Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’

[Absentglare]

Like I haven't heard you lefties say that a million times before. Boils down to jealousy of the rich.

That is an abject lie. Do not make specious claims about my motivations to construct your pathetic excuse of an argument.

 

[Kushinator]

What is it about your post that meets what you criticized me for?

Pointing out statements that are intended to be an argument yet are entirely composed of ones opinion requires no further consideration.

 

[countryboy]

This is real life. Not a fantasy. It been proven it doesn't work that way no matter how much you wish it would.

The data tells a different story. Show me the data which proves "it doesn't work that way". And by "data", I mean federal revenues following tax cuts. Show me the data where revenues actually went down following tax cuts on a federal level.

 

[Moderate Right]

51% of Americans cannot afford to raise a family. 51% of Americans cannot afford an unexpected $500 Dollar bill. 51% of American have been shut-out from the wealth gains in the past 30 years, due to boneheaded supply side economics. 51% of Americans. Not one pissed off liberal online. 51% of Americans, less than $30,000/year. What happened to the American dream? What happened to bootstraps and working hard? Bootstraps and working hard, gets you a job that pays in the high 20k. Where is the wealth going? It's not disappearing into thin air. It's going right into the rich's pocket. And we need to point the fingers at them and comfortably say, You are the problem, not us.

That's their fault, not the rich's but it proves your extreme jealousy. You can either sit their and be one of that 51% or you can do something about it and be one of the 49%. The choice is yours. Do you want to do something about it or do you want to take the easy way out and be a whiner for the rest of your life?

 

[Moderate Right]

That is an abject lie. Do not make specious claims about my motivations to construct your pathetic excuse of an argument.

Most people have a hard time understanding when they are jealous so it is not surprising when they cannot see how jealous they really are. It consumes them to the point that their obsession prevents them from making their own lives better. The first step in making their own lives better is to admit that they have a problem and not those who they are jeslous of. You are beyond hope but Winston is young enough to see the light. He has two possible futures, either be one of the 49% or be one of the 51%. But, if he wants to be one of the 49% he has to use his energies to improve his own life instead of whining about someone else's.

 

[Moderate Right]

That is an abject lie. Do not make specious claims about my motivations to construct your pathetic excuse of an argument.

Most people have a hard time understanding when they are jealous so it is not surprising when they cannot see how jealous they really are. It consumes them to the point that their obsession prevents them from making their own lives better. The first step in making their own lives better is to admit that they have a problem and not those who they are jeslous of. You are beyond hope but Winston is young enough to see the light. He has two possible futures, either be one of the 49% or be one of the 51%. But, if he wants to be one of the 49% he has to use his energies to improve his own life instead of whining about someone else's.

 

[Mac77]

I haven't seen any of that evidence. The real swamp is the U.S. Congress and he has no power to drain it. It is something we have to do. He has already taken some steps to drain what he has the power to affect.

We have to target republican congressmen in the primary with solid non politician candidates.

Otherwise its a contest between a corrupt republican incumbent or a totally wacko democrat

 

[JasperL]

The data tells a different story. Show me the data which proves "it doesn't work that way". And by "data", I mean federal revenues following tax cuts. Show me the data where revenues actually went down following tax cuts on a federal level.

First of all, I already showed you that during the Clinton years, after a tax rate increase, revenues soared in real dollars. It has to work both ways, etc. and you ignored that post.

Second, here are federal individual income taxes adjusted for inflation (final column). You can clearly see the drops post the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts:

1980 244,069 0.3951 617,740
1981 285,917 0.4391 651,143
1982 297,744 0.4721 630,680
1983 288,938 0.4957 582,889
1984 298,415 0.5184 575,646
1985 334,531 0.5372 622,731
1986 348,959 0.5486 636,090
1987 392,557 0.5643 695,653
1988 401,181 0.5835 687,542
1989 445,690 0.6058 735,705
1990 466,884 0.6237 748,571
1991 467,827 0.6526 716,866
1992 475,964 0.6771 702,945
1993 509,680 0.6972 731,038
1994 543,055 0.7100 764,866
1995 590,244 0.7306 807,889
1996 656,417 0.7459 880,034
1997 737,466 0.7612 968,820
1998 828,586 0.7679 1,079,029
1999 879,480 0.7777 1,130,873
2000 1,004,462 0.7970 1,260,304
2001 994,339 0.8183 1,215,128
2002 858,345 0.8319 1,031,789
2003 793,699 0.8554 927,869
2004 808,959 0.8778 921,576
2005 927,222 0.9081 1,021,057
2006 1,043,908 0.9395 1,111,131
2007 1,163,472 0.9643 1,206,546
2008 1,145,747 0.9980 1,148,043

As you an see, following the Bush II tax cuts, even at the top of the biggest bubble most of us will live to see, federal ind. income taxes never recovered to the Clinton era highs. And post 1981 tax cuts for Reagan, he raised taxes nearly every year for the rest of his term...

