- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:27 pm to germandawg
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:27 pm to germandawg
quote:
It never happened without an increase in government spending.
This is a fair point, although:
quote:
tax cuts have never in the history of the western world paid for themselves....revenues ALWAYS fall
1. What happens to revenues isn't even the point of this thread, nor is it the point of the post you quoted. Look again at the title of the thread. Notice the words "stimulate the economy." That's what we're talking about here. However.....
2. I'm happy to correct you- revenues didn't even fall in the case of Bush's cuts. They kept growing. U mad?
2
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:28 pm to germandawg
quote:
Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas quote: I don't think you understand what this means. And once and for all, please explain how the poor provide jobs? The same way the wealthy do....they buy shite. Our economy is consumer based. Wealthy people and entrepenuers do not "create" jobs (with the notable exception of their own)....customers create jobs. Customer demand for goods and services create jobs. Business owners are merely middle men who facilitate that trade. Of course this means that the rugged, self reliant, individual "job creator" may well be the first 3 but he most certainly is not the last....and that means that he really ain't that special and there is nothing in the world more butt hurt (even an Ole Miss fan) than a rugged, self reliant producer who hears someone suggest that he ain't the prettiest girl at the dance.....
And what if nobody built the products and engineered the design or was creative to come up with the amazing product that all the consumers wanted? So Steve Jobs didn't build anything when he came up with those amazing and innovative iPhones? All the people that work at Apple would just magically have jobs elsewhere if he wouldn't have taken the initial risk on capital ? Sorry but your simply wrong. If the business or entrepreneur is not innovative enough or creative enough to produce products or services that people want, they will not be successful because nobody will buy their product. Your model assumes people will just automatically buy products and services no matter what. Oh and one more thing, how many poor people create jobs? If people do not have jobs and do no have disposable income, how can they be consumers to buy the businesses products or services?
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:30 pm to germandawg
quote:
It never happened without an increase in government spending. The reason is because even the staunchest of supply siders knows full well that tax cuts have never in the history of the western world paid for themselves....revenues ALWAYS fall....in fact Laffer knew this from the get go...so, in order to keep the economy from doing a Kansas nose dive spending is increased which in turns spurs the economy and stabilizes and even raises revenue.
So we should raise the tax rate to 70 or 80 percent across the board? We'd have the most prosperous economy ever! The reason we have deficits and anemic job growth is that working people are allowed to keep way too much of their paycheck.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:31 pm to germandawg
quote:
...revenues ALWAYS fall....in fact Laffer knew this from the get go...
You are, in fact, dead wrong. Woefully so. Laffer said that if tax rates were too high then revenue would decline because there was too little wealth being created. Drop the tax rates into a manageable zone and the government would actually bring in more revenue from the creation of wealth. The Laffer Curve is about bringing in More money, not less, for the Federal Government.
That having been said, he also warned lower tax rates (into the sweet spot zone) had to be met with corresponding cuts in spending to balance the budget no matter how much extra income they brought in. Reagan declined to cut spending on many social service projects while increasing spending on other issues. Despite the rhetoric he is most famous for Reagan did not so much starve the beast as stuff it full and watch it get a bellyache.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:32 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
1. What happens to revenues isn't even the point of this thread, nor is it the point of the post you quoted. Look again at the title of the thread. Notice the words "stimulate the economy." That's what we're talking about here. However.....
2. I'm happy to correct you- revenues didn't even fall in the case of Bush's cuts. They kept growing. U mad?
They didn't go up due to tax cuts...they went up because of the increase in spending. Tax cuts have never increased revenues and no true disciple of supply side economics has ever tried to claim the have....but many, many politicians have.
I mentioned revenues as an aside. There are many, many, many on the right who will argue to the cows come home that tax cuts will increase revenue....because the money is going to spur the economy instead of the public coffers and that spurring of the economy supposedly results in an increased tax burden (more sales = higher income) and subsequently revenues increase. Of course this is the opposite end of the laffer curve but that fact can't dissuade a disciple.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:36 pm to bigbowe80
quote:
And what if nobody built the products and engineered the design or was creative to come up with the amazing product that all the consumers wanted? So Steve Jobs didn't build anything when he came up with those amazing and innovative iPhones? All the people that work at Apple would just magically have jobs elsewhere if he wouldn't have taken the initial risk on capital ? Sorry but your simply wrong. If the business or entrepreneur is not innovative enough or creative enough to produce products or services that people want, they will not be successful because nobody will buy their product. Your model assumes people will just automatically buy products and services no matter what. Oh and one more thing, how many poor people create jobs? If people do not have jobs and do no have disposable income, how can they be consumers to buy the businesses products or services?
