re: WSJ editorial board: income tax receipts up 8% from last year

No, you didn't. And if you did, explain it to me like I'm a 10th grader.

You always ask me for links. Go ahead and link where you answered my inquiry sufficiently.

And then when you are through with that, if it is so easy, go ahead and show me what tax receipts would look like backing out increased economic activity due to the tax cut, based on pre tax cut rates.

But the conclusion is that this argument is ridiculous. Tax cuts can pay for themselves if a long enough time period is allowed. In a vacuum.

Newsflash. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Man, just don’t try and argue with 90sprofessional. He doesn’t seek to prove any of his points, he just wants to try and be a childish shite throwing parasitic socialist. Apparently the lethargic economy during Obama’s entire presidency was attributable to bush, and now that things are going well it’s all due to obama. Yep, that’s right. Does this make any sense logically? Nope. But who cares. Obama is great, and taking money away from those who actually are making positive contributions to society (thus lessening their ability to make said positive contributions) and then giving it to those whom have never contributed to society results in more innovation and creativity (I have no idea how). This in turn makes the economy grow (again, this is total bull shite).

Our lobby just got clarification that we aren't considered a professional service.

But as far as I understand, my 20% deduction, as a single person, starts to go away after $157K taxable income.

But the clarification we received isn't very clear, and we are going back for another one.

Anyway, you didn't ask me, but you can probably help me out I'm guessing.

quote:

---

make a point or frick off

---

shut up loser. you and ib are the two worst economic posters on this board. no one is made fun of more than you two. and both of you have been ducking my posts for weeks so you aren't nearly as etough as you think you are

Efight rules!

quote:

---

Go ahead and link where you answered my inquiry sufficiently.

---

you owe me like dozens of unanswered links, yet you feel entitled to demanding a link to something i stated in this actual thread? how about no

as an undeserved favor, i'll state this again: the answer to your question about estimating behavioral responses is by modeling that requires a good bit more deal(sic) data to construct and estimate. results can be sanity-checked by empirical work.

quote:

---

And then when you are through with that, if it is so easy, go ahead and show me what tax receipts would look like backing out increased economic activity due to the tax cut, based on pre tax cut rates.

---

i already said that effort is costly. why would you assume it is easy?

however, you're in luck with pre-TCJA baselines being available. CBO or CRFB can hook that up for you. i hope you don't mind doing your own homework though, since you brought all this up. i've given you a bit of a head start if you're really curious

quote:

---

But the conclusion is that this argument is ridiculous. Tax cuts can pay for themselves if a long enough time period is allowed. In a vacuum.

---

i'd probably agree, although i'd be curious about your view on what kind of time period you'd have in mind. and i'd add that for this to be true there'd need to be a matching spending cut at the front end

quote:

---

Newsflash. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

---

thanks for the insight. you're the one who always insists on that caveat though, not me. the beauty of that kind of model is that they can be constructed to allow for as many alternative scenarios and/or relaxed assumptions as you like, although it's pretty tough to build in tax code complexity

quote:

---

like your usual nonsense

---

LJL at you unironically linking THAT, where in the two following posts between you & me, you demonstrate unambiguously that you can't prove what you claim, and instead must appeal to a couple of googled articles that don't do so either

thanks for proving yourself wrong, i guess

guess i'll just post this here as well:

you might notice that the post you link has a response, from me. the substantive argument there is not addressed by you, ever. instead you appeal to articles that also do not prove what you claim.

quote:

---

o really?

---

yeah. really. in this thread, just like the other, all you just did was link the post where you fail to address the substantive argument, exactly as i said you did.

quote:

---

1. it's not my claim.

---

you made it on your own. at this point, the claim itself probably deserves its own thread.

here, i'll help you by feeding the words of your argument back to you. warning: it cannot be substantiated as stated, because it claims that certain offices did things that they cannot do as a matter of fact:

there's no denying that the cbo and the wh monkeyed with obama's numbers.

quote:

---

2. prove that the 12 articles i cited do not substantiate the point

---

how about instead of just linking a bunch of things you just googled and acting like you've proven something that "there's no denying", you present the argument directly? (once you modify the argument to target the correct data-generating agencies of course)

if you want to prove that a systematic bias exists, do it correctly. don't cherry pick; look at the actual revisions, of which there are many. they're all there for the public to look at and analyze.

and then, if you can manage to do that, maybe then you can find a way to prove that there was some nefarious "monkeying" with the data. the kind of monkeying that would somehow make Obama look better than he should have.

if you want to act like what you have stated is proven true, as you have, this is what you need to do.

i've told you all of this before, and although you want to keep bringing the issue up, you seem to be too lazy or scared to actually look at the numbers that can tell you whether you're onto something. good luck with the analytical effort we all know you won't exert!