Manchin is Bad At Math

[longview]

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.

You cannot demonstrate via actual data that what you are stating is correct.
Revenues have increased after almost every tax cut, if not in the fist year, then in the next few years.
Both Democrats and Republicans have used this method to increase revenue tot he government,
and also stimulate the economy.

 

[rahl]

You cannot demonstrate via actual data that what you are stating is correct.

I can, and have. The laws of mathematics.

Revenues have increased after almost every tax cut, if not in the fist year, then in the next few years.

Yes, we collect less revenue than we otherwise would have. Revenues increase year over year because of population growth, every year, barring a recession.

Both Democrats and Republicans have used this method to increase revenue tot he government,

It's is a mathematical impossibility.

and also stimulate the economy.

In a recession, tax cuts to the middle and lower class will have a short term (usually 1 or 2 quarters worth) of stimulus. That's it. Math doesn't change. You collect less revenue, when you cut the rate at which you collect it.

 

[longview]

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

Here is a table of Federal revenue 1934 to 2019 US Budget, Receipts by Source: 1934-2019
let look at JFK's 1964 tax cut?
1963 $588,567 Million
1964 $612,593 Million
1965 $624,022 Million
1966 $679,804 Million
Hum, where was the drop in revenue from the 1964 tax cut?
We see a decline during the 3 years of the Regan tax cuts, but by 1985 revenue was above the 1981 level.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You cannot demonstrate via actual data that what you are stating is correct.
Revenues have increased after almost every tax cut, if not in the fist year, then in the next few years.
Both Democrats and Republicans have used this method to increase revenue tot he government,
and also stimulate the economy.

Likewise, you cannot demonstrate that those tax cuts were the reason for increased revenues (which increase every year, tax laws don't seem to make much of a difference). At least we have a mathematical argument.

I'm all for tax cuts, if they are cut for the lower end. Those tax cuts do stimulate the economy, because poor people spend most or all of their money. Tax cuts for businesses do little, because they are only taxed on net profits. And tax cuts for the rich do little, because they save most of that money. Investment doesn't increase unless there is enough demand to justify it, so taxes don't really come into play there.

 

[longview]

I can, and have. The laws of mathematics.

Yes, we collect less revenue than we otherwise would have. Revenues increase year over year because of population growth, every year, barring a recession.

It's is a mathematical impossibility.

In a recession, tax cuts to the middle and lower class will have a short term (usually 1 or 2 quarters worth) of stimulus. That's it. Math doesn't change. You collect less revenue, when you cut the rate at which you collect it.

Actually you have not cited any thing to support your opinion.

 

[rahl]

Here is a table of Federal revenue 1934 to 2019 US Budget, Receipts by Source: 1934-2019
let look at JFK's 1964 tax cut?
1963 $588,567 Million
1964 $612,593 Million
1965 $624,022 Million
1966 $679,804 Million
Hum, where was the drop in revenue from the 1964 tax cut?

strawman. I correctly pointed out we collected less revenue, not negative revenue.

We see a decline during the 3 years of the Regan tax cuts, but by 1985 revenue was above the 1981 level.

yep, we collected less revenue under reagan too. Just like we have every single time it's been done.

 

[rahl]

Actually you have not cited any thing to support your opinion.

Basic addition and subtraction. The laws of mathematics.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Here is a table of Federal revenue 1934 to 2019 US Budget, Receipts by Source: 1934-2019
let look at JFK's 1964 tax cut?
1963 $588,567 Million
1964 $612,593 Million
1965 $624,022 Million
1966 $679,804 Million
Hum, where was the drop in revenue from the 1964 tax cut?
We see a decline during the 3 years of the Regan tax cuts, but by 1985 revenue was above the 1981 level.

Reagan stimulated the economy by massively increasing deficit spending. There is no evidence that his tax cuts did anything but make the rich richer.

 

[longview]

Likewise, you cannot demonstrate that those tax cuts were the reason for increased revenues (which increase every year, tax laws don't seem to make much of a difference). At least we have a mathematical argument.

I'm all for tax cuts, if they are cut for the lower end. Those tax cuts do stimulate the economy, because poor people spend most or all of their money. Tax cuts for businesses do little, because they are only taxed on net profits. And tax cuts for the rich do little, because they save most of that money. Investment doesn't increase unless there is enough demand to justify it, so taxes don't really come into play there.

True enough, but when revenues increase after a tax cute several time in the last 60 years,
it starts to look like a real pattern.

 

[longview]

Reagan stimulated the economy by massively increasing deficit spending. There is no evidence that his tax cuts did anything but make the rich richer.

The low end tax rates were decreased also, but the economy was booming.
I also think the money spent to outspend the USSR, had a lot to do with it.

 

[longview]

Basic addition and subtraction. The laws of mathematics.

That only work with fixed amounts, the value of the taxable amount is almost always increasing.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

True enough, but when revenues increase after a tax cute several time in the last 60 years,
it starts to look like a real pattern.

