Rep. Alexandria Occasion Cortez has 20zK in student loan debt

[Flash]

Yes they are!

They always are!

Of course not. That would defeat the purpose if revenues only increased one year. Economic actions are based on longer-term effects.

And secondly, revenue growth in the years following tax cuts is no better than revenue growth in years that don't follow tax cuts.

Then it is better to pay lower taxes if revenue growth is the same.

Unless there's a tax cut-induced recession, revenue is going to grow every year anyway.

Very true---with or without tax cuts. So you cannot predict any longer-term effects.

Yet, after every tax cut the last 40 years, revenue was below what it was the year prior to the tax cut.

Only if you 1) do not go back longer than 40 years 2) ignore the long term effects as shown by the chart from Forbes:

 

[Flash]

Yes they are!

They always are!

Of course not. That would defeat the purpose if revenues only increased one year. Economic actions are based on longer-term effects.

And secondly, revenue growth in the years following tax cuts is no better than revenue growth in years that don't follow tax cuts.

Then it is better to pay lower taxes if revenue growth is the same.

Unless there's a tax cut-induced recession, revenue is going to grow every year anyway.

Very true---with or without tax cuts. So you cannot predict any longer-term effects.

Yet, after every tax cut the last 40 years, revenue was below what it was the year prior to the tax cut.

Only if you 1) do not go back longer than 40 years 2) ignore the long term effects as shown by the chart from Forbes:

View attachment 11776

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepa...uts-increase-government-revenue/#5838fa894bf2

 

[Flash]

Revenue increased because government spending increased by 50%, you sophist fuck.

Government increased revenue with money it had to spend first? Looks like one of those one step forward examples.

 

[LV426]

Tell the stupid bitch to pay her loans off, you worthless twit.
You've run this thread off course long enough. Get back to the topic.

How about rural trash pays back the $30B it just got because of the failed trade war?

 

[LV426]

Spending needs to be cut to reduce government expenditures to allow more of the economy to be based on consumer spending rather than government bureaucracy and government programs whose only benefit is to the employees working in that programs. More government revenues is what we should avoid, not increase.

70% of the economy is already based on consumer spending, you stupid bastard.

Do you think that cutting $1 in government spending automatically translates to an increase of $1 in consumer spending?

 

[LV426]

Of course not. That would defeat the purpose if revenues only increased one year. Economic actions are based on longer-term effects.

Not when it comes to tax cuts. Tax cuts have an immediate effect for consumers. So if they're not spending or saving any more after a tax cut first starts, they're not going to do so years later.

 

[LV426]

Then it is better to pay lower taxes if revenue growth is the same

Revenue growth isn't the same...the immediate effects are a decline in revenues, as the revenue figures show for FY 2018, you fucking numbskull.

If revenue growth was the same, then revenue wouldn't have declined by $16B following the most recent tax cut you support.

 

[LV426]

Very true---with or without tax cuts. So you cannot predict any longer-term effects.

Unbelievable.

Here you are saying you cannot predict any long term effects, but just two responses prior in the same post you make a prediction about long-term effects.

Economic actions are based on longer-term effects.

I have a serious question; do you have brain damage or a mental illness? What gives with the flip-flopping and cognitive dissonance?

 

[LV426]

Only if you 1) do not go back longer than 40 years 2) ignore the long term effects as shown by the chart from Forbes

Now place the blue line alongside inflation and GDP and see how it looks.

Of course more gross revenue would be collected on the left side vs. the right side because of inflation.

 

[Flash]

You ignore the fact that government spending increased by 50%.

50%, you stupid fuckwad.

Government Outlays:

1964: $118.5
1965: $118.2

Government Revenues:
1964: $112.6
1965: $116.8

Looks like revue increased but spending declined. Is that a 50% increase in government spending?

 

[LV426]

Government increased revenue with money it had to spend first? Looks like one of those one step forward examples.

Yeah, it disproves your argument that tax cuts caused the revenue to increase. Glad you're finally realizing that spending is what drives revenues, not tax cuts.