I will give ya'll Steve jobs and even Henry Ford and a handfull of other true innovators who did indeed create jobs IF ya'll will admit that the only job that Joe The Plumber of Bob The Builder has created is his own.
But even Steve Jobs had to have customers...I suspect he came up with all sorts of shite in his lifetime that he couldn't sale on a dare. At the end of the day if consumers hadn't become enamored with Apple products Jobs would have been as well known as Joe the Plumber...maybe not even....
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:39 pm to germandawg
quote:
They didn't go up due to tax cuts...they went up because of the increase in spending.
tax revenues went up because of government spending? that's adorable.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:44 pm to germandawg
quote:
I will give ya'll Steve jobs and even Henry Ford and a handfull of other true innovators
Acknowledging this is a start, I suppose. Is this the only contribution to "the economy" in your mind that the supply side can produce?
Even if it is (it's not), we are by definition not merely a "consumer based" economy, as you say. Nor is it true that only "Customer demand for goods and services create jobs", (whatever 'create jobs' means).
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:44 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
o we should raise the tax rate to 70 or 80 percent across the board? We'd have the most prosperous economy ever! The reason we have deficits and anemic job growth is that working people are allowed to keep way too much of their paycheck.
Top income tax rates in the US were as high as 90% at one time and the economy was BOOMING at the time....it never dropped below 70% during the 50's and 60's and times were pretty good then also.
No, the answer is not to raise taxes UNLESS there is a reason to do so....like going to war, a national emergency, etc. The idea is to find the sweet spot on the curve where tax rates maximize revenue without negatively impacting the economy. One year this may be at 10% and next year it may be as high as 90%...it can't be stagnant.
And of course the next thing that needs to happen after we determine where that sweet spot is is to refuse to spend any more than that sweet spot will earn us. If we need to finance things over a long period of time that is fine but spending $20 a week when you earn $1 a week is not sustainable. We need a balance of tax cuts, tax increases (probably in the form of user fees and consumer taxes) and SPENDING CUTS.....the resulting spurring of the economy would be deep and long lasting....but it would mean that there would be some winners and some losers and no politician has the nuts to even suggest such a plan....and as long as they make us feel good by pledging to never raise taxes for any reason OR making the rich bastards pay more than they already do there aint one of us in a thousand who will call them on it.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:47 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
tax revenues went up because of government spending? that's adorable.
Absolutely...always have, always will....for good or for bad flooding the economy with cash will always result in increased revenue in the short term....it ain't sustainable but it will always happen.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:50 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Acknowledging this is a start, I suppose. Is this the only contribution to "the economy" in your mind that the supply side can produce?
Even if it is (it's not), we are by definition not merely a "consumer based" economy, as you say. Nor is it true that only "Customer demand for goods and services create jobs", (whatever 'create jobs' means).
That is the only case for supply side economics that I have ever heard.
And our economy is driven by consumer spending. There is not an industry known to mankind who can survive without customers. I have owned several small businesses over the years and I would still be interested if I hadn't had to deal with customers (and employees) but I was never smart enough to learn to how to conduct commerce without someone to trade with.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:53 pm to germandawg
quote:
flooding the economy with cash
Uh-uh. "Flooding the economy with cash" is not government spending.
quote:
always result in increased revenue in the short term....it ain't sustainable but it will always happen
You're trying to be slick with your terms, or you just don't understand what you're saying. Either way, this entire post makes no sense.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:56 pm to germandawg
GOVERNMENT should not be used to stimulate the economy. Government that governs best governs least. Government should not be deciding where and how the economy needs stimulating and then doling out dollars to favored sectors. The free market should dictate. Government should not be in the business of business.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:59 pm to germandawg
quote:
That is the only case for supply side economics that I have ever heard.
I see.
quote:
our economy is driven by consumer spending.
Yes... I see. No point in discussing this or anything on the subject with you further, really. You lack fundamental understanding of the issues upon which you try to speak so authoritatively.
quote:
I have owned several small businesses over the years
The only business I would believe you owned or ran would be a 100% service-type business, as you seem to be completely unaware of why production costs matter, and why technology & process improvements spur growth and improve our standard of living. Nothing on the demand side can do that.
