• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP tax cut: Revenuse grow, rich pay more

KLATTU said:
Wow they just 'get' income. How can I get some?
Click to expand...

Buy and sell real estate, art, violins, you know, things, for capital gains brother. Wealthy enough ?

Never again need to actually work for a living, just buy, hold a year for long term [sic] capital gains and sell.

Get to sleep in, see your kids grow up, have an office at home.

Hey, tougher than that 6 AM to 6 PM routine to make you know, that 'pedestrian' lowly 1040 tax-table income.
 
bearpoker said:
The problem is that we've heard this fairy tale before and it never comes true. The deficits grow and the debt explodes. It happens every time.
Click to expand...
But you never give a **** about when its a dem that is exploding that debt.
 
KLATTU said:
Thank you for the concession . That was the point of the post
Click to expand...

But still not nearly enough. You cannot get 10 lbs of bull crap out of a 5 lb bag.
 
ludin said:
still don't understand diminishing returns do you?
Click to expand...

When it comes to tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, we've had 40 years of diminishing returns to our economy.
 
imagep said:
Yes, diminishing returns are involved here, but I'm not sure you understand the Laffer Curve. When tax rates are on the right of the apex of the Laffer Curve, reducing tax rates increases government revenue. However, no economist believes that our tax rates are on the right side of the curve, thus reducing tax rates decreases tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Well the Laffer Curve did it's job with me...made me Laff.
 
Pedestrian said:
When ?
Click to expand...
The last administration in 8 years more than doubled the entire compilation of debt from all previous administrations combined.

Now this is usually the part where mindless leftists start tap dancing and making excuses and ignoring reality.
 
ludin said:
The problem is that most of them do not understand where tax revenues come from.
Click to expand...

the come from economic activity. the more economic activity the more taxes are generated.
the flip side of that is that there is diminishing returns on tax percentages.

meaning the lower or higher you go on taxes the less benefit you get from those increases or decreases.[/QUOTE]

Why pretend that the new tax policy pushes us on the left side of the Laffer curve? I mean... are you familiar with any literature pertaining to tax elasticity?

We can start small:

Changes in tax policy can influence the economy, and those economic effects can in turn affect the federal budget. Although conventional estimates of the budgetary effect of tax policies incorporate a variety of behavioral effects, they are, nonetheless, based on a fixed economic baseline. For that reason, they do not include the budgetary impact of any possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies. This brief by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzes the macroeconomic effects of a simple tax policy: a 10 percent reduction in all federal tax rates on individual income. Because there is little consensus on exactly how tax cuts affect the economy, CBO based its analysis on a number of different sets of assumptions about how people respond to changes in tax policy, how open the economy is to flows of foreign capital, and how the revenue loss from the tax cut might eventually be offset. Under those various assumptions, CBO estimated effects on output ranging from increases of 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent over the first five years on average, and from a decrease of 0.1 percent to an increase of 1.1 percent over the second five years. The budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years.
Click to expand...

:2wave:
 
VanceMack said:
The last administration in 8 years more than doubled the entire compilation of debt from all previous administrations combined.
Click to expand...

You clearly cannot comprehend how a once in a generation financial crisis affects long term tax revenue and expenditures.
 
KLATTU said:
Geez, not what I 'm hearing on CNN and MSNBC.

CBO says the economy will grow 3.3% this year, the most since 2005

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-cut-growth-dividend-1523400498

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than CBO’s estimate before the tax cuts. ( LIBERALS :" HUH, That's not what Krugman said" ?"}

CBO also says the tax cut will make the economy grow faster -- to 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019. The last time the economy grew this fast was in 2005 ( { ME: and not 2008-2016 } which was after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts). This produces more revenue that CBO previously estimated.

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than CBO’s estimate before the tax cuts.