 

[LV426]

Government Outlays:

1964: $118.5
1965: $118.2

Government Revenues:
1964: $112.6
1965: $116.8

Looks like revue increased but spending declined. Is that a 50% increase in government spending?

The 50% increase in government spending happened from 1964-1969.

You talk about long-term effects of tax cuts...that's what your argument is all about.

So on top of being a sophist fuckwad, you're also moving the goalposts on your own shitty argument.

Also, if you want to "reduce" the tax rate to 70% on top earners, I'm all for it. Let's do it.

 

[LV426]

V1) do not go back longer than 40 years

You have to go back 55 years to find an example of something that might support your argument because you can't find an example from the last 55 years that does.

So that would probably make what happened in 1964-5 an outlier, wouldn't it?

 

[Flash]

You have to go back 55 years to find an example of something that might support your argument because you can't find an example from the last 55 years that does.

So that would probably make what happened in 1964-5 an outlier, wouldn't it?

Only if you measure revenue growth only in the year following the tax cut. If you want increased revenue over a longer term rather than just a single year there are many recent examples.

 

[Rusty Bell 65]

How about rural trash pays back the $30B it just got because of the failed trade war?

Tell the stupid bitch to pay off her loans.

 

[Flash]

The 50% increase in government spending happened from 1964-1969.

You talk about long-term effects of tax cuts...that's what your argument is all about.

So on top of being a sophist fuckwad, you're also moving the goalposts on your own shitty argument.

Also, if you want to "reduce" the tax rate to 70% on top earners, I'm all for it. Let's do it.[/QUOTE]

You claimed increased revenues following the tax cut (1965) was due to a 50% increase in spending. Actually, spending declined.

Government spending decreased the year after the tax cut while revenues increased. Obviously increased spending did not account for any increase in revenues. Even moving your goalposts to longer term it still cannot explain how spending increased revenues when spending declined.

You assured us in an earlier post that tax cut advocates only care about the year following the cut. But you now want to change your argument to agree with me that longer-term effects are more important.

However, the longer-term effect of increased spending did not occur until after the revenue increase in 1965, so the spending did not cause the revenue increase.



So all your insults that spending increased 50% was a bunch of BS because it had nothing to do with the revenue increase. 1965-taxes were cut, spending declined, revenue increased.

 

[Micawber]

IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP HOW DOES IT TASTE. SMOOCH

 

[LV426]

Only if you measure revenue growth only in the year following the tax cut.

Ergo, tax cuts reduce revenues.

Glad we are in agreement.

If you want increased revenue over a longer term rather than just a single year there are many recent examples.

But there's no way in hell you can attribute any of that to a tax cut.

Revenue grows, then taxes are cut which sets revenue back, then revenue grows again at pretty much the same pace as it did prior to the tax cut, the only difference being that you've taken at least a couple steps back and have to make up the ground you lost. Revenue growth in the years following that setback aren't any better (and are actually worse in some cases) than if you hadn't touched revenues at all and allowed the growth to happen organically, as it was.

Furthermore, the effect for consumers from a tax cut is immediate; meaning they see it in their paychecks instantly. So if you get a tax cut and it shows up in your paycheck, why do we have to wait years for that immediate tax cut to have a positive effect on consumer spending? Nevermind all the data that shows household debt increases and personal savings decreases following tax cuts since 1980. By letting people keep more of what they earn (EYE ROLL), you put them into debt or deeper into debt and you have no real economic gains to show for it.

You all keep saying "give it time to work, long term effects, etc." But that flies in the immediacy of what tax cuts do.

Attributing long-term growth to short term stimulus is nonsense and will get you laughed out of any Economics class. But maybe a good humbling is what you need.

 

[LV426]

You claimed increased revenues following the tax cut (1964) was due to a 50% increase in spending. Actually, spending declined.

Now you're being a bad faith fucking asshole because no where did I say spending grew 50% the year following the tax cut.

 

[LV426]

overnment spending decreased the year after the tax cut while revenues increased. Obviously increased spending did not account for any increase in revenues. Even moving your goalposts to longer term it still cannot explain how spending increased revenues when spending declined.

WTF are you talking about?

Longer term, spending increased 55% from 1964-1969.