- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 69,443
- Reaction score
- 53,855
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This is almost as bad as righties are at math. They think of you cut taxes (revenue) you get more revenue lol.
Welllll.... his math makes more sense than the cut taxes on corporations and the 1% will end the red ink in our lifetime...Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin have a deal to raise taxes, cut the deficit, spend money on climate change
The slimmed-down version of Build Back Better reportedly hikes taxes by over $730 billion, with $300 billion of that money to e used for reducing the federal budget deficit.reason.com
For evidence, he thinks raising taxes and spending 370bn on climate change will pay off 30 trillion in debt. Even if they got 700bn in revenue, 300bn after spending wouldnt do much to the trillion dollar deficit which doubles in the next 10 years under current law. He also wants to spend EVEN more on healthcare via subsidies. And all this during recession and inflation with ever shrinking labor force. Its insanity.
and yet the red ink continued to run deep red...Sorry, it does not work that way if the total is expanding!
If the economy is increasing, you can cut the percentage, and maintain the same income.
Welllll.... his math makes more sense than the cut taxes on corporations and the 1% will end the red ink in our lifetime...
Not at all, the justification for cutting the taxes for the already well off was it would reduce the deficit. It in fact didn't, it worsened.Strawman. Though revenue HAS doubled in the last 15 years.
Republicans spending is out of control and continues to add to the over $30 Trillion debt. Republicans are RINO'S and fake conservatives. Look at all the tax payer scam money in the "Paycheck Protection Program" SCAMChuck Schumer and Joe Manchin have a deal to raise taxes, cut the deficit, spend money on climate change
The slimmed-down version of Build Back Better reportedly hikes taxes by over $730 billion, with $300 billion of that money to e used for reducing the federal budget deficit.reason.com
For evidence, he thinks raising taxes and spending 370bn on climate change will pay off 30 trillion in debt. Even if they got 700bn in revenue, 300bn after spending wouldnt do much to the trillion dollar deficit which doubles in the next 10 years under current law. He also wants to spend EVEN more on healthcare via subsidies. And all this during recession and inflation with ever shrinking labor force. Its insanity.
That makes Republicans even bigger wasteful spenders if their tax cuts brought in more revenue they spent more money because the Federal Debt rose.Strawman. Though revenue HAS doubled in the last 15 years.
Not at all, the justification for cutting the taxes for the already well off was it would reduce the deficit. It in fact didn't, it worsened.
I'm sure you have a reliable source to back your claim...
Republicans spending is out of control and continues to add to the over $30 Trillion debt. Republicans are RINO'S and fake conservatives. Look at all the tax payer scam money in the "Paycheck Protection Program" SCAM
Republicans voted against transparency the "Truth Act H.R 6782 to keep voters from knowing about the scam.
Ah yes, the 'there are only two factors in this' charts....Yeah, history. https://www.cbo.gov/data/budget-economic-data#2
View attachment 67404993
As for "cut taxes on corporations and the 1% will end the red ink" i assume you have a reliable source to back up your claim. The deficit rose because of spending, not taxes. Nothing has changed.
View attachment 67404994
You should say as interest rates fell; revenue went up...
Ah yes, ignore the tax cut/increased revenue is a false narrative. I could say free fed money increases revenue. The issue is far more complex than giving the very rich and major corporations more tax cuts is good for 'Merica...Ah yes, the "there are only two factors" ...
The issue is far more complex
You keep trying to move the issue I commented on-I have to say, its pretty maddening that you keep criticizing your own argument.
"Welllll.... his math makes more sense than the cut taxes on corporations and the 1% will end the red ink in our lifetime..."
You keep trying to move the issue I commented on-
Tax cuts alone didn't increase revenue- The Fed giving major financial institutions 'free' money to give to major corporations and fund managers was a YUGE factor in increased revenue...
Not commenting on anything more than that...
Sorry, it does not work that way if the total is expanding!
If the economy is increasing, you can cut the percentage, and maintain the same income.
Yes different scales can affect the results.That is not taking inflation into account. If (when?) Social Security benefits increase by 10% next year while FICA tax revenue goes up by (at most) 5% next year then what happens?
Total different situation. At the time, taxes were so high (to pay off the war debt), that it was slowing the velocity of money in the economy.You mean like the way JFK did?
Revenue Act of 1964
Allowing people to spend more of their own money, usually means they just that spend the extra, I think it always applesTotal different situation. At the time, taxes were so high (to pay off the war debt), that it was slowing the velocity of money in the economy.
Yes different scales can affect the results.
I wonder how all the higher wages will effect the FICA revenues?
If that is the case, then why not just tax less than 1%, if lower taxes always equals more revenue?Allowing people to spend more of their own money, usually means they just that spend the extra, I think it always apples
Government has a real cost that must be covered, that said the people in charge of the peoples money should be as thrifty as possible, that has not been happening!If that is the case, then why not just tax less than 1%, if lower taxes always equals more revenue?
That isn't the question. There is no doubt that taxes can be high enough to put a drag on economic growth and thus lower revenues relative to where they would be otherwise.Government has a real cost that must be covered, that said the people in charge of the peoples money should be as thrifty as possible, that has not been happening!
basedChuck Schumer and Joe Manchin have a deal to raise taxes, cut the deficit, spend money on climate change
The slimmed-down version of Build Back Better reportedly hikes taxes by over $730 billion, with $300 billion of that money to e used for reducing the federal budget deficit.reason.com
For evidence, he thinks raising taxes and spending 370bn on climate change will pay off 30 trillion in debt. Even if they got 700bn in revenue, 300bn after spending wouldnt do much to the trillion dollar deficit which doubles in the next 10 years under current law. He also wants to spend EVEN more on healthcare via subsidies. And all this during recession and inflation with ever shrinking labor force. Its insanity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?