CBO also says the tax cut will make the economy grow faster -- to 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019. The last time the economy grew this fast was in 2005 (which was after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts). This produces more revenue that CBO previously estimated.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...x_cuts_will_more_than_pay_for_themselves.html
An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that under the Republican bill, high-income Americans will pay an even larger percentage of the country’s overall income taxes in 2018 than they did before, while people in lower brackets will pay a smaller amount.

Specifically, the TPC estimates that the 20 percent of Americans that earn $150,000 or more will account for 52 percent of the country’s income, unchanged from last year, but will pay about 87 percent of total income taxes, up from 84 percent in 2017. Isn’t that a “fair share”?

The bottom 60 percent of Americans, with earnings below roughly $86,000, will account for 27 percent of the country’s income but will not pay any income tax at all. In 2017, that lower tier contributed 2 percent of income taxes


Trump tax plan makes rich pay larger share; why is the left against it? | TheHill
Whew boy-pass the lemon juice around the NY TIMES and Wa PO ?

LAFFRIOT!!
Click to expand...

There is a reason this is on the WSJ Editorial pages -- because it's opinion. Those editorial pages have been notoriously conservatively biased over the years and also notoriously wrong. This 2002 editorial comes to mind, that advocates for Bush's tax-cuts and calls people too poor to pay income taxes "lucky duckies."

The WSJ view during the financial crisis was that federal borrowing would crowd out private spending by driving interest rates sky-high and that the bond vigilantes would destroy the economy. Note that when the editorial was published, the 10-year rate was at 3.7%, with the Journal in effect predicting that it would go much higher. They dropped to about zero.
 
imagep said:
Yes, diminishing returns are involved here, but I'm not sure you understand the Laffer Curve. When tax rates are on the right of the apex of the Laffer Curve, reducing tax rates increases government revenue. However, no economist believes that our tax rates are on the right side of the curve, thus reducing tax rates decreases tax revenue.
Click to expand...

No I fully understand the laffer curve.
Yet if you actually read the OP.

Revenue isn't decreasing it is increasing.
The issue is that government is always spending way more than it brings in.
 
KLATTU said:
Geez, not what I 'm hearing on CNN and MSNBC.

CBO says the economy will grow 3.3% this year, the most since 2005

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-cut-growth-dividend-1523400498

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than CBO’s estimate before the tax cuts. ( LIBERALS :" HUH, That's not what Krugman said" ?"}
....
Click to expand...

A fairytale....no indication a sustained economic recovery, now in its ninth year, could continue anywhere near ten more years. Sustained higher growth as you presented will accelerate interest rate rise, and likely, inflation. The tax cut scheme recently passed will exacerbate the rising wealth concentration drag on the economy and on upward
mobility, the exact opposite effect the U.S. has lectured other countries to make it official policy to remedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States
GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg


Smoothed U.S. Recession Probabilities https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RECPROUSM156N
A graph, June, 1967 - Jan., 2018

Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_policy_and_economic_inequality_in_the_United_States

The closer the Gini Coefficient is to one, the closer its income distribution is to absolute inequality. In 2007, the United Nations approximated the United States' Gini Coefficient at 41% while the CIA Factbook placed the coefficient at 45%. The United States' Gini Coefficient was below 40% in 1964 and slightly declined ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

OECD Income Distribution Database (IDD): Gini, poverty, income, Methods and Concepts - OECD
Over the past few years, income inequality levels have remained at historically high levels. Across OECD countries, the average Gini coefficient of disposable household income reached 0.318 in 2014, compared to 0.315 in 2010. This is the highest value on record, since the mid-1980s.

GINIoecd.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thread: GOP tax cut: Revenuse grow, rich pay more

Firstly...Learn how to spell if you wish to be taken seriously.

Secondly....saying something "Might Happen" does not mean it will.

Finally...Cutting someones taxes doe NOT mean they pay more.
 
ludin said:
No I fully understand the laffer curve.
Yet if you actually read the OP.

Revenue isn't decreasing it is increasing.
The issue is that government is always spending way more than it brings in.
Click to expand...

