Page 34 of 163 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484134 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 1628

Thread: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

  1. #331
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,870

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    I said he cut business taxes.
    Great. Now link to that and then show how it was that made Michigan's unemployment drop.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  2. #332
    Sage
    JC Callender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,632

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Great. Now link to that and then show how it was that made Michigan's unemployment drop.

  3. #333
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,253

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    That is true. So what's your claim? That more collection is somehow higher than the rate? Because fact show that collections are far lower which is why so many corporations pay zero taxes even though our tax rates are supposedly high.
    The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?

  4. #334
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,253

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    A reference point (in this case % of GDP) is required to compare non-stationary time series.
    So low GDP means a higher percentage and that is good? Interesting. Comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a liberal tactic that ignores you don't spend percentage change you spend actual dollars.

  5. #335
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,870

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
    I've never made any claims. You have. Can you back them up? I mean I can easily play your game. Obama's president. Pretty much all states are doing better since Bush is gone. Therefore Michigan is doing better because of Obama.

    Now, for me to make that claim without any sources is specious at best, yet that is the same way you have formulated your argument. It is wrong... but it is the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  6. #336
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?
    The government was spending more per capita under Reagan. There how is that!

  7. #337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
    By your economic logic, Texas should be Germany by now, not just a BBQ flavored Poland..............just saying..................

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
    The state economy is doing better, but assuming that it is due mainly or wholly to the tax cuts can't be demonstrated, at least not right now. One could be dealing with a coincidence in timing on account of other factors. For example, New Jersey had a different experience.

    Christie

    It is probably likely that the tax relief had some impact, but a modest one. One need only look at the companies' financial data to see that state taxes account for a small portion of their cost structure, meaning that the tax relief had a modest positive impact on after-tax profitability. Perhaps much more likely is that Michigan was well-positioned to leverage the improvement in certain sectors e.g., cyclical manufacturing revival. States with economies focused on those sectors, even without tax policy changes, have enjoyed an economic boost.

    And from an early story on Michigan's recovery that lends support to the idea of larger sector-specific factors, Bloomberg Business Week reported back in late 2011:

    Michigan’s economy is recovering from the recession at the second-fastest pace in the U.S., lifted by reviving carmakers and local manufacturers, according to a new Bloomberg index that tracks the pace of state growth.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-recovery.html
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 04-05-13 at 11:19 PM.

  9. #339
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,870

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?
    Revenues go up naturally due to population growth meaning more people are paying taxes. In fact tax revenue growth was lower under Reagan than previous presidents. This is always ignored by those who make your argument that Reagan's tax cuts were the reason why revenues went up. Fact is... that's not true.

    This guy kind of explains it rather well:

    The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

    Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

    Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

    link...
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  10. #340
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    So low GDP means a higher percentage and that is good? Interesting.
    You cannot view it from a vacuum, as tax revenue is dependent upon income. If output were to fall, tax revenue must also fall (as tax revenue is derived from income).

    Comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a liberal tactic that ignores you don't spend percentage change you spend actual dollars.
    More anti-intellectual drivel. You cannot compare raw non-stationary time series data due to the dynamics of economic variables across the said time series, e.g. inflation, tax rates, output levels, etc.... It has nothing to do with "liberal tactics".
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •