It's not the same revenues, though. When you linked to those annual rev-GDP numbers, the %'s varied wildly. I notice you don't link to those numbers anymore. If you did, I could show you what the impact of each % change was for each year in terms of today's dollars and GDP. A 0.5% increase in rev-GDP results in $100B+ of revenue. That pays for at least one year of Bernie's free public college plan.
Rep. Alexandria Occasion Cortez has 20zK in student loan debt
- Thread starter Earl
- Start date
It's not the same revenues, though. When you linked to those annual rev-GDP numbers, the %'s varied wildly. I notice you don't link to those numbers anymore. If you did, I could show you what the impact of each % change was for each year in terms of today's dollars and GDP. A 0.5% increase in rev-GDP results in $100B+ of revenue. That pays for at least one year of Bernie's free public college plan.
AH!
So tax cuts do cause deficits and debt.
So tax cuts result in less revenues and that creates deficits that are closed by cutting spending. But the deficits wouldn't exist if taxes weren't cut. So tax cuts create deficits and debt.
So why have you been arguing with me this whole time that it's not the tax cuts causing debt, it's the spending when you literally say right here that tax cuts lead to revenue decreases?
What do you want to cut? Medicare? Social Security? Medicaid? Defense? Conservatives love to talk about cutting spending, but never really know what to cut. So you do what you always do; leave yourself goalposts that can be easily moved. If you cut all discretionary spending -all of it; the FDA, the DOJ, the FBI, the CDC, the NIH, etc.- you're still running a half-trillion dollar deficit, and you're contracting the economy because you're not replacing any of that spending.
Cutting spending without replacing that spending results in economic contraction.
You are so lazy, you think that cutting a dollar in government spending here automatically translates to a dollar in private sector spending there. But that's stupid, because how do you replace government spending on the FDA?
"Sometimes"?
Well, let's look...
1983 saw less revenue than 1982, after taxes were cut.
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 saw less revenue than 2000, after taxes were cut.
The first 12 months of the Russia Tax Cut saw less revenue than the previous 12 months. Not sure why you don't want to start the clock on the calendar year for that one, since the Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the FY. So you're counting 3 months of revenue in the FY for 2018 that wasn't affected by the tax cut. You're dishonestly and disingenuously lumping in 3 months pre-Russia Tax Cut revenue in with the 9 months of the Russia Tax Cut to present a distorted view of revenues. That's why I started the count on the calendar year; because it would be dishonest to pretend that the Russia Tax Cut boosted revenues for the FY despite a quarter of that FY not having the tax cut at all.
So that's a gimmick you are using; you're using pre-tax cut revenue to bolster the case that the tax cut caused revenue to grow.
First of all, I would expect FY revenue in 2019 to be higher than FY 2018 simply because of inflation.
Secondly, the FY 2018 revenue you are counting includes three months of revenues that didn't have the tax cut. The Russia Tax Cut started 1/2/18, but the FY started 10/1/17. So there's three months of revenues you're including in your FY total that weren't subject to the tax cut. But you're trying to pretend they were because that's the only way your shitty argument makes sense; lying and obfuscating. From October 2017 - December 2017, there was no Russia Tax Cut. But you're counting those revenues as part of the FY to argue that revenues increased -SLIGHTLY, I MIGHT ADD- post-tax cut. But that's not necessarily true because 25% of the FY didn't have the Russia Tax Cut applied. That's why I compare the calendar year of revenue for 2018; if you use the FY, you're using three months of revenues that didn't have a tax cut applied.
Of course, you know that already...you're either playing dumb or playing deceptive, but in either case you're misrepresenting the revenues and trying to attribute the slight increase to 12 months of a tax cut instead of just 9.
What a fucking fraud. You're such a piece of shit. So dishonest. So fucking entitled. Everything about you is just the fucking worst.
Only because 3 months of FY 2018 didn't have a tax cut; October 2017 - December 2017.
Well duh, because there hasn't been another tax cut since the one that went into effect on 1/2/18. So what point do you think you're making here?
So to summarize your argument; you argue that revenues increased in the FY following a tax cut that was only in effect for 75% of that FY. You didn't bother to make note of that simply because if you did, it would mean your insistence, that revenues "sometimes" go up after tax cuts, is false and predicated on a shameless and sophist attempt to rig data in your pathetic favor. You bristled and whined and screeched that we had to count revenues from the start of the FY (even though you didn't say why we had to do that) and not from the start of the tax cut because...government FY start 10/1. What that has to do with the tax cut that started on 1/1 is something you haven't explained. You want to count revenues at the start of the FY because that way, you can count the three months without a tax cut in with the 9 months with a tax cut to make it look like revenue grew following the tax cut.
That is the pinnacle of bad faith.
The start of the FY has no bearing on the effect of tax cuts on revenues. You're trying to frame your argument as if it does, without explaining why or how. You do that because...wait for it...you're a gigantic, lying, sophist piece of shit.
Furthermore, if you're looking at the FY revenue numbers, we see that FY 2018 only saw $13B more in revenues than FY 2017, or 4% growth. Inflation over the same period was 2.4%. So really the actual revenue growth following 9 months of tax cuts and 3 months without a tax cut was a mere 1.6%. And we can attribute that growth to the three months of revenues for which there was no tax cut.
Funny enough, when we compare Oct-Dec 2017 (769,512) to Oct-Dec 2016 ($740,771 receipts/revenues), we see that those first three months grew federal revenues by $29B, yet revenues grew by only $13B for FY 2018. So what does that mean? It means your shitty tax cut reduced revenues below the previous year's, and that the only reason there was any revenue growth was because of the three months at the start of the FY that didn't have a tax cut.
Last edited:
Getin the ring
Verified User
Flash is such a dishonest, lying, duplicitous, untrustworthy, LAZY sack of shit.
A human stain.
He does lazy, stupid work and expects others to accommodate that shamelessness.
2018 FY revenue was only up $13B, even though the three months of FY 2018 that didn't have a tax cut saw revenue up $29B from the same three months the year prior. So the first three months of FY 2018 (Oct 2017 - Dec 2017) saw a $29B increase in revenues compared to the same three months in FY 2017. But the total FY 2018 revenue growth was only $13B. So that means that for the 9 months of FY 2018 in which the tax cut was in effect (remember, it went into effect 1/2/18) saw $16B fewer revenues than the same 9 months of FY 2017.
Ergo, the tax cuts reduced revenues below what they were pre-tax cut.
So Flash is trying to con people into thinking that tax cuts "sometimes" result in more revenues by completely and totally misrepresenting his own FY argument. He says, stupidly, that because the tax cut went into effect during the FY, we must attribute the revenue growth to it, but if he put any effort into making the argument, he would have seen that the three months of FY 2018 that didn't have a tax cut saw $29B more in revenues than the same three months from the prior FY; which means that the remaining 9 months of FY 2018, which did have the tax cut, saw $16B in fewer revenues than the same 9 months in the prior FY because revenue overall only grew $13B in FY 2018.
So Flash lied. Then he misrepresented the data. Then he fudged a conclusion. All so he didn't have to admit that I am right.
A human stain.
He does lazy, stupid work and expects others to accommodate that shamelessness.
2018 FY revenue was only up $13B, even though the three months of FY 2018 that didn't have a tax cut saw revenue up $29B from the same three months the year prior. So the first three months of FY 2018 (Oct 2017 - Dec 2017) saw a $29B increase in revenues compared to the same three months in FY 2017. But the total FY 2018 revenue growth was only $13B. So that means that for the 9 months of FY 2018 in which the tax cut was in effect (remember, it went into effect 1/2/18) saw $16B fewer revenues than the same 9 months of FY 2017.
Ergo, the tax cuts reduced revenues below what they were pre-tax cut.
So Flash is trying to con people into thinking that tax cuts "sometimes" result in more revenues by completely and totally misrepresenting his own FY argument. He says, stupidly, that because the tax cut went into effect during the FY, we must attribute the revenue growth to it, but if he put any effort into making the argument, he would have seen that the three months of FY 2018 that didn't have a tax cut saw $29B more in revenues than the same three months from the prior FY; which means that the remaining 9 months of FY 2018, which did have the tax cut, saw $16B in fewer revenues than the same 9 months in the prior FY because revenue overall only grew $13B in FY 2018.
So Flash lied. Then he misrepresented the data. Then he fudged a conclusion. All so he didn't have to admit that I am right.
still claiming we didn't all get tax cuts?
you're in the wrong thread cupcake
You're so fucking stupid, a reality TV show host conned you into voting for him.
Make the stupid bitch pay back her loans. If she defaulted on just one payment, triple her interest rate.
NO.
Three months of FY 2018 had higher revenue than 2017; the three months that didn't have a tax cut. Those three months saw $29B more in revenues than the same 3 months in FY 2017.
The remaining nine months of FY 2018, which did have a tax cut, saw a total of $16B fewer revenues, because revenue only grew by $13B in FY 2018.
So, because I know Flash is of limited mental capacity, I'll do the math for him right here:
FY 2018 Revenue +$13B vs. 2017
First Three Months, FY 2018, Oct-Dec 2017 (No tax cut) was +$29B vs. First Three Months, FY 2017, Oct-Dec 2016 (No tax cut)
Remaining Nine Months, FY 2018, Jan-Sep 2018 ($2.5T tax cut) was -$16B vs. Remaining Nine Months, FY 2017, Jan-Sep 2017
Net total: +$13B in revenues (+$29B Oct-Dec 2017 + -$16B Jan-Sep 2018)
OK cool, then while we're at it, we'll take back all the government spending that is wasted on rural America, that they didn't earn and don't deserve.
Have fun figuring that shit out.
What does that have to do with that bitch owing on her loans?
Y'all have a multi-trillion dollar bill due from all the federal welfare, subsidies, and assistance programs blue state and city liberals generously provide you.
We had revenue increases in FY 2018 and 2019 following the 2017 tax cut. You threw up a lot of crap pretending that didn't happen.
Now you are going to use inflation to show it wasn't a "real" increase and you refuse to use the universally accepted fiscal year data to compare years. You will come up with anything rather than admit the tax cut was followed by revenue increases.
"Only" $13 billion more is still an increase.
You are only counting the year after the tax cut? A one-year revenue increase means nothing. Let's look at the long-term results of the tax cut in 1982:
Revenue:
1982: 617.8
1983: 600.6*
1984: 666.4
1985: 734
1986: 769.2
1987: 854.3
1988: 909.2
In the six years following the 1982 tax cut revenue declined one year and increased about $291 billion (47%).
Anybody who was judging whether a tax cut increased revenue would never judge it by one year unless they were trying to create a misleading picture. Economic changes often take several months or years to have an effect on the economy.
Liberals and city scum provide me with nothing. Again, what does that have to do with that bitch owing on a loan SHE took out? Pay your debts (yeah, I assume you don't understand personal responsibility).
What a fucking sophist.
Again, the data shows that the three months of FY 2018 that didn't have a tax cut saw $29B more revenues than the year before, but the remaining 9 months of FY 2018 that did have a tax cut, saw $16B less in revenues, for a net revenue gain of $13B.
Ergo, the tax cut reduced revenues.
The FY 2018 data shows that for the three months without a tax cut, revenues were up $29B. But for the 9 months of FY 2018 that had the tax cut, revenues were down by $16B.
So your shitty tax cut reduced revenues.