Factoring out inflation and population growth, revenue is decreasing.

usgs_line.php


Spending under Obama was pretty much controlled and didn't increase. Under Trump and the GOP, spending is projected upwards. If government "always" spends more (except when Clinton was prez) it's because of Republican addiction to tax-cuts.

usgs_line.php
 
KLATTU said:
...

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...x_cuts_will_more_than_pay_for_themselves.html
An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that under the Republican bill, high-income Americans will pay an even larger percentage of the country’s overall income taxes in 2018 than they did before, while people in lower brackets will pay a smaller amount.

Specifically, the TPC estimates that the 20 percent of Americans that earn $150,000 or more will account for 52 percent of the country’s income, unchanged from last year, but will pay about 87 percent of total income taxes, up from 84 percent in 2017. Isn’t that a “fair share”?

The bottom 60 percent of Americans, with earnings below roughly $86,000, will account for 27 percent of the country’s income but will not pay any income tax at all. In 2017, that lower tier contributed 2 percent of income taxes


Trump tax plan makes rich pay larger share; why is the left against it? | TheHill
Whew boy-pass the lemon juice around the NY TIMES and Wa PO ?

LAFFRIOT!!
Click to expand...
From the Tax Policy Center directly:

We find the bill would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in both 2018 and 2025. In general, higher income households receive larger average tax cuts as a percentage of after-tax income, with the largest cuts as a share of income going to taxpayers in the 95th to 99th percentiles of the income distribution. On average, in 2027 taxes would change little for lower- and middle-income groups and decrease for higher-income groups. Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025, and 53 percent in 2027.
Click to expand...
 
gdgyva said:
the magic of compounding....doesnt mean much at 25, 35, even 45

means a hell of a lot at 55, 65, and 75

and investing means you have years and years to see returns

dont worry about what the market does on a daily, weekly, or even annual basis

too many see losses and get caught up in the panic....and lose it all
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
gdgyva said:
the magic of compounding....doesnt mean much at 25, 35, even 45

means a hell of a lot at 55, 65, and 75

and investing means you have years and years to see returns

dont worry about what the market does on a daily, weekly, or even annual basis

too many see losses and get caught up in the panic....and lose it all
Click to expand...

I knew people that did that actually more so during 2008-09.
They panicked and moved their 401k stuff around.

I left mine where it was and road out the down move. yes i lost 40% that year which was a huge blow,
however over the next 2 years i earned 45-56%.

I made a good bit of money after riding that up wave. earlier this year i did sell off 1 mutual fund i have and consolidated it into another.
it was losing money. granted i should have left it in and probably would have done better.

even so last year i was up 22.5% on my mutual funds.
 
cuban smokes said:
sounds like a fairy tale to me; aren't fair tales wonderful?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we welcome news like that? The more we prosper, the more jobs people have, the less people on welfare or any other aid, should not be turned into a sob fest just because it is "psst, coming from h i m". It should be in everyone's best interest.
Sometimes I really think that the left and all the gossip mongers and anti Trump trolls ( in general) are looking for anything negative to drool over and send our country over the cliff rather than considering the possibility of favorable news and positive happenings.
Give our country a chance.
 
MTAtech said:
Factoring out inflation and population growth, revenue is decreasing.

usgs_line.php


Spending under Obama was pretty much controlled and didn't increase. Under Trump and the GOP, spending is projected upwards. If government "always" spends more (except when Clinton was prez) it's because of Republican addiction to tax-cuts.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

Please see the OP.
 
tecoyah said:
Thread: GOP tax cut: Revenuse grow, rich pay more

Firstly...Learn how to spell if you wish to be taken seriously.

Secondly....saying something "Might Happen" does not mean it will.

Finally...Cutting someones taxes doe NOT mean they pay more.
Click to expand...

Taxes are derived from economic activity.
The more money people have the more money they spend.

This drives business growth putting more people to work.
more people working = more taxes.
businesses having more money = expansion = hiring = better wages = more taxes.
 
KLATTU said:
Geez, not what I 'm hearing on CNN and MSNBC.

CBO says the economy will grow 3.3% this year, the most since 2005

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-cut-growth-dividend-1523400498

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than CBO’s estimate before the tax cuts. ( LIBERALS :" HUH, That's not what Krugman said" ?"}

CBO also says the tax cut will make the economy grow faster -- to 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019. The last time the economy grew this fast was in 2005 ( { ME: and not 2008-2016 } which was after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts). This produces more revenue that CBO previously estimated.

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than CBO’s estimate before the tax cuts.

CBO also says the tax cut will make the economy grow faster -- to 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019. The last time the economy grew this fast was in 2005 (which was after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts). This produces more revenue that CBO previously estimated.
Click to expand...

This is what the CBO directly said:

Real GDP, which was 2.6% in 2017, will be 3.3% in 2018; 2.4% in 2019; 1.8% in 2020; 1.5% annually 2021-22; and 1.7% in 2023-28.

On debt, the CBO said:

In the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline pro-jections, which incorporate the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending generally remain unchanged, the federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next few years. Later on, between 2023 and 2028, it stabilizes in relation to the size of the economy, though at a high level by historical standards.

As a result, federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the coming decade. Debt held by the public, which has doubled in the past 10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), approaches 100 percent of GDP by 2028 in CBO’s projections. That amount is far greater than the debt in any year since just after World War II. Moreover, if lawmakers changed current law to maintain certain current policies—preventing a significant increase in individual income taxes in 2026 and drops in funding for defense and nondefense discretionary programs in 2020, for example—the result would be even larger increases in debt.
Click to expand...
 
Lovebug said:
Shouldn't we welcome news like that? The more we prosper, the more jobs people have, the less people on welfare or any other aid, should not be turned into a sob fest just because it is "psst, coming from h i m". It should be in everyone's best interest.
Sometimes I really think that the left and all the gossip mongers and anti Trump trolls ( in general) are looking for anything negative to drool over and send our country over the cliff rather than considering the possibility of favorable news and positive happenings.
Give our country a chance.
Click to expand...

there were ~60 million voters that should have thought about that idea of, "give our country a chance" idea.

Here is what most likely happened.
(1) a reality TV idiot ran for POTUS with the idea of self promotion = selfish
(2) he had no real intention, nor expectation of 'winning' = trolling
(3) ~60 million US voters were stupid enuff to fall for this unethical, immoral, selfish, ill tempered troll = karma
(4) the unethical, immoral, selfish, ill tempered troll actually 'won' = surprise
(5) eventually many of Trump's skeletons in the closet are coming to light = no surprise to those that actually paid attention BEFORE the election
(6) what did those that voted for Trump expect when many of Trump's skeletons were eventually revealed? = Oh, really?

So, let's add up the results of that small observation: selfish, trolling, karma, surprise, paying attention, really

the people that voted for Trump are very selfish, they were not paying attention, that is why they now have a POTUS that is nothing more than a trolling idiot, now folks are going is Trump really doing this crazy as ****, all while none of this should be a surprise, and the voters that voted for this are some how expecting a different karma to settle upon America just because they were too stupid to pick someone with a better set of attributes than Trump?

"Give our country a chance" you say?

That was up to the voters that voted for Trump & they failed.

Lesson = be careful what you ask/vote for
 
ludin said:
Taxes are derived from economic activity.
The more money people have the more money they spend.

This drives business growth putting more people to work.
more people working = more taxes.
businesses having more money = expansion = hiring = better wages = more taxes.
Click to expand...

so what. all we are getting is more debt, not new cities.
 
danielpalos said:
so what. all we are getting is more debt, not new cities.
Click to expand...

i saw your reply and figured it would have nothing to do with what i posted.
i was correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom