- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/26/17 at 7:57 pm to a want
How could he know that when no details have been released?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 7:58 pm to a want
The last two major income tax rate reductions were in the 1960s and 1980s. Here are the results of those cuts and their effect on revenue collection.
Federal revenue in 1960 = $92.5
Federal revenue in 1968 = $153.0
Over a 50% increase in revenue!
Federal revenue in 1980 = $517.5
Federal revenue in 1989 = $909.0
Over a 70% increase in revenue!
So the facts show that cutting taxes in the 60's and 80's increased federal tax revenue.
Now you know the truth.
Federal revenue in 1960 = $92.5
Federal revenue in 1968 = $153.0
Over a 50% increase in revenue!
Federal revenue in 1980 = $517.5
Federal revenue in 1989 = $909.0
Over a 70% increase in revenue!
So the facts show that cutting taxes in the 60's and 80's increased federal tax revenue.
Now you know the truth.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 7:59 pm to a want
quote:
They are the best political paper on the planet.
This is gold. Further proof that you are uninformed and biased beyond hope.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:02 pm to dr smartass phd
quote:
So the facts show that cutting taxes in the 60's and 80's increased federal tax revenue.
More recent examples (Bush tax cuts and Kansas) don't.
Yes, sometimes cutting taxes increases revenue. Sometimes it doesn't. It's not guaranteed to do so.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:03 pm to CaptChandler
quote:
This is gold. Further proof that you are uninformed and biased beyond hope.
Please share your goto source for politics.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Not editorial-wise.
Agree. I like NYT editorial section better. By a lot.
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:04 pm to Sentrius
Can you provide a link to that excerpt? The Washington Post article seems to suggest that dynamic scoring was used, not static. Static models have grown significantly less popular, particularly since the rise of DSGE macro modeling. So I have a very difficult time believing that the CBO's primary model would be a static one. Though I guess they are the government, so lagging behind the times wouldn't be a huge surprise.
In either case, please link. Thanks
In either case, please link. Thanks
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:05 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Has the CBO ever been correct?
About as often as a want's copy and pasting arse
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:05 pm to a want
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:06 pm to dr smartass phd
Why ignore that there were a few major tax increases passed after 1980 because the initial cut ballooned the deficit.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:06 pm to a want
quote:
So you don't care about the national debt or budget deficit?
See Trump's latest budget. He didn't cut spending. So that pretty much just leaves revenue.
Its not even like this is all that hard. Its intermediate math and historical evidence.
If you don't add much new revenue, less then is taken away in tax cuts, while cutting trillions in the form of tax cuts, the deficit will be negative, the debt will rise.
Growth can offset some of that, but you are talking about a big jump in growth to achieve that.
Making it worse Trump wants to increase defense spending and build a wall.
quote:
While well-designed tax cuts can promote economic growth that leads to more revenue, there is no realistic scenario that this “dynamic revenue” will be as large as the initial tax cut. In order for a tax cut to pay for itself, it would need to grow the economy about $4 to $6 for every dollar of revenue loss. There is no historical case of a tax cut achieving this goal.
LINK
I'm all for tax reform, it is sorely needed, but just cutting taxes and creating a much more unstable system is just reckless governance.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:10 pm to a want
Obama increased the National Debt by nearly $10 trillion, and NOW these dickheads act like they care about debt?
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:16 pm to LSUAlum2001
Is your argument Obama did it so it's ok? Because I've heard from several trump supporters that Obama is the worst ever....so are you going for a tie?
Also, Obamas deficits were lower than W's. FYI.
Also, Obamas deficits were lower than W's. FYI.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:17 pm to funnystuff
quote:
Can you provide a link to that excerpt? The Washington Post article clearly states that dynamic scoring was used, not static. Static models have grown significantly less popular, particularly since the rise of DSGE macro modeling. So I have a very difficult time believing that the CBO's primary model would be a static one. Though I guess they are the government, so lagging behind the times wouldn't be a huge surprise.
Just in general it is pretty well established that tax cuts do tend to drive growth, but not enough to offset huge cuts.
It sounds like they are pre-empting the criticism they know is coming and nothing more.
Mnuchin thinks we are going to operate an average of 3-4% growth each year.
LINK
According to the Committee for a Responsible Budget, The economy will need to produce sustained 4.5% growth for ten years to pay for this. Something this country hasn't achieved since the 60's.
LINK
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:17 pm to a want
Why do you now care about the national debt?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:18 pm to a want
No.
Because they honestly have no idea how this plan will work in the end. Every expert runs their statistical models and just knows it won't work, when they haven't been correct. Ever.
Because they honestly have no idea how this plan will work in the end. Every expert runs their statistical models and just knows it won't work, when they haven't been correct. Ever.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:19 pm to a want
quote:
Also, Obamas deficits were lower than W's. FYI.
Obama's lowest deficit was still nearly 50 billion dollars higher than W's highest.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:21 pm to a want
The former director of the CBO!?!? THE CBO!?!?
Woah.
They are always really accurate.
He must be right!
Wtf? I loooooove giving the gov my money now!
Woah.
They are always really accurate.
He must be right!
Wtf? I loooooove giving the gov my money now!
Posted on 4/26/17 at 8:21 pm to a want
quote:Obama racked up 10,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and NOW you worried about a plan to grow the economy???
So you don't care about the national debt or budget deficit?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News