• 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!

Trump No Recession but Lower Taxes Anyway.

MTAtech said:
Those who point to Bush's tax-cuts and conclude they were causal to higher revenue are fooling themselves. If we look at those government revenue (adjusting for inflation and population growth) after the tax-cuts, which occurred in 2001 and 2003, what do we see? Revenue dropped after each of the tax-cuts.

Even after the housing bubble started (post 2004,) the revenue never recovered to pre-tax-cut levels. Then after the housing bubble broke revenue declined greatly.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

That chart is per capita revenue. Actual revenue increased from 2 trillion to 2.5 trillion prior to the recession.
 
jonny5 said:
That chart is per capita revenue. Actual revenue increased from 2 trillion to 2.5 trillion prior to the recession.
Click to expand...
I clearly stated, "adjusting for inflation and population growth." That's real revenue per capita, which is commonly used to factor out inflation and population growth, which tends to increase revenue regardless of tax policy. So, if one is interested in measuring the effect of tax policy, one factors out everything else that may cause revenue to rise.
 
Exquisitor said:
Trump No Recession but Lower Taxes Anyway:

I heard on the radio, Trump says we're not going into a recession, but he'll lower taxes anyway.

Trump, your first tax cut brings on this recession and now you want cut taxes again?

Sure, the crash will be bigger and we can use our cash assets to buy up cheap property.
Click to expand...

Typical Republican disregard for fiscal responsibility. The deficit is quickly closing in on $1 Trillion.
 
Sheepdog said:
Tax rates were cut and revenue, wages, and the GDP all went up exactly as predicted. What exactly is the issue here????????????????

I wish they would cut them even more so I can invest in myself rather than my money going to the leeches of the world and stupid government programs.
Click to expand...

Tax revenue fell, which explains the ballooning deficits in this great economy....:roll:
 
JasperL said:
Why would we do that? They're poor ways to stimulate the economy, as TCJA shows us.
Click to expand...

The poor do not stimulate the economy :lamo The poor, by definition, have no money. Think before you post.
 
Mycroft said:
FICA tax is irrelevant. We are talking about a tax cut.

Neither a tax cut nor lower interest rates will cause deficit spending...too much spending causes deficit spending. But both a tax cut and lower interest rates will spur the economy.
Click to expand...

FICA is a tax.

And tax cuts lower revenue, increasing deficits, because math.
 
Mycroft said:
Slash "G" by any increase in "C", "I" or "X-M"

GDP is unaffected.
Click to expand...

Well, no, GDP will drop by the "slash" in G. There's no reason to assume cutting G leads to more C or I or net exports.
 
Mycroft said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

We might as well quote the people who call 'recessions' in the U.S.

https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. "

For more information, see the latest announcement from the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee, dated 9/20/10.
 
Fletch said:
The poor do not stimulate the economy :lamo The poor, by definition, have no money. Think before you post.
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental. :roll:

I'll restate it for the reading impaired. Income tax cuts are inefficient fiscal stimulus. If we go into recession and need fiscal stimulus, better to spend than hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy who mostly save those lower taxes.
 
JasperL said:
Well, no, GDP will drop by the "slash" in G. There's no reason to assume cutting G leads to more C or I or net exports.
Click to expand...

I didn't make any such claim. Read it again.
 
JasperL said:
FICA is a tax.

And tax cuts lower revenue, increasing deficits, because math.
Click to expand...
FICA is a tax to cover promises made to seniors that was sold as a retirement/insurance plan. If it was we could opt out. We can not......a dependent class was created. (Intentionally)

More tax cuts are great. FICA cuts not so much in my opinion. Phasing out and privatization Social Security would be a wonderful idea but touching the political third rail.

I started paying FICA in 1979 and was pretty sure at that time that it wouldn't be there for me. Interestingly as I approach 67 it may be there. Political cowardice sustained a really bad ponzi scam. I won't be dependent, won't abstain either.

Gravy until it goes bust or we come to our senses.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't make any such claim. Read it again.
Click to expand...

When we cut government spending, we cut GDP. It's a big reason why Congress doesn't like spending cuts - they're anti-growth in the short term.
 
JasperL said:
When we cut government spending, we cut GDP. It's a big reason why Congress doesn't like spending cuts - they're anti-growth in the short term.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I said again, did you?

Never mind.
 
