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

[LV426]

"Only" $13 billion more is still an increase.

Only because of the months that didn't have a tax cut.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge those numbers because of what it means for your argument.

You're deliberately ignoring that data to push a false conclusion; that the tax cut increased revenues. It didn't. Revenues only grew in FY 2018 because the three months that didn't have a tax cut saw $29B more in revenues than the same three months of the prior FY. But the remaining 9 months of FY 2018 saw $16B less in revenues.

So the net gain was $13B, thanks entirely to the non-tax cut months.

 

[LV426]

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%).

Which is a normal rate of growth. Overall, Reagan grew revenues by less a % than Clinton did over 8 years.

 

[LV426]

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.

You create miusleading pictures, Flash. You did that when you argued that FY 2018 saw revenues increase while deliberately leaving out the fact that the revenue increases for FY 2018 were thanks to the months that didn't have a tax cut (+$29B) vs. the months that did (-$16B).

And I didn't say that revenues were down every year following a tax cut, merely that revenues decline following a tax cut, which the data shows.

The revenue rate of growth in the years following the tax cut during Reagan was less than that of the years following the tax increase during Clinton.

Face it, tax cuts reduce revenues.

Taking two steps back to take one step forward leaves you how many steps behind?

Worst. Professor. Ever.

 

[LV426]

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).

If you live in a rural area, you are being supported by city and urban dwellers who pay more in taxes so you can have the privilege of being antisocial.

 

[Earl]

Let the anti-Semite pay for her own college education.

 

[LV426]

"Only" $13 billion more is still an increase.

See, you're a sophist because you ignore the details of things because they don't help your argument.

You are still, stupidly, trying to attribute the minimal revenue growth in FY 2018 to the tax cut, even though the data clearly shows that the 3 months without a tax cut in FY 2018 saw an increase of $29B in revenues, while the 9 months with a tax cut in FY 2018 saw a decrease of $16B in revenues.

So the only reason revenue grew in 2018 at all is because of the months that didn't have a tax cut.

That's why I was comparing calendar years; the tax cut you love didn't take effect until 25% of the way through the FY. So you are quite dishonestly trying to attribute the minimal growth to the tax cut while obscuring, concealing, refusing to acknowledge the details and actual numbers because they invalidate your argument and prove me right.

I believe the reason you are refusing to acknowledge that is simply because you don't want to give me the satisfaction of having to admit you're wrong and that I'm right. To you, that is far more damaging than any deficit, debt, tax cut, or tax increase. Your ego is taking precedence over accuracy and validity because of your personal biases and unearned entitlement. You just have to be right because admitting you're wrong to me would pretty much shatter your entire persona here. You can't live with yourself knowing that you are wrong, and that I'm the one who pointed out how wrong you were.

I'll make a deal with you Flash; acknowledge that the Russia Tax Cut didn't increase revenues and I won't use it against you every chance I get.

 

[Micawber]

California revenue is rolling in it with total Dem domination and the Republican controlled US government is mired in quicksand.

I wonder when Trump comes to us looking for a handout?

 

[Earl]

Let the anti-Semite pay for her own college education.

 

[LV426]

"Only" $13 billion more is still an increase.

So what's the danger for you in admitting that the tax cut reduced revenues in FY 2018? Simply put, if you admit that the tax cuts didn't increase revenues, that means that consumer spending didn't increase by way of "letting people keep more of what they earn", ostensibly to spend in the consumer market, which increases economic activity and thus, increases revenues.

By showing that revenues declined in FY 2018 once the Russia Tax Cut you love started, it invalidates the premise you have that revenue "sometimes" increases following a tax cut. But more importantly, it gets to the heart of the way you conduct yourself on these boards; posturing a BoTh SiDeS narrative to position yourself as some sort of moral arbiter because of a cold (but ultimately inaccurate, sophist, and vague) analysis of the facts. A cold analysis of the facts, if you had put in any effort into your argument, would have revealed that revenue declined following the tax cut in FY 2018. That while overall revenue growth was a measly $13B, that was solely thanks to the pre-tax cut revenues that came in the three months prior to the start of the Russia Tax Cut. A sober, analytical approach to the data would have revealed that almost instantly; but you didn't approach the data soberly or analytically...you approached it emotionally and selfishly, thinking you could slide a half-assed argument on through without proper due diligence.

How'd that work out for you? Not great.

So now you're reduced to pretending that the NET revenue increase is a consequence of the tax cut, while deliberately ignoring the data showing the tax cut is the reason why revenue growth was so low to begin with, and that revenue growth for FY 2018 is thanks to the non-tax cut months of Oct-Dec 2017.

Of course 2019 revenues would be higher than 2018; there was no tax cut that went into effect this year.

If you had a student who submitted a paper to you that presented a false conclusion that wasn't supported by a deep dive into the data, and who ignored your criticism of their inaccuracy, sophistry, and lack of detail, would you pass that person in your class?

