT made here. We're lucky enough to have agricultural land, water, metals, minerals and forests, and with wise stewardship we should have enough resources for the foreseeable future. Yes, there are some strategic metals that we don't have here, but we should be able to trade for those, not be dependent on other nations' largesse.

2) Our trade should be nearly balanced. It's a problem to be in perpetual trade debt; but it's also a problem being in perpetual trade surplus because then you're dependent on external markets.

3) Our wealth should be more evenly distributed, and not because of government handouts but through meaningful work available to everyone who wants to work. That fosters a mentality of self-reliance, not dependence on "government" or other centralized entity.

4) That will probably lead to reduced efficiency, but "efficiency" is a dangerous metric for judging an economy. Maximal efficiency leads to maximal fragility. Robust ecologies have multiple overlapping niches, allowing some to "fill in" for others which may suddenly go missing.

There are a series of policies that need to be implemented to get from "here" to "there": Tariffs, government loans to key industries, control of the Fed, revival of our infrastructure, change in tax structure etc etc. It would require such a comprehensive approach that no President could accomplish it in four - or eight- years, and it's extremely unlikely to occur, but I believe that it's necessary to bring the economy back in service to the American people, and not the other way around.


And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic of tax rates ...



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.


==============================



I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.

The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.

Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.


My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 4:55 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...
IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.

What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China

There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.




Things don't have to be made in the US for their sales to profit the US businesses that sell them. If manufacturers were the sole profiteer from product sales, as you suggest, then you can bet you paycheck American manufacturing would be booming. Americans are greedy - we'd find a way to manufacture goods if there was so much profit in it.

Rethink!

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 4:57 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.

The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.

Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.

My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.




If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 6:23 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by G:

If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.

==============================

You might have a nation of involuntary Couch Potatoes even without the handout. Joblessness could be forced upon the Potatoes: Over the next 13 years, the rising tide of automation will force as many as 70 million workers in the United States to find another way to make money, a new study from the global consultancy McKinsey predicts.

That means nearly a third of the American workforce could face the need to pick up new skills or enter different fields in the near future, said the report's co-author, Michael Chui, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute who studies business and economics.
www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/future-of-organizations-and-work/what-t
he-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 7:01 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Reaganomics Tax Cuts.

Total Federal Revenues 1980 = $517 Billion. 1990 = over $1 Trillion. GDP Aldo doubled in this period.

Individual Income Tax Revenue 1980 = $244 B. 1990 = $467 B.

Proportion of total Income Tax paid by top 1% of Income Tax payers in 1981 = 18%. In 1988 = 28%. In 1991 = 25%. (After Bush41 raised taxes)
Top 5% in 1991 = 43%.
Bottom 50% = 5%.

If including Social Security Taxes (which Reagan did not change), share of Total Federal Taxes paid:
By the top 1% of taxpayers in 1980 = 12.9%. 1989 = 15.4%.
Top 5% of taxpayers in 1980 = 27.3%. 1989 = 30.4%.
Top 20% of taxpayers in 1980 = 56.1%. 1989 = 58.6%.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 7:51 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.

The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.

Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.

My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.




If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.

==============================



True, but $12,000 doesn't go very far. Those that don't work already don't get the EIC, and those that don't work and are of "able bodied" age do not get food stamps. This would supplement their income.

I really can't imagine there are too many people who would say "wow. $12,000 bucks a year for free. I'll never work again". It wouldn't really be a great life they'd be living.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 10:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JSF:
Quote:

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.


At the same time that Reagan cut rates, he also subject MORE INCOME to taxes by eliminating a lot of personal deductions. Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut. It's easy to increase revenues if you give with one hand and take with two.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/


Also, during America's big boom years- post WWII to about 1960 - the tax RATES were much much higher- up to 90%. So high tax RATES ... as high as 94% .... didn't slow down the economy at all during those years.



Overall, tax cuts are not a huge driver of the economy, and never have been.

Other, MORE IMPORTANT, factors were at work then, such as the American dominance in manufacturing post-WWII, when all of the other manufacturing facilities had either been destroyed by the war (Germany, France, Japan, Italy) and/or were not yet developed (China). In today's crowded manufacturing environment, that kind of dominance will be impossible to achieve. The best you can hope for is parity and a neutral balance of trade.

Oh, and BTW- the top marginal tax RATE under Regan was 70%, not 78%.