 

[MTAtech]

This is real life. Not a fantasy. It been proven it doesn't work that way no matter how much you wish it would.

The data tells a different story. Show me the data which proves "it doesn't work that way". And by "data", I mean federal revenues following tax cuts. Show me the data where revenues actually went down following tax cuts on a federal level.

If "it" is lowering taxes not resulting in higher revenue, it's been discussed throughout this thread. Try to keep up. I showed graphical data in post #23 of this thread (https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...tary-tax-cut-pay-itself-3.html#post1067117349)

The zombie theory has been disproved throughout modern history -- simple said, reducing taxes that are not at confiscatory rates will result in lower revenue, not more revenue. It was disproven under Reagan and Bush. Clinton showed how raising taxes yielded more revenue and not only didn't tank the economy, as conservatives said it would, but we had a robust economy. The idea that today's top 39% rate causes earners to go Galt and stop earning additional income because they only get to keep 61% makes no sense and has no empirical support.

Now, if you want to prove otherwise, you find data that supports your argument. We're not your research assistants.

 

[sear]

"And post 1981 tax cuts for Reagan, he raised taxes nearly every year for the rest of his term." J #258

Reagan was a hypocrite.

Governor Reagan excoriated President Carter for deficit spending. And Reagan campaigned on balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

BUT !!

Once in office, not only did Reagan run up more U.S. federal debt than President Carter had. Reagan ran up more U.S. federal debt than all the previous U.S. presidents before him, COMBINED !!

- hypocrite -

"You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address, 1981

 

[DA60]

Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’

Trump's treasury secretary is a macroeconomic idiot.

Sure, it might pay for itself. But to assume such a thing is both fiscally irresponsible and staggeringly arrogant...and wreaks of fiscal desperation.


Once again, I have ZERO loyalty to any political party or movement.

 

[Critter7r]

At least the Dems tell you that they're going to spend the money. The Cons run on "balanced budget" BS and then somehow their followers don't notice when they spend spend spend, as much or more than the Dems.

 

[jonny5]

Spending doesn't have to pay for itself either - we can borrow to fund additional spending like we borrow to fund more tax cuts.

And the equation is simple - [Revenue minus Spending = Surplus (Deficit)] so to claim only one variable on the left hand side affects the deficit calculation is nonsense. Obviously both spending and revenue matter.

Spending does have to pay for itself, thats why its called spending. Now or later.

And I never said revenue doesnt matter.

 

[jonny5]

At least the Dems tell you that they're going to spend the money. The Cons run on "balanced budget" BS and then somehow their followers don't notice when they spend spend spend, as much or more than the Dems.

Well, no, Dems tell you theyre concerned about debt, but everyone laughs. Clinton said she thought the debt was a security issues and we had no choice but to deal with it. No one beleives them.

Cons actually have a record of at least trying to get it under control and even succeeded in the 90s, came close in the 00s, and managed to stop increasing spending altogether in the 10s.

 

[fmw]

Please tell me you're still in high school. Because if you're not...

Ok go ahead and finish with your insult.

 

[fmw]

Reducing revenue is like working only 3 days a week and expecting to pay the same bills. It doesn't work.

There is another side to working within ones means - SPEND LESS!

 

[fmw]

wtf!?

Was my post difficult to understand?

 

[countryboy]

First of all, I already showed you that during the Clinton years, after a tax rate increase, revenues soared in real dollars. It has to work both ways, etc. and you ignored that post.

Second, here are federal individual income taxes adjusted for inflation (final column). You can clearly see the drops post the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts:

1980 244,069 0.3951 617,740
1981 285,917 0.4391 651,143
1982 297,744 0.4721 630,680
1983 288,938 0.4957 582,889
1984 298,415 0.5184 575,646
1985 334,531 0.5372 622,731
1986 348,959 0.5486 636,090
1987 392,557 0.5643 695,653
1988 401,181 0.5835 687,542
1989 445,690 0.6058 735,705
1990 466,884 0.6237 748,571
1991 467,827 0.6526 716,866
1992 475,964 0.6771 702,945
1993 509,680 0.6972 731,038
1994 543,055 0.7100 764,866
1995 590,244 0.7306 807,889
1996 656,417 0.7459 880,034
1997 737,466 0.7612 968,820
1998 828,586 0.7679 1,079,029
1999 879,480 0.7777 1,130,873
2000 1,004,462 0.7970 1,260,304
2001 994,339 0.8183 1,215,128
2002 858,345 0.8319 1,031,789
2003 793,699 0.8554 927,869
2004 808,959 0.8778 921,576
2005 927,222 0.9081 1,021,057
2006 1,043,908 0.9395 1,111,131
2007 1,163,472 0.9643 1,206,546
2008 1,145,747 0.9980 1,148,043

As you an see, following the Bush II tax cuts, even at the top of the biggest bubble most of us will live to see, federal ind. income taxes never recovered to the Clinton era highs. And post 1981 tax cuts for Reagan, he raised taxes nearly every year for the rest of his term...

Yeah, how about actual verifiable tax tables, directly from the IRS? I know why. The data is irrefutable. Try again.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So... You're going to ignore my points, completely drop your argument, and reply with a pointless platitude?

Impressive.

:roll:

I didn't ignore your points. I dismissed them as the same old stuff the left has been using for decades to try to convince us that the 3.8 trillion the government now spends isn't enough and that's why there shouldn't be tax cuts.

 

[Winston]

That's their fault, not the rich's but it proves your extreme jealousy. You can either sit their and be one of that 51% or you can do something about it and be one of the 49%. The choice is yours. Do you want to do something about it or do you want to take the easy way out and be a whiner for the rest of your life?

I am doing something about it. I just passed two community college courses with a 4.0.

It's not their fault either. If you're employed full time, you should have enough money to go around. What's the point of working full time, if you can't afford to raise a family in a ****tiest part of town?

The only whiner in this interaction is you, because you're trying to defend a boneheaded ideology. Anyone who defends supply side economics is in for an uphill battle.

 

[AlbqOwl]

First, your facts are wrong. The government had flat spending all through the Obama years and due to Obama passing higher taxes on the wealthy, the deficit is down by 75% during the Obama years. Second, thinking that "the reverse," namely cutting revenue and magically thinking deficits will decrease, is as absurd as it sounds.

Obama increased spending over and above the budget by roughly $1 trillion in 2009 with TARP and the stimulus package and never dropped it back to normal after that. So yes, spending was fairly flat after 2009 but still at $1 trillion more every year than it should have been. Saying that he didn't increase the deficit after 2009 is one of the most blatant examples of dishonest smoke and mirrors we have seen yet.

 

[Renae]

I'd be truly amazed if you displayed any understanding of the issue....beyond posting a link.

Dazzle us with yer understanding of the supposed failure of PK's thoughts on the ZLB.

Yes yes yes, I get it, I don't share your views so I must be stupid. This is a common theme with you, disparaging those that don't share your POV.

 

[Absentglare]

Most people have a hard time understanding when they are jealous so it is not surprising when they cannot see how jealous they really are. It consumes them to the point that their obsession prevents them from making their own lives better. The first step in making their own lives better is to admit that they have a problem and not those who they are jeslous of. You are beyond hope but Winston is young enough to see the light. He has two possible futures, either be one of the 49% or be one of the 51%. But, if he wants to be one of the 49% he has to use his energies to improve his own life instead of whining about someone else's.

That's a lot of incoherent rambling.

I assure you, there is no jealousy. I have basically everything i could possibly need, and then some. I am happy to pay more in taxes, myself, to make sure my fellow Americans have the opportunities they need to become productive.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

At least the Dems tell you that they're going to spend the money. The Cons run on "balanced budget" BS and then somehow their followers don't notice when they spend spend spend, as much or more than the Dems.

Every...damn...time...

It seems the Republicans create deficits so they can complain about them when they aren't in power. Then they trot out the "THOSE weren't REAL conservatives" argument they've been using since Reagan (who practically tripled the national debt) was around.

 

[JasperL]

Spending does have to pay for itself, thats why its called spending. Now or later.

And I never said revenue doesnt matter.

You said deficits are caused by spending. They are also caused by unfunded tax cuts, as we saw after Reagan, and Bush.

I know the semantic game you're playing - no deficits if spending is zero - but that's nonsense. Congress through the budget makes deliberate decisions to tax AND spend, and so increases in deficits are 'caused' by budgets that increase spending without raising taxes, or budgets that cut taxes without corresponding spending cuts.