- 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: Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% This Year — Is Trump Tax Cut Paying For Itself?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:47 am to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:47 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
That's fine in theory
That's all it was, because I haven't looked into it. I've only seen some anecdotal evidence in my industry.
quote:
I do appreciate you trying to cut me a break as a Trump critic around here.
I didn't read it as criticism, but, rather, as analysis without bias either way, which I appreciate.
Upvoted for the graphs and info, I learned something today. None of that will go over well here. Politics is religion here and data that doesn't support worship is like a turd in the punch bowl.
I want to see more money stay in the private sector and I loathe government spending. I agree that people would care about the deficit if there wasn't the ever-increasing debt to act as a buffer.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 10:49 am
0
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:59 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
quote:
But, that's basically the exact opposite of everything you've done in this thread.
No, it isn't.
Yeah, you were the first to bring up spending in the context of this discussion, and have pretty much harped on it in every post since.
As I said, if you want to start a thread railing about spending, please do so, and I'll be the first to join in on harping on it with you.
It doesn't really have anything to do with a discussion regarding tax cuts, though.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:05 am to dcbl
When I informed Democrats here that a decrease in tax rates would result in an increase in tax receipts they down voted me and called me names that started with racistsexisthomophobe. One thing I can assure everybody with total certainty, Democrats are impervious to evidence of any kind, because they live entirely in a world of feelings and resentment.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:10 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Democrats are impervious to evidence
That’s probably true. If you are going to say that, though, you should go back one page and refute the graphs that apparently show that it is more accounting methods and less tax cuts leading to increased revenue.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:13 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
That’s probably true. If you are going to say that, though, you should go back one page and refute the graphs that apparently show that it is more accounting methods and less tax cuts leading to increased revenue.
The graphs show they are, at worst, revenue neutral. As long as that's the case, there really should be nothing worth discussing. Anything else showing they might be revenue positive would just be lagniappe.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 11:14 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:16 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
The graphs show they are, at worst, revenue neutral. As long as that's the case, there really should be nothing worth discussing. Anything else showing they might be revenue positive would just be lagniappe.
Dude, come on. You clearly aren’t an accountant if you think that.
Are you looking at the graphs and understanding the methodologies?
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:17 am to olgoi khorkhoi
I would never make the claim on a month to month basis because its an incomplete sample. I would take a look at tax receipts for say the year 2020 after we have a large enough sample. In the meantime I would direct people to study the Kennedy and Reagan tax rate cuts, respectively.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:26 am to Lsupimp
Honestly it’s pretty hard to gauge the Reagan cuts because they were accompanied by multiple tax increases in latter years. You don’t really have a good before and after comparison because multiple different rates were in flux.
There were also massive spending increases at the same time. Spending results in growth, which does result in higher tax collections. But you’re basically financing the growth. Just so many variables.
There were also massive spending increases at the same time. Spending results in growth, which does result in higher tax collections. But you’re basically financing the growth. Just so many variables.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 11:28 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:33 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I would never make the claim on a month to month basis because its an incomplete sample
Oh, ok. The post I replied to seemed to be claiming victory based on said incomplete sample.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:43 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Yeah, you were the first to bring up spending in the context of this discussion, and have pretty much harped on it in every post since.
Read my first explanatory post ITT:
quote:
I've stated it many, many times. Even the most optimistic dynamic models incorporating the biggest plausible growth effects yielded big deficits even in year one. Revenues will keep climbing as long as the economy doesn't enter recession, but they'll be lower than they otherwise would have been.
Those models isolate the effect on revenues. They don't assume anything about spending. When I say "yielded big deficits" that means *strictly* due to reduced revenues, in all cases.
The spending problem is a problem, and a separate one from this effect. But when I talk about the strict impact of the bill alone, I'm not conflating its effects with spending, even though we passed it while still increasing spending, and that makes the whole deficit situation even worse.
And for the record, I brought up spending in response to GT23 saying he didn't care about revenues declining. The point being that you if you don't care about that when spending is still climbing quickly, then you don't care about making budget deficits worse.
quote:
As, if you want to start a thread railing about spending, please do so, and I'll be the first to join in on harping on it with you.
Like I also said, the spending question is a digression, separate but related to the deficit impact of the tax cut.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:46 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
The graphs show they are, at worst, revenue neutral.
On their own they show pretty much nothing at all about the tax revenue impacts of the bill. And it is quite impossible for them to be revenue neutral, especially on the timeline of a few months, without massive and immediate spikes in economic activity.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:47 am to Lsupimp
quote:
n the meantime I would direct people to study the Kennedy and Reagan tax rate cuts, respectively.
What do you believe they show, and why?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:52 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
As I said, if you want to start a thread railing about spending, please do so, and I'll be the first to join in on harping on it with you.
quote:
It doesn't really have anything to do with a discussion regarding tax cuts, though.
oh boy
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:42 pm to dcbl
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:45 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
. Revenues will keep climbing as long as the economy doesn't enter recession, but they'll be lower than they otherwise would have been.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:49 pm to cahoots
quote:Yes you do. Well, if you don’t constrain yourself to a single variable model of the entire economy.
Honestly it’s pretty hard to gauge the Reagan cuts because they were accompanied by multiple tax increases in latter years. You don’t really have a good before and after comparison because multiple different rates were in flux.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News