JasperL said:
Reading is fundamental. :roll:

I'll restate it for the reading impaired. Income tax cuts are inefficient fiscal stimulus. If we go into recession and need fiscal stimulus, better to spend than hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy who mostly save those lower taxes.
Click to expand...

Wow. I did completely misread your post. My apologies Jasper
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
FICA is a tax. Cut FICA taxes and you cut taxes.
Click to expand...
FICA Tax is to support SS and medicare it has nothing to do with FIT and the budget except the Government " borrowed " well over a trillion dollars from it and now have to pay it back because there is more money going out of the SS system ( FICA taxes ) then is coming in.
so cutting FICA would only make the Government pay back more of what they " borrowed " faster and run the SS system out of money sooner
Have a nice night
 
MTAtech said:
I clearly stated, "adjusting for inflation and population growth." That's real revenue per capita, which is commonly used to factor out inflation and population growth, which tends to increase revenue regardless of tax policy. So, if one is interested in measuring the effect of tax policy, one factors out everything else that may cause revenue to rise.
Click to expand...

REAL revenue increased from 2 trillion to 2.5 trillion. IE revenue went up.
 
Fletch said:
The poor do not stimulate the economy :lamo The poor, by definition, have no money. Think before you post.
Click to expand...

The ignorance is deafening. This is why I think people need a graduate degree before they can post on the Internet.
 
Huey Freeman said:
The ignorance is deafening. This is why I think people need a graduate degree before they can post on the Internet.
Click to expand...
Some of the most ignorant people on the planet have graduate degrees.

Ronald Reagan was a bit more tactful than me but essentially the same.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Exquisitor said:
Sure, the crash will be bigger and we can use our cash assets to buy up cheap property.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Particularly by non-Americans. I bought a nice cabin on a lake in WA in 2008, and went partners in an LLC that bought up a bunch of other property. It was all insanely cheap.
 
Eriech said:
Some of the most ignorant people on the planet have graduate degrees.

Ronald Reagan was a bit more tactful than me but essentially the same.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly. And as you demonstrate some of the most ignorant people became POTUS.

I prefer to go with the great thinkers:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. " John Stuart Mill
 
JustHanging said:
Exactly. And as you demonstrate some of the most ignorant people became POTUS.

I prefer to go with the great thinkers:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. " John Stuart Mill
Click to expand...

Stick to the topic.
 
jonny5 said:
Stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

Looking for your scolding of Eriech, who began the conversation. Nope? Hmmmmmmm......

Looks like it's more of "I don't like your opinion, so I'll make up some BS."

Anyways, no need for you to reply, let's stick to the topic. ;)


When the economy crashes, are you ready to take advantage of it?
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
REAL revenue increased from 2 trillion to 2.5 trillion. IE revenue went up.
Click to expand...
That all depends upon your starting point. As you can see from the chart below, real revenue dropped from Bill Clinton's 2000 level when Bush cut taxes. If you are measuring the starting point from the Bush low of 2003, then there was an increase for a few years after (due to the housing bubble). As you can also see, real revenue only got back to 2000 levels in 2006 -- with far higher GDP.

usgs_line.php


I'll parrot what Greg Mankiw, George W. Bush's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors coined: "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

The idea that tax-cuts increase revenue is one of those zombie lie ideas -- even after being killed, they will later rise up and be repeated again.

I've argued this before: https://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/185492-laffer-curve.html#post1062880973

snippet:
The bottom-line is that the Bush tax-cuts cut revenue: In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. In 2003, these amounts were $1,782.53 billion and $11,142.1 billion. In other words, GDP rose 12% and federal revenues fell 12%.

Federal revenues eventually rose, to take out the 2000 peak in 2005 (2007 in real terms,) but this doesn't mean much. Revenues eventually catch up due to GDP growth and population growth regardless of policy. The economy grows 4-6% most years, unadjusted for inflation, so naturally the general trend of taxes is to rise about 4-6% each year. Being unable to return to a previous peak for five years, despite this built in trend strongly suggests tax cuts reduced revenue, ceteris parabus.
Click to expand...
 
What I find fascinating about the 'conservative' approach to economics is the disconnect between how they see themselves and how they see our government.

We've all probably read some breast-thumping post in which the poster proudly proclaims [Ed.: Often in response to anything which suggests we cut some slack for the poverty-ridden,] that s/he got where they are through hard work, paying their own way, not owing anyone a dime nor accepting charity along the way.

Then, the same people somehow fail to apply that to the government in the form of a 'tax as you go' concept.

And so it goes, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom