Manchin is Bad At Math

[longview]

yes, it does.

which means you are collecting less revenue, because......................math

No, if I collect 27% of, let's say $1,000, it brings in $270, but if the total grows to $1,300,
and you collect 22%, the amount collected is $286. it's math!

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No, if I collect 27% of, let's say $1,000, it brings in $270, but if the total grows to $1,300,
and you collect 22%, the amount collected is $286. it's math!

So all we need is 30% GDP growth! Great idea.

 

[longview]

So all we need is 30% GDP growth! Great idea.

Simply an example, but we do have very real GDP growth, and it has been ongoing for centuries.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Simply an example, but we do have very real GDP growth, and it has been ongoing for centuries.

Right. Normally 2-3%/year. The point being that you will never recoup lost tax revenues by lowering taxes.

Not that I think lower taxes are bad; I'm all for more deficit spending, and believe taxation should be used to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. But I couldn't let a bad mathematical argument stand without saying something.

 

[longview]

Right. Normally 2-3%/year. The point being that you will never recoup lost tax revenues by lowering taxes.

Not that I think lower taxes are bad; I'm all for more deficit spending, and believe taxation should be used to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. But I couldn't let a bad mathematical argument stand without saying something.

History says the US government has increased the annual revenue by an average of 8% per year,
and yes they do recoup the loss from the reduced rate in the form of higher overall total of taxable incomes.

 

[rahl]

No, if I collect 27% of, let's say $1,000, it brings in $270, but if the total grows to $1,300,
and you collect 22%, the amount collected is $286. it's math!

right, you collected less revenue at 22% than you would have at 27%. The laws of mathematics do not change, because you bought the right wing completely disproven supply side economic theory.

 

[longview]

right, you collected less revenue at 22% than you would have at 27%. The laws of mathematics do not change, because you bought the right wing completely disproven supply side economic theory.

If the total is growing, and it is, you can lower the rate and still collect more income.
Also it is not a right wing theory, as I have shown JFK used the same method to increase economic activity,
and generated greater federal income, as a consequence of cutting taxes.

 

[rahl]

History says the US government has increased the annual revenue by an average of 8% per year,
and yes they do recoup the loss from the reduced rate in the form of higher overall total of taxable incomes.

again, math doesn't care about your demonstrably false and firmly held ideological beliefs. If you reduce the rate at which you collect something, you will for a mathematical fact, collect less than you would have.

 

[rahl]

If the total is growing, and it is, you can lower the rate and still collect more income.

yes, you will collect less than you would have collected. Math.

Also it is not a right wing theory, as I have shown JFK used the same method to increase economic activity,

yes, supply side economics is right wing economic theory.

and generated greater federal income, as a consequence of cutting taxes.

No, it didn't.

 

[longview]

again, math doesn't care about your demonstrably false and firmly held ideological beliefs. If you reduce the rate at which you collect something, you will for a mathematical fact, collect less than you would have.

I cannot help you if you cannot understand that the amount being taxed is increasing with economic growth.
As the taxable amount gets larger, it takes a smaller percentage to keep the revenue the same.
If, as it has happened many times in the past, the growth exceeds the percentage cut, revenue actually increases.

 

[longview]

yes, you will collect less than you would have collected. Math.

yes, supply side economics is right wing economic theory.

No, it didn't.

If you want to argue that the federal revenues fell after the 1964 tax cut, you can, but you would be wrong about that also!

 

[rahl]

I cannot help you if you cannot understand that the amount being taxed is increasing with economic growth.

And I can not help that you can't understand basic 5th grade level math.

As the taxable amount gets larger, it takes a smaller percentage to keep the revenue the same.

And as a result of cutting rates, you collect less revenue.

If, as it has happened many times in the past, the growth exceeds the percentage cut, revenue actually increases.

yes, you collect less revenue that you should have, because you cut the rate at which you collect it.

 

[rahl]

If you want to argue that the federal revenues fell after the 1964 tax cut, you can, but you would be wrong about that also!

Again, math doesn't care that your ideology forces you to reject the laws of math and reality. If you collect something at a lower rate than you used to, you will as a matter of mathematical fact, collect less of that thing.

 

[longview]

And I can not help that you can't understand basic 5th grade level math.

And as a result of cutting rates, you collect less revenue.

yes, you collect less revenue that you should have, because you cut the rate at which you collect it.

Only if the total of what is being taxed remained the same, but because the economy is growing,
and cutting taxed stimulates even greater economic growth, the revenue actually increases.
This is not a theory, but has happened several times in our history.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

History says the US government has increased the annual revenue by an average of 8% per year,

Quite possibly true.

and yes they do recoup the loss from the reduced rate in the form of higher overall total of taxable incomes.

Mathematically impossible with 2-3% growth. What you are seeing is the result of not only higher national income (by 2-3%), but also increased payroll tax receipts, increased excise tax receipts, and increased corporate tax receipts, all the result of a growing economy. If income tax receipts somehow manage to increase with a 5% rate reduction, it's because it is being captured elsewhere, and that "5% reduction" isn't reflecting an apples-to-apples comparison. i.e. some groups get a reduction, while others get an increase.