 

[Earl]

Let the anti-Semite pay for her own college education.

 

[Flash]

Of course 2019 revenues would be higher than 2018; there was no tax cut that went into effect this year.

That is the point. Anyone who advocates cutting taxes or raising taxes for the purpose of increasing revenue does not do it to increase revenue just in the 12 months following the change. They do it for a longer-term. Economic changes hardly have an effect the first few months. A change that only raised revenue for the 12 months afterward would not really be very successful in achieving those actions.

You just don't want to admit revenues increased in FY18 and FY19 following the 2017 tax cuts just like you didn't want to admit revenues increased 47% in the six years after the 1982 tax cuts although they decreased the first year--it was the long-term effect that was important. There are several examples of increases following other cuts, also.

But, you were starting to grasp economics much better when you claimed increases were due to inflation. So, regardless of whether you increase or decrease taxes, revenue is likely to increase due to an expanding economy and inflation. When I said "sometimes revenue goes up after tax cuts" (which you repeated many times) then it obviously follows that sometimes they go down.

You keep arguing with a Strawman by claiming I said tax cuts make revenue go up. To me, that is never a justification for a tax cut because I don't want government revenue to increase. I want more of it to stay in the economy and be spent by Americans on their choice of goods and services.

 

[Flash]

So what's the danger for you in admitting that the tax cut reduced revenues in FY 2018? Simply put, if you admit that the tax cuts didn't increase revenues, that means that consumer spending didn't increase by way of "letting people keep more of what they earn", ostensibly to spend in the consumer market, which increases economic activity and thus, increases revenues.

Because revenues did not decrease in FY 2018.

FY 2017: $3316.2
FY 2018: $3329.9
FY 2019: $3437.7 (estimate)

And, consumer spending and disposable income are both up, so people obviously did have more money to spend. All this is true no matter how many qualifiers, asterisks, and other attempts to prove a partisan argument you make.

And, I never said those increased revenues were due to the tax cut--that is another made-up argument on your part. I simply said revenues were higher in FY 2018 and FY 2019. I do not pretend to have a partisan answer to developments. As I said previously, I would think the reason had more to do with an expanded economy and inflation--something you mentioned in a post that showed you are starting to grasp some economic reality. Changes in government fiscal policy are not always predictable or responsible for changes in spending or revenues.

Insults do not an argument make.

 

[Flash]

Which is a normal rate of growth. Overall, Reagan grew revenues by less a % than Clinton did over 8 years.

Right, so the tax cut did not affect the normal rate of growth. Revenue increased following one of Clinton's tax cuts, also.

 

[Rusty Bell 65]

If you live in a rural area, you are being supported by city and urban dwellers who pay more in taxes so you can have the privilege of being antisocial.

No, we're not being supported by cities. If we quit sending you food, you starve because you don't know how to grow or raise anything.
Anti-social? No, not really. We have computers too

 

[LV426]

You just don't want to admit revenues increased in FY18 and FY19 following the 2017 tax cuts

Asshole, revenue didn't increase after the tax cut.

The tax cut started 1/2/18...the FY started 10/1/17. For three months of FY 2018 there was no tax cut, and those three months saw $29B more in revenues than the prior year. Starting January 2018, revenue declined from the previous year by $16B for a net total of $13B.

 

[LV426]

Because revenues did not decrease in FY 2018.

FY 2017: $3316.2
FY 2018: $3329.9
FY 2019: $3437.7 (estimate)

Now you're being a piece of shit, bad faith asshole.

You know that the 2017 tax cut didn't go into effect until 25% of the way through the FY.

You also know that for the three months prior to the tax cut, revenues were up by $29B, yet revenue only grew by $13B for the entire fiscal year.

You're a liar, a phony, and a fraud.

You act exclusively in bad faith because you don't want to admit you're full of shit.

 

[LV426]

And, consumer spending and disposable income are both up

Firstly, we only got 2.5% GDP growth for 2018, well below the 3% promised, below even Obama's best mark in 2015 of 2.88%.

Secondly, how much did consumer spending and disposable income increase prior to the tax cut???? You've left that data out for obvious reasons.

 

[LV426]

Because revenues did not decrease in FY 2018.

They did following the tax cut.

The first three months of FY 2018 saw +$29B in revenues.

The final three months of FY 2019, with the tax cut in effect, saw -$16B in revenues.

Why do you leave that detail out? Why are you ignoring it?

 

[Earl]

Let the anti-Semite pay for her own college education.

 

[LV426]

Right, so the tax cut did not affect the normal rate of growth. Revenue increased following one of Clinton's tax cuts, also.

It did affect the normal rate of growth in the first year; it was negative.

Same thing happened after the Bush Tax Cuts.

You take two steps back to take one step forward; how many steps does that leave you behind?