Quote:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I was old enough to be aware of politics when Reagan was running for President, and he promised
(1) a decrease in taxes
(2) an increase in government (DOD) spending ("Star Wars" anyone?), and
(3) a decrease in the deficit.
Common sense told me that the best he could hope to achieve was 2 out of 3, and anything else was just wishful thinking. As it turns out, he only met 1 out of 3 goals.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 10:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


G, I have no idea what you're trying to say with this, so please rephrase ...
Quote:

Things don't have to be made in the US for their sales to profit the US businesses that sell them.
True. That is the situation that we have now: Things are made outside of the USA and sold here, and businesses profit mightily. That leads to lost jobs here, increased personal debt and huge balance-of-trade deficits.

Quote:

If manufacturers were the sole profiteer from product sales, as you suggest, then you can bet you paycheck American manufacturing would be booming.
I find this completely uninterpretable.

Are you saying that "Americans" in general benefit (not "profit", wrong word) from overseas manufacturing? That, on balance, the situation is more acceptable/ more tolerable to the population at large the way it is now than it would be if manufacturing were brought back home to America?

Quote:

Americans are greedy - we'd find a way to manufacture goods if there was so much profit in it.
Again, not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote:

Rethink!
Restate!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 2:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF:
Quote:

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.


At the same time that Reagan cut rates, he also subject MORE INCOME to taxes by eliminating a lot of personal deductions. Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut. It's easy to increase revenues if you give with one hand and take with two.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/e
conomy/reagan_years_taxes/


Also, during America's big boom years- post WWII to about 1960 - the tax RATES were much much higher- up to 90%. So high tax RATES ... as high as 94% .... didn't slow down the economy at all during those years.



Overall, tax cuts are not a huge driver of the economy, and never have been.

Other, MORE IMPORTANT, factors were at work then, such as the American dominance in manufacturing post-WWII, when all of the other manufacturing facilities had either been destroyed by the war (Germany, France, Japan, Italy) and/or were not yet developed (China). In today's crowded manufacturing environment, that kind of dominance will be impossible to achieve. The best you can hope for is parity and a neutral balance of trade.

Oh, and BTW- the top marginal tax RATE under Regan was 70%, not 78%.

Quote:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I was old enough to be aware of politics when Reagan was running for President, and he promised
(1) a decrease in taxes
(2) an increase in government (DOD) spending ("Star Wars" anyone?), and
(3) a decrease in the deficit.
Common sense told me that the best he could hope to achieve was 2 out of 3, and anything else was just wishful thinking. As it turns out, he only met 1 out of 3 goals.

You are not making sense. He reduced the Tax RATES. The Revenue intake shifted towards high income earners paying more than the average or lower income earners. Your claims are implying the lower income earners ended up paying a greater share of the Tax burden, which is the opposite of truth and fact.
Also, he doubled the personal exemptions and greatly increased standard deductions, benefitting the lower and average income earners more.

Hard to argue that the Democrap controlled Congress found ways to outspend every extra penny that Reagan brought in, but that is their legacy always, not just during Reagan. The fact remains that Tax Revenue doubled, as a resultresult of cuts in the Tax Rate.


Oooooh. Only 70% Tax Confiscation. How generous of the Democraps to allow you to retain 30% of your earnings, before other taxes are levied.

What year did Reagan promise deficit reduction?

Quoting CNN as fiscal relevance? What a joke. These are the clowns that told everybody to lose over half their money all through 2008. Everything they rationalize about Reaganomics and Tax Cuts is revisionist drivel, they were so inconsequential then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 2:28 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.



So you only had to go back 96 years - good catch. [ / snarkasm ]

BTW, do you have any HISTORICAL CONTEXT you want to use to give that some deeper understanding? Like how we were still coming out of WW1? And what happened right after that 1921-29 period? Something called "Great" but wasn't so great?? You just illustrated the dangers of using raw data to prove things.

==============================




He had to go back 96 years, and then his prime example of how great an idea this is resulted in the Great Depression.

Republicans just cannot think; it's that simple.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 2:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You are not making sense. He reduced the Tax RATES. The Revenue intake shifted towards high income earners paying more than the average or lower income earners. Your claims are implying the lower income earners ended up paying a greater share of the Tax burden, which is the opposite of truth and fact.
Not implying that at all. What I posted was

Quote:

Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut.
Small and medium-sized businesses often don't bother to incorporate, so business income is often treated as personal income. You're right that the tax hike affected higher income earners more than lower.

But my main point about the effect of tax rate cuts in general remains: They don't stimulate the economy and therefore they don't increase revenues.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 2:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.