If you can demonstrate a reversal of falling tax receipts, or a large jump in tax receipts, that would be (circumstantial) evidence of tax cuts increasing revenues. But, as you pointed out, tax revenues increase almost every year, tax cuts or no tax cuts, and that is the baseline you are working with.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The low end tax rates were decreased also, but the economy was booming.
I also think the money spent to outspend the USSR, had a lot to do with it.

Defense spending had a lot to do with the economy doing well. Deficit spending directly adds to GDP.

 

[longview]

If you can demonstrate a reversal of falling tax receipts, or a large jump in tax receipts, that would be (circumstantial) evidence of tax cuts increasing revenues. But, as you pointed out, tax revenues increase almost every year, tax cuts or no tax cuts, and that is the baseline you are working with.

Agreed! there is almost no way to verify that the rate of economic expansion increases with a tax cut,
but it looks like it has worked in the past.

 

[longview]

Defense spending had a lot to do with the economy doing well. Deficit spending directly adds to GDP.

I think it would be difficult to measure the value add to earth from the collapse of the USSR.

 

[rahl]

That only work with fixed amounts, the value of the taxable amount is almost always increasing.

yes, because of population growth and inflation. We've been over all of this already. Tax cuts do not magically spur economic activity. We know this empirically. We have decades of data showing this. So, as a result, we know mathematically that when you reduce the rate at which you collect something, you will as a matter of mathematical fact, collect less of it.

 

[longview]

yes, because of population growth and inflation. We've been over all of this already. Tax cuts do not magically spur economic activity. We know this empirically. We have decades of data showing this. So, as a result, we know mathematically that when you reduce the rate at which you collect something, you will as a matter of mathematical fact, collect less of it.

You cannot demonstrate what you believe is true, what it really means is that it is far more complex,
but what we do have, are several times in history where taxes were cut to stimulate the economy and increase revenues,
and in fact the economy was stimulated, and revenues increased, while you have not been able to show a time where
taxes were cut and the economy declined.

 

[rahl]

You cannot demonstrate what you believe is true, what it really means is that it is far more complex,

I have repeatedly done so. The laws of math do not change because it conflicts with your ideology.

but what we do have, are several times in history where taxes were cut to stimulate the economy and increase revenues,

Nope. We have tax cuts which caused the deficit to increase. Revenues did not increase, because it's not a mathematical possibility. Revenues increase year over year, every year, due to population growth and inflation. Barring a recession, this is always true.

and in fact the economy was stimulated, and revenues increased, while you have not been able to show a time where
taxes were cut and the economy declined.

Because this is a strawman. I never said, at any point, that the economy declined because we cut revenues. I correctly pointed out that tax cuts, if they go to the middle and lower class (the actual drivers of economic activity) will provide a short term economic stimulus, usually 1 or 2 quarters. It is one of the levers at the govn't disposal in times of a recession. The problem we have now, is that the sheer economic and fiscal stupidity of the right, who cuts taxes in GOOD economic times, has diminished our ability to respond in the event of a recession.

 

[longview]

I have repeatedly done so. The laws of math do not change because it conflicts with your ideology.

Nope. We have tax cuts which caused the deficit to increase. Revenues did not increase, because it's not a mathematical possibility. Revenues increase year over year, every year, due to population growth and inflation. Barring a recession, this is always true.

Because this is a strawman. I never said, at any point, that the economy declined because we cut revenues. I correctly pointed out that tax cuts, if they go to the middle and lower class (the actual drivers of economic activity) will provide a short term economic stimulus, usually 1 or 2 quarters. It is one of the levers at the govn't disposal in times of a recession. The problem we have now, is that the sheer economic and fiscal stupidity of the right, who cuts taxes in GOOD economic times, has diminished our ability to respond in the event of a recession.

You said revenues declined because the taxes were cut, show where that actually happened, that the drop in revenue
could not have other causes?

 

[rahl]

You said revenues declined because the taxes were cut, show where that actually happened, that the drop in revenue

this is a strawman. I have not said revenues DROPPED. I said we collected less revenue.

could not have other causes?

I don't understand this question? I can not dumb this down any further for you.

 

[longview]

this is a strawman. I have not said revenues DROPPED. I said we collected less revenue.

I don't understand this question? I can not dumb this down any further for you.

Have a good day, we are clearly not going to change each other's mind on this topic.

 

[rahl]

Have a good day, we are clearly not going to change each other's mind on this topic.

Hopefully you will one day learn to accept reality, and the basic laws of mathematics, and reject your ideological blindness to both.

 

[longview]

Hopefully you will one day learn to accept reality, and the basic laws of mathematics, and reject your ideological blindness to both.

Back at you!

 

[rahl]

Back at you!

I've shown you the laws of mathematics, as well as the reality of the US economy, GDP and revenue growth. It is not debatable, that reducing the rate at which you collect revenues, results in less revenue. It's a mathematical fact.

 

[jonny5]

Some more bad math.

One version of the PACT toxic chems act increases spending by 200bn. So there goes any deficit reduction from this 'anti-inflation' bill's tax increases. The hypothetical revenue have already been spent on 10 different things.