I'll probably exit (or at least quit responding to you) after leaving this here for you to consider:
"Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything." - Paul fricking Krugman
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:07 pm to 90proofprofessional
Even at conservative Ole Miss in the 80's all my Econ professors laughed at trickle down economics, it is and always has been complete bullshite and everyone with a degree knows it. Tell a lie enough and people believe it.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:13 pm to germandawg
You sir are nothing but a communist POS, why don't all of state loving socialist move to Cuba and get the hell out of this capitalist economy you despise ? You are nothing but a commie pinko buffoon.
FDR and his liberal tax and spend policies didn't lift us out of the depression, WW2 did.
Ike cut taxes and the economy boomed, JFK cut taxes and doubled federal revenue, Reagan cut taxes and tripled revenue. Only a moron, socialist wouldn't understand that if cutting taxes created more revenue then an out of control Democratic House must be responsible for running larger deficits.
People keeping their own money gives them power to save, invest or build a business. Gov. taking peoples money give them the power to waste that money on BS, give it to lazy bastards, who will then never try to find a job, who then takes tax revenues away from the federal coffers in 2 ways, by way of leeching off the government and by way of not paying taxes. TRICKLE DOWN, !!! you commie idiot, as if the government has a right to someones money.
Under Obama the richest 10 percent are the only group who saw their median incomes rise from 2010-2013.( story in the liberal telegraph ) Same story says : As the Washington Times points out, that's the same period in which Barrack Robin Hood Obama won reelection painting the GOP as cooperate vampires. The richest people have seen share of taxes decline quite dramatically under this “socialist” president-while, interestingly, the share of federal income tax paid by the middle class has, according to the IRS, slightly risen.
Labor force participation in Jan. 2009 was 65.7 and is now at 62.7, a lot of Americans have given up or excepted government assistance permanently.
Where did we go wrong to raise up brain dead communists like you !!!!
FDR and his liberal tax and spend policies didn't lift us out of the depression, WW2 did.
Ike cut taxes and the economy boomed, JFK cut taxes and doubled federal revenue, Reagan cut taxes and tripled revenue. Only a moron, socialist wouldn't understand that if cutting taxes created more revenue then an out of control Democratic House must be responsible for running larger deficits.
People keeping their own money gives them power to save, invest or build a business. Gov. taking peoples money give them the power to waste that money on BS, give it to lazy bastards, who will then never try to find a job, who then takes tax revenues away from the federal coffers in 2 ways, by way of leeching off the government and by way of not paying taxes. TRICKLE DOWN, !!! you commie idiot, as if the government has a right to someones money.
Under Obama the richest 10 percent are the only group who saw their median incomes rise from 2010-2013.( story in the liberal telegraph ) Same story says : As the Washington Times points out, that's the same period in which Barrack Robin Hood Obama won reelection painting the GOP as cooperate vampires. The richest people have seen share of taxes decline quite dramatically under this “socialist” president-while, interestingly, the share of federal income tax paid by the middle class has, according to the IRS, slightly risen.
Labor force participation in Jan. 2009 was 65.7 and is now at 62.7, a lot of Americans have given up or excepted government assistance permanently.
Where did we go wrong to raise up brain dead communists like you !!!!
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:15 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
in the 80's all my Econ professors laughed at trickle down economics, it is and always has been complete bullshite and everyone with a degree knows it.
I'm not aware of any economist who endorses a theory they call "trickle-down economics", so please describe in great detail exactly what it is that your degree taught you is bullshite. What is "trickle-down economics"?
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:21 pm to samson'sseed
It isn't working in Wisconsin either.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:22 pm to TutHillTiger
People keeping their own hard earned money is “ trickle down economics ”.
You idiots haven't got a clue.
Soviet Union, Cuba, even Red China have all tried what you espouse and it failed.
China has basically changed their whole thought process and that's why they are an economy on the rise.
we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, anyone who can't see that is a JEALOUS IDIOT.
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:33 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Posted by Message JEAUXBLEAUX Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas or make sure the middle class and poor get a better piece of the pie? or more for the elite?
And yet the top 10% earners are the only ones whose income has increased while Obama has been in office. Obama is a ruse, a joke. It's truly a pathetic joke that he was ever elected president. I truly believe that he just isn't that intelligent, just manipulative and has the "cult of personality" to appeal to the ignorant masses.
Page 5 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News