 

[longview]

Again, math doesn't care that your ideology forces you to reject the laws of math and reality. If you collect something at a lower rate than you used to, you will as a matter of mathematical fact, collect less of that thing.

Have you heard the phrase, "A rising tide raises all boats"?
JFK said it related to the economy.

 

[rahl]

Only if the total of what is being taxed remained the same, but because the economy is growing,
and cutting taxed stimulates even greater economic growth, the revenue actually increases.

But we know cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy. It expands due to population, year over year, barring a recession. Which is why, we have collected less revenue every time we have cut taxes.

This is not a theory, but has happened several times in our history.

Nope. It's been a spectacular failure every single time it's been tried. We have decades of data showing you righties this, but you keep insisting that this time, it's gonna be different. All that happens is revenues are decreased and the deficit EXPLODES.

 

[longview]

Quite possibly true.


Mathematically impossible with 2-3% growth. What you are seeing is the result of not only higher national income (by 2-3%), but also increased payroll tax receipts, increased excise tax receipts, and increased corporate tax receipts, all the result of a growing economy. If income tax receipts somehow manage to increase with a 5% rate reduction, it's because it is being captured elsewhere, and that "5% reduction" isn't reflecting an apples-to-apples comparison. i.e. some groups get a reduction, while others get an increase.

Back in the 90's when all this data was not online, I looked at the Treasury bulletins going all the way back,
and loaded it into a quattro spreadsheet (dating when I did it). The average increase in Federal government income
would out to an 8% raise every year. not all years saw growth, but the long term average was 8%.
If you have never looked at the Treasury Bulletins, they are quite interesting.

 

[longview]

But we know cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy. It expands due to population, year over year, barring a recession. Which is why, we have collected less revenue every time we have cut taxes.

Nope. It's been a spectacular failure every single time it's been tried. We have decades of data showing you righties this, but you keep insisting that this time, it's gonna be different. All that happens is revenues are decreased and the deficit EXPLODES.

Sorry, you need a citation and a quote to support this statement,
Do you really think Federal revenues have fallen every time we cut taxes?

 

[rahl]

Sorry, you need a citation and a quote to support this statement,

I've given it to you. The laws of mathematics.

Do you really think Federal revenues have fallen every time we cut taxes?

strawman. I said we collected less revenue. Revenue increases year over year, every year, due to population growth, barring a recession.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Back in the 90's when all this data was not online, I looked at the Treasury bulletins going all the way back,
and loaded it into a quattro spreadsheet (dating when I did it). The average increase in Federal government income
would out to an 8% raise every year. not all years saw growth, but the long term average was 8%.
If you have never looked at the Treasury Bulletins, they are quite interesting.

I have them in a tab right now. Yes, revenues increase every year. But that doesn't change the fact that, apples-to-apples, you can't increase income tax receipts with a true 5% reduction across the board without massive growth. You did that math yourself in an earlier post. In real life, "tax reductions" are mostly illusory, giving breaks to some while enriching others, and making up lost revenues in other ways.

If you have a $20 trillion national income and give a true 5% income tax break, you are basically adding $1 trillion to potential demand (it won't all get spent, it never does). That's being as generous as possible - 5% off the top, actual taxes that otherwise would have been collected (again, this would never happen). IF it was ALL spent, that's a 5% increase in GDP/national income, plus the normal 2-3%. A hypothetical maximum of 8% growth, not even close to the near 30% you would need to recoup lost income tax revenues.

 

[longview]

I've given it to you. The laws of mathematics.

strawman. I said we collected less revenue. Revenue increases year over year, every year, due to population growth, barring a recession.

But you cannot demonstrate where tax cuts have actually caused the revenue to fall?

 

[longview]

I have them in a tab right now. Yes, revenues increase every year. But that doesn't change the fact that, apples-to-apples, you can't increase income tax receipts with a true 5% reduction across the board without massive growth. You did that math yourself in an earlier post. In real life, "tax reductions" are mostly illusory, giving breaks to some while enriching others, and making up lost revenues in other ways.

If you have a $20 trillion national income and give a true 5% income tax break, you are basically adding $1 trillion to potential demand (it won't all get spent, it never does). That's being as generous as possible - 5% off the top, actual taxes that otherwise would have been collected (again, this would never happen). IF it was ALL spent, that's a 5% increase in GDP/national income, plus the normal 2-3%. A hypothetical maximum of 8% growth, not even close to the near 30% you would need to recoup lost income tax revenues.

All I can tell you is that both democrats and Republicans have cut taxes as a way to increase revenue, and it has worked every time.
I realize there is also a law of diminishing returns as the rate gets close to zero, but I do not think we are there yet.
What we really need is for the government to not increase spending by more than their 8% annual raise.

 

[rahl]

But you cannot demonstrate where tax cuts have actually caused the revenue to fall?

because that is your strawman. I have no obligation to address the shit you make up and attribute to me. I have correctly pointed out, tax cuts reduce revenue. This is mathematical fact.

 

[rahl]

All I can tell you is that both democrats and Republicans have cut taxes as a way to increase revenue, and it has worked every time.

It has never once worked, because it is a mathematical impossibility.