So you only had to go back 96 years - good catch. [ / snarkasm ]

BTW, do you have any HISTORICAL CONTEXT you want to use to give that some deeper understanding? Like how we were still coming out of WW1? And what happened right after that 1921-29 period? Something called "Great" but wasn't so great?? You just illustrated the dangers of using raw data to prove things.
==============================


He had to go back 96 years, and then his prime example of how great an idea this is resulted in the Great Depression.

Republicans just cannot think; it's that simple.

Sure, a roaring economy and increased Tax Revenue is what caused The Great Depression. Great logic there, Chief.

That was one handy example. The whole of historical data supports this truth, stated in the thread title.
More pertinent that tripling the Tax Rate was able to create or prolong the Depression, making it Great. 25% in 1931, then 63% 1932-5, then 79% 1936 on.

Clearly, you have proven that you just cannot think. It's that simple.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:23 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

You are not making sense. He reduced the Tax RATES. The Revenue intake shifted towards high income earners paying more than the average or lower income earners. Your claims are implying the lower income earners ended up paying a greater share of the Tax burden, which is the opposite of truth and fact.
Not implying that at all. What I posted was

Quote:

Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut.
Small and medium-sized businesses often don't bother to incorporate, so business income is often treated as personal income. You're right that the tax hike affected higher income earners more than lower.

But my main point about the effect of tax rate cuts in general remains: They don't stimulate the economy and therefore they don't increase revenues.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

ALL brackets got a Tax Rate Cut. Please specify which Income range was given a Tax Rate increase.

And it was the TAX CUT that affected higher income earners more than lower.

And yes, it was Tax Cuts which increased Tax Revenue. Just like the thread title says.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:32 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF:
Quote:

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.

At the same time that Reagan cut rates, he also subject MORE INCOME to taxes by eliminating a lot of personal deductions. Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut. It's easy to increase revenues if you give with one hand and take with two.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/econo
my/reagan_years_taxes/


Also, during America's big boom years- post WWII to about 1960 - the tax RATES were much much higher- up to 90%. So high tax RATES ... as high as 94% .... didn't slow down the economy at all during those years.



Overall, tax cuts are not a huge driver of the economy, and never have been.

Other, MORE IMPORTANT, factors were at work then, such as the American dominance in manufacturing post-WWII, when all of the other manufacturing facilities had either been destroyed by the war (Germany, France, Japan, Italy) and/or were not yet developed (China). In today's crowded manufacturing environment, that kind of dominance will be impossible to achieve. The best you can hope for is parity and a neutral balance of trade.

Oh, and BTW- the top marginal tax RATE under Regan was 70%, not 78%.

Quote:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I was old enough to be aware of politics when Reagan was running for President, and he promised
(1) a decrease in taxes
(2) an increase in government (DOD) spending ("Star Wars" anyone?), and
(3) a decrease in the deficit.
Common sense told me that the best he could hope to achieve was 2 out of 3, and anything else was just wishful thinking. As it turns out, he only met 1 out of 3 goals.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

And which Regan had 70% Tax Rate? Your table shows Reagan's first budget year was 50%, and the year he took office it was at 69% from Carter's budget.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2017 3:07 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I saw a table at taxpolicycenter that listed Federal Receipts. When Tax rates dropped in 1966-68, the Receipts jumped up faster for those 3 years compared to the pace preceding that.
Also, the yearly increase wasn't much in the 1990s, but jumped up faster per year after 2002, when the Tax rate was again lowered.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2017 3:09 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Where are the democrats? Waiting for the Deep State to get rid of Trump?
Mon, December 11, 2017 14:07 - 20 posts
Accusing Someone You Disagree With Of Being A Russian Troll Is Admitting You Have No Argument
Mon, December 11, 2017 13:53 - 83 posts
Bomb Exploded Times Square
Mon, December 11, 2017 13:13 - 5 posts
Putin Orders Withdrawal Of Russian Troops During Surprise Syria Visit
Mon, December 11, 2017 11:23 - 1 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, December 11, 2017 10:27 - 45 posts
Male Role Models
Mon, December 11, 2017 10:25 - 108 posts
New Alabama Motto Contest
Mon, December 11, 2017 08:09 - 6 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sun, December 10, 2017 23:25 - 236 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sun, December 10, 2017 16:12 - 265 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Sun, December 10, 2017 10:02 - 210 posts
Trump not invited to Paris December climate change summit for now, says France
Sun, December 10, 2017 08:59 - 5 posts
Trump moves US Embassy to Jerusalem
Sun, December 10, 2017 01:16 - 28 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL