T1B

How do tax cuts help the economy?

TIA

I'll be along in a little while with a follow up question (ain't that a suprise).

Increased income is a demand shifter. The demand curve shifts out, spurring an increase in buying activity. Dollars are recirculated, incomes are increased, government takes in more tax. When Reagan decreased the tax rates, the government actually took in more tax revenue due to the increased economic activity.

The danger is an increase in inflation from the demand shift.

not that damned retarded, I guess.

Mister Bushice wrote:not that damned retarded, I guess.

this nic started as a troll, but i quickly got out of character and used it as my main nic.

i've just been too lazy to make a "real" one.

funny thing is, it's started to grow on me.

Grover Norquist has been saying that we should pay for rebuilding NOLA by putting through another tax cut.

That should work.

I'll give the weekday republitards a chance to answer before I continue with my followup question.

Diego in Seattle wrote:I'll give the weekday republitards a chance to answer before I continue with my followup question.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but nobody gives a fuck about any question from you.

Some Damn Retard wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:I'll give the weekday republitards a chance to answer before I continue with my followup question.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but nobody gives a fuck about any question from you.

Rack!

Tax cuts, like statistics, can be argued from both sides with a certain amount of validity to the argument. Either you believe in them or you don't and pretty much everyone already has their mind made up. So don't bother with your Air America-fed "follow-up" response on why tax cuts are evil.

Lost economic opportunities, Diego. Government taxes and regulations distort the economy by forcing individuals/businesses to make irrational economic decisions to either avoid taxes/regulation or to take advantage of tax cuts/regulations.

Some Damn Retard is simply explaining the Laffer Curve. It's an efficiency argument essentially that explains how high tax rates will result in lower tax collection as taxpayers seek to avoid taxes or how tax collections will expand as tax rates are reduced. Clinton's 97 cap gains reduction is a good example as are Bush's 2003 tax cuts, both generating net tax revenue increases despite lowering the tax rate.

No one will be surprised to hear that your next question will seek to explain why tax cuts are evil or otherwise an economic negative.

However, we all know that increased taxes simply takes money from individuals/businesses that would otherwise have either spent those $$ on consumption or saved/invested those dollars, both behavior that spur economic activity more efficiently than the government taking a $, charging x% administration fee, and then redistributing those dollars to individuals/businesses.

Even assuming that the Laffer Curve is a valid theory, those who argue that lower taxes always result in higher revenue obviously either don't understand it or are simply dishonest.

The Laffer Curve is a valid theory. Why would you argue otherwise?

The Laffer Curve does not argue that lower taxes will always result in higher revenue. You know this right?

I don't get your response, Mikey. What's your point? Was anyone arguing the extremes in the first place?

Mikey wrote:Even assuming that the Laffer Curve is a valid theory, those who argue that lower taxes always result in higher revenue obviously either don't understand it or are simply dishonest.

You could also argue that those who insist that increased taxes are the answer to overspending, fraud, waste and abuse are either stupid or simply naive.

Variable wrote:

Mikey wrote:Even assuming that the Laffer Curve is a valid theory, those who argue that lower taxes always result in higher revenue obviously either don't understand it or are simply dishonest.

You could also argue that those who insist that increased taxes are the answer to overspending, fraud, waste and abuse are either stupid or simply naive.

This is why I don't get his point. What is he actually trying to say?

He seemingly wants to question whether the Laffer Curve is a valid theory despite the fact that we have two recent examples validating it (those noted in my prior post).

Then he goes to the "extremes" card when no one was arguing out on the extreme edges.

Don't really get it either.

To me taxes and what rate I deem acceptable are all about return on investment. I think this is where many libs are naive. Their assumption that higher rates of taxation is a viable solution to problems is based on the assumption that the money will not be spent wastefully, when in fact we all know that gov't spending programs are devoid of structure, fiscal responsibility and sense. Knowing this, I don't want to be taxed at a higher rate (and think that a tax cut is good) because I know that they already waste a substantial portion of the money that I give them ($250 mil bridge in AK, etc).

Variable wrote:

Mikey wrote:Even assuming that the Laffer Curve is a valid theory, those who argue that lower taxes always result in higher revenue obviously either don't understand it or are simply dishonest.

You could also argue that those who insist that increased taxes are the answer to overspending, fraud, waste and abuse are either stupid or simply naive.

Which party is working to combat waste, fraud, abuse and overspending? I lost track.

TIA

Only one argues that raising taxes is the way to combat it...

DrDetroit wrote:The Laffer Curve is a valid theory. Why would you argue otherwise?

I didn't. Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my posts?

The Laffer Curve does not argue that lower taxes will always result in higher revenue. You know this right?

Obviously. That's why I put "assuming that it is valid" at the front of my post.

I don't get your response, Mikey. What's your point? Was anyone arguing the extremes in the first place?

The hero of all you "borrow and spend" so-called conservatives, Grover Norquist.

Variable wrote:Only one argues that raising taxes is the way to combat it...

And the other argues that borrowing more is the way to combat it.

Let me know when you get to the bottom of this riddle.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/ ... index.html


This is disconcerting. Unprecedented and disconcerting.

I suppose lowering taxes is perfect to stimulate an economy, when you're not spending shitloads of money.

But borrowing money to lower taxes ? Is there some sort of "long term" plan to have the 1%'ers pay these countries back ? With their new found profit and such ?


Needless to say, I'm concerned.

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:Only one argues that raising taxes is the way to combat it...

And the other argues that borrowing more is the way to combat it.

Some do, yes. But that's no solution either.

BSmack wrote:Let me know when you get to the bottom of this riddle.

Less riddles there. The solution is cuts to pork and gov't programs, not tax increases or borrowing. CA's problem with this is as bad or worse than the fed gov't. How hard is it to figure out that you can't spend more than you take in?

Mikey, I believe I was being reasonable with you.

I didn't. Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my posts?

Uh, but you did.

Obviously. That's why I put "assuming that it is valid" at the front of my post.

Uh, that's not clear in your post where you start off presumably suggesting that the validity of the Laffer Curve is questionable and then making a point about people who make an argument that is different from those using the Laffer Curve.

The hero of all you "borrow and spend" so-called conservatives, Grover Norquist.

Link?

Besides what you are arguing against is not the central point or theme of the Laffer Curve theory.

I'm being quite reasonable with you, Mikey. I just didn't get your initial post.

How hard is it to figure out that you can't spend more than you take in?

Apparently, it's very hard to figure that out.


If what Clinton is saying is true, then we're borrowing money from foreign countries to "spend more than we're taking in".

Like I said, is the long term plan to have the generation of wealth and income resulting from "tax cuts" pay for this ? And will the 1% he refers to pay for this with their new found profit and such ?


Or are the "powers that be" writing off the geographic republic, broadening it to include the rest of the world, and creating "pockets" of third world living, that will be easily squashed with the bending of the Posse Comitatus Act ?


Food for thought.

So tax cuts help the economy by allowing citizens to spend more & buy more products?

That would appear to be one of the factors.

Diego in Seattle wrote:I'll give the weekday republitards a chance to answer before I continue with my followup question.

Are you going to bring the day crew or cross dressing sailors from Lips with you when you return?

Diego in Seattle wrote:So tax cuts help the economy by allowing citizens to spend more & buy more products?

Obviously.

That and much more.

But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your inane ranting.

Diego in Seattle wrote:So tax cuts help the economy by allowing citizens to spend more & buy more products?

1) That's what you concluded from the responses?

2) You must be driving towards some criticism of tax cuts focused on the argument that tax cuts spur consumption.

Seriously, Diego, what's your point?

So if citizens spending more money is the key to invigorating the economy, why is Bush trying to exempt workers in N.O. from getting the prevailing wage? With that extra income they could be buying more (and thus growing the economy).

Once again repugnantcans prove that they're of the belief that only the money of the wealthy (through tax cuts) can spur the economy. If they truely believed that consumer spending grows the economy they wouldn't be preventing the middle & poor working classes from participating in the growth. It's really about living up to their party name: Governors Of Privilege.

And here goes Diego. I seriously think he is plagiarizing someone's work now. He totally ignored the responses to his question to plow ahead with this:

So if citizens spending more money is the key to invigorating the economy,

Who argued that it was the key?

why is Bush trying to exempt workers in N.O. from getting the prevailing wage? With that extra income they could be buying more (and thus growing the economy).

And there we have it, the hijacked idea.

Nice work, Diego. You could have simply asked up front how suspending the Davis-Bacon Act would help the economy if it was assumed that the key to invigorating the economy was consumer spending.

:roll:

1) Bush did not suspend Davis-Bacon to invigorate the national economy.
2) Bush is not considering reducing taxes in order to pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans.
3) The reconstruction of New Orleans is not being considered as part of a larger national economic development project.

So, Diego, who did you hijack this idea from? Or are you just this stupid?

So Diego's whole thread was to set up a few bowling pins Waits and waits, then when enough pins are perfectly set up, he times it perfectly, conditions couldn't be better .....


He throws a gutter ball bwahahahahahahaha


Say Diego, do some research on how much SACRIFICE is occurring to rebuild N.O. Even your nemesis "The Corporate" world is sacrificing. Hell I heard a few Airlines one, Independence Air, about to go bankrupt was kicking in free flights and all that shit.

Way to politicize a tragedy.

Yeah, that's what it looks like, Tom.

Oh, I don't think this is about politicizing a tragic event. Diego just happened to hear part of an argument that he thought sounded good and decided to run with it here.

He probably heard some chump damning the suspension of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law during the reconstruction and trying to link it to Republican's arguments for lower taxes to expand economic growth.

It's too bad for Diego that he simply doesn't understand the economic model that conservatives have advocated for decades now. Otherwise, he would have recognized that whoever he was listening to was not smart enough to realize that suspension of the Davis-Bacon requirements apply only to NOLA and that the administration did not tie reconstruction there to larger national economic growth.

This is what happens when you simply do not know what you're talking about.