And that means nominal changes to exp-GDP have massive changes in government spending as well as revenues. You do pay for health care with that increased spending.
Rep. Alexandria Occasion Cortez has 20zK in student loan debt
- Thread starter Earl
- Start date
And that means nominal changes to exp-GDP have massive changes in government spending as well as revenues. You do pay for health care with that increased spending.
OMFG, again with the dishonesty!
I never said Medicaid was cut; if I did, that was a mistake. Medicaid is cut at the state level, however. Regardless, SNAP spending per recipient has declined, even as the overall program enrollment has declined.
1.4 million employed Walmart workers qualify for SNAP. That's half their workforce.
The most recent economic report said manufacturing is contracting. What's the average wage for someone with no job? $0.
And I said wage gains at the bottom are because of the minimum wage increases. So once again, we have an example of Flash acting in bad faith by not accurately summarizing what I said.
So now you're switching to another metric?????
ANOTHER GOALPOST SHIFT FROM FLASH.
What happened to rev-GDP? Did you just abandon it the moment you realized it wasn't making your argument anymore? Before we move to a new metric, we have to reconcile the last one you introduced.
I certainly don't think I'm entitled to other people's money to pay the debts of college students who think they are entitled to a free education.
You want to take from one group of wealthy to give to another group who will be among the better off in society. And the more wealthy they will be (doctors, lawyers) the more student debt they will owe and the bigger government benefit they will receive by having their loan forgiven. So take from the rich to give to the rich. Sounds more like a Republican plan.
You are the poster who brought up the issue of the relative amount of money of the GDP. Why would you consider revenue without considering expenditures when you talk about how much 1% of the GDP equates to?
I simply showed the 91% tax rate raised no more revenue than the current lower rates and you changed the goalposts by pointing out how much 1% of the GDP would be. You also have to show how much more of the GDP government is spending.
You claimed that savings go down and debt goes up after tax increases with no evidence to support such a claim other than a correlation. You said that happens because government benefits get cut again with no evidence. I asked what government benefits were cut and you said Medicaid, Pell Grants, and SNAP.
Total Medicaid spending (state and federal) have been increasing over 4% a year and are projected to increase 5.5% a year until 2027.
And what do Wall-Mart employees have to do with anything? If 1.4 million qualify they are probably among the 39 million Americans receiving SNAP.
[LV426] "Wage growth today is thanks to all the states raising their minimum wages...18 did so last year."
Of course it does. As I showed you with actual data, there has been an increase in consumer spending and discretionary spending. That is evidence. On the other hand, you have given no evidence that increased debt and lower savings is related to the tax cuts.
I never said tax cuts raise revenue or "they pay for themselves.' That is a huge jump in illogic on your part.
And I literally showed you how many states are required to have balanced budgets and revenue decreases must lead to spending decreases. Not true with the federal government which does not require a balanced budget and simply borrows more money rather than cutting programs.
Although I never claimed tax cuts increase revenue or pay for themselves (and don't care) sometimes revenue increases do follow tax cuts. For example:
1). FY 2018 had higher revenue than 2017
2). FY 2019 has higher revenue than 2018. At the end of August, revenue for FY 2019 is $3,088,167 billion. At the end of August, 2018, the FY 2018 revenue was $2,985,186 billion.
So, as of the same time last year federal revenues are higher. The September revenues will determine which FY was higher.
So, sometimes tax cuts do result in additional revenue.
Last edited:
It still makes my argument. Revenues as a percent of GDP is about the same under both the 91% tax rate and the current lower tax rate. Why tax the people at 91% when you can raise the same revenues at 35%?
You are the one who started with the "nominal" amount raised. I simply pointed out that also applies to expenditures.
cawacko
Well-known member
Isn't Trey Gowdy out of office? Or was this a historical chart of anyone who has ever been in Congress?
seemed recent, I'll dig it up to confirm for you
I can't find the exact source I used, but it seems the identical list was circa mar-may 2018
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/one-tenth-of-congress-lists-student-loan-liabilities
No. Many tax cuts don't affect some people who pay taxes. For example, the Bush tax cuts were infamous for offering nothing to those who paid all their taxes in the form of payroll taxes rather than income taxes. Yet only someone who misunderstood how conflicts of interest work would imagine that meant that the Congress members who voted for it (all of whom benefited from it) had a conflict of interest.
The spending is paid for by the increase in revenue from increased taxes.
The less someone has to spend out of pocket on health care, or the less someone has to pay for college, the more they have to spend elsewhere in the economy that does a better job of creating jobs and wealth.
I linked to this thing last week for you, a resource that shows the multiplier effects for each industry. The top? Real Estate & utilities. Near the bottom? Health care and financial services.
Flash, you didn't show that. Quite the opposite; you showed that nominal changes to rev-GDP result in massive shifts in terms of real dollars. A seemingly insignificant increase of 1% rev-GDP is the equivalent of $200B...which is 1/5 of our current tax cut-fueled deficit. So what you're doing is looking at purely the percentage and determining that because it's incremental, it's insignificant...but the part you're ignoring, deliberately, is that nominal changes to the percentage of rev-GDP result in large changes to actual revenues in terms of real dollars. So if raising taxes on the wealthy results in revenue-GDP increasing by 1%, that's an extra $200B the Treasury collects, which would reduce the current deficit by 20%. OR, it could pay for 2 1/2 years of Free Public Colleges under Sanders' Free Public Tuition plan.
That's not changing the goalposts, that's informing you of your own metric in terms of real dollars. What goalpost am I shifting? It's a goalpost you control because you set it. You leave out the exculpatory information that nominal changes to that metric have massive effects in terms of real dollars. How is that a goalpost shift? You're the one who set the freaking goalpost!
You are the one who entered this metric into the debate that you are now refusing to defend.
Spending-GDP is affects rev-GDP how?
Your point was that it's pointless to raise taxes on the wealthy because when we had those higher rates, the rev-GDP number was nominally higher in terms of percentage; but that's where your argument stops. The moment we dig into what that rev-GDP percentage means in terms of actual revenue and dollars, we see that those nominal and incremental changes to the percentage have massive effects in terms of actual revenues, with a 1% change in rev-GDP being the equivalent of $200B today.
$200B is 1/5 of the current deficit.
$200B is about 1/3 of Medicare's entire budget
$200B could pay for 2 1/2 years of Bernie Sanders' free public colleges.
$200B isn't chump change.
NO! WRONG! You're sloppy, lazy, and rushed in your response. You were probably the shittiest professor ever. So lazy. So entitled.
I said savings go down and debt goes up after tax cuts.
And here's the evidence:
Secondly, after the largest tax cut, US consumer debt is now at a record high as well. So tax cuts didn't result in people keeping what they earned if consumer debt is at an all-time high.
For fuck's sake, Flash, I took you through an actual example of what happened in Kansas; taxes were cut, deficits appeared, education spending was cut to balance the budget, causing tuition to increase and borrowing to rise.
Secondly, Pell Grants were frozen during Bush the Dumber; SNAP per recipient has declined since Trump; states have cut back on Medicaid. All because of revenues being cut, resulting in deficits, which result in cuts.
WOW! Amazing. But not really considering health care costs have increased each year at double that rate. So if the costs are rising at a faster rate than the spending increases, that results in...what?
You literally said that people who are employed aren't on SNAP. You were fucking wrong. Was this a different Flash? Do you have multiple personalities? Are you schizophrenic?
So...couple things about this:
You didn't actually link to where I said this, so the context isn't here. That's weird, considering you directly quote my posts in every other case except this one. So why did you do that? Simple, because this quote you're pulling from me comes from a response I gave to another poster who was talking about wage growth at the bottom, wasn't it? You didn't include that context or link because it's clear what I was talking about. Instead, you did what you always do; act in bad faith by pulling a quote out of context and not citing from where you got it.
So why did you decide not to link to the post where I said that? Because if you did, you'd see the context of what I was saying was in reference to someone else arguing the growth in wages at the bottom are because of tax cuts or Trump or whatever.
So do the proper thing and link to the post where I quoted that.
You piece of shit.
Seriously, you're a humongous piece of shit. So lazy. So entitled. So incompetent. All you do is act in bad faith because you don't know any other way to act, and because you don't want to give me the satisfaction of you admitting you're not as versed on this shit as you pretend to be. So you do things like this...you misrepresent a quote, don't source it for contextual reasons because then you couldn't make a bad faith argument. And if you can't make a bad faith argument, what good are you?
So this quote of mine...from what post did you pull it, why did you not link to the post it came from, and why did you think you could lazily and sloppily try to slip it by? It's because you got mad and frustrated that I called out your bullshit about the "billionaires fairly and honestly coming about their wealth and you're just jealous" shit, isn't it?
I see what you're trying to do; you're trying to catch me in the same overstepping, vague ambiguity patterns of which you are habitually exercising as a matter of your inherent bad faith. You are trying to retcon a BoTh SiDeS argument by trying to show that I do the same vague, generalized, ambiguity as you do, only to shift goalposts later. So you quite dishonestly pull that quote out of its proper context in another thread, with another poster, because you want to get me for the same thing I got you on; moving goalposts.
But the difference between us Flash, is that I'm very careful and deliberate about what words I use and how I represent them. You don't do that because you are lazy, entitled, and a sophist.
Shame.
Last edited: