Manchin is Bad At Math

[george48]

Larry Summers is pretty good at math and he is the one who proved to Manchin this was not inflationary. Pretty sure nobody said this bill would pay off the deficit. Reducing prescription drug prices is definitely anti-inflationary and should have been done years ago.

but requires nuance...

 

[rahl]

Allowing people to spend more of their own money, usually means they just that spend the extra, I think it always apples

We know it doesn’t. When you collect something at a rate of 28%, and then decide to collect it at 22%, you will be collecting 6% less revenue than you would have because………..math

 

[longview]

We know it doesn’t. When you collect something at a rate of 28%, and then decide to collect it at 22%, you will be collecting 6% less revenue than you would have because………..math

Again, only if the amount is fixed, which it is!

 

[rahl]

Again, only if the amount is fixed, which it is!

Yes, it is. There is no magic bump in economic output when you lower taxes. We have decades of data showing you that. It’s why whenever you guys cut taxes, we end up with less revenue and exploding deficits.

 

[longview]

Yes, it is. There is no magic bump in economic output when you lower taxes. We have decades of data showing you that. It’s why whenever you guys cut taxes, we end up with less revenue and exploding deficits.

You are still looking at a percentage of a fixed amount.
It is even worse, because the personal income tax is graduated.
Look we are not going to agree on this, and have no control over the choices the elected officials make.
Have a good day!

 

[jonny5]

Barely passed the Senate. VP had to break the tie. I assume itll easily pass the house. Good news is we hopefully only a couple more month before you have a chance to fire the dems and put someone in who will obstruct their tax and spend ways.

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 2nd Session

www.senate.gov

 

[jonny5]

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-08/Honorable%20Chuck%20Schumer.pdf

This updated CBO estimate seems to say that there is ZERO deficit reduction in this bill. In fact, they say it increases the deficit. And yet, Manchin still voted for it.

So, it

-increases inflation
-reduces GDP
-increases spending
-increases debt
-increases taxes

for which they claim you get

-cheaper drugs for seniors
-cheaper electricity
-saves the world from climate change

 

[rahl]

You are still looking at a percentage of a fixed amount.

yea, that's how math works.

It is even worse, because the personal income tax is graduated.
Look we are not going to agree on this, and have no control over the choices the elected officials make.

There isn't anything to agree on. Math doesn't care about your ideology. We know for a mathematical fact, that when you collect something at 22% instead of 28%, you collect 6% less. We know there is no magic bump in economic output when you cut taxes like that. We have decades of data showing you this.

Have a good day!

You as well.

 

[longview]

yea, that's how math works.

There isn't anything to agree on. Math doesn't care about your ideology. We know for a mathematical fact, that when you collect something at 22% instead of 28%, you collect 6% less. We know there is no magic bump in economic output when you cut taxes like that. We have decades of data showing you this.

You as well.

I think there is something you should understand about tax brackets.
Historical U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021
If we look back between 2017 and 2018, we see,
So you are talking about the $18K to $75K bracket dropping for 25% to 22%.
So we are talking about a 3% cute not a 6% cut, and at a time that household income was increasing.
The government is like the house at a casino, the house always wins in the long run.

 

[rahl]

I think there is something you should understand about tax brackets.
Historical U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021
If we look back between 2017 and 2018, we see,
So you are talking about the $18K to $75K bracket dropping for 25% to 22%.
So we are talking about a 3% cute not a 6% cut, and at a time that household income was increasing.
The government is like the house at a casino, the house always wins in the long run.

I wasn't using the actual figure. I'm using an example to try and help you to understand basic math. We know for a mathematical certainty, that when we cut the rate at which we collect something, we will always collect less of that something. It's not remotely debatable. It's established mathematical fact.

 

[longview]

I wasn't using the actual figure. I'm using an example to try and help you to understand basic math. We know for a mathematical certainty, that when we cut the rate at which we collect something, we will always collect less of that something. It's not remotely debatable. It's established mathematical fact.

Again that ONLY works, if the total that one is taking a percentage of is the same in both conditions, and it is not!

 

[rahl]

Again that ONLY works, if the total that one is taking a percentage of is the same in both conditions, and it is not!

of course it is. We know that economic output does not magically increase when we cut taxes. We have decades worth of data showing you that. So again, when you cut the rate at which you collet something, you will for a mathematical fact, collect less. It's not debatable.

 

[longview]

of course it is. We know that economic output does not magically increase when we cut taxes. We have decades worth of data showing you that. So again, when you cut the rate at which you collet something, you will for a mathematical fact, collect less. It's not debatable.

25% of $100,000 is $25,000, but 22% of $113,637 is still $25,000.
If what you are taking a percentage of is increasing, you do not need as high a percentage to get the same dollar amount.

 

[rahl]

25% of $100,000 is $25,000, but 22% of $113,637 is still $25,000.

right, you just demonstrated how you collected less. Well done.

If what you are taking a percentage of is increasing, you do not need as high a percentage to get the same dollar amount.

which means you are collecting less. Very good.

 

[longview]

right, you just demonstrated how you collected less. Well done.

which means you are collecting less. Very good.

Again, if the taxable amount is growing, and it is, then a cut in the percentage, rate,
does not mean the government is taking in less. The Government income could still be increasing
while the percentage of taxable income is decreasing.
Keep in mind that over the long term (200+years) the federal government has averaged
an 8% raise per year.

 

[rahl]

Again, if the taxable amount is growing, and it is, then a cut in the percentage, rate,
does not mean the government is taking in less.

You literally showed that it does, in the above post lol.

The Government income could still be increasing
while the percentage of taxable income is decreasing.

Which means you are collecting less.

Keep in mind that over the long term (200+years) the federal government has averaged
an 8% raise per year.

yep. population growth and inflation.

Meanwhile, as I have proven, and you have also proven, the laws of mathematics remain. If you collect something at 28%, then reduce that rate to 22%, you will collect 6% less. This is not debatable.

 

[longview]

You literally showed that it does, in the above post lol.

Which means you are collecting less.

yep. population growth and inflation.

Meanwhile, as I have proven, and you have also proven, the laws of mathematics remain. If you collect something at 28%, then reduce that rate to 22%, you will collect 6% less. This is not debatable.

Have a good day!

 

[bubbabgone]

You literally showed that it does, in the above post lol.

Which means you are collecting less.

yep. population growth and inflation.

Meanwhile, as I have proven, and you have also proven, the laws of mathematics remain. If you collect something at 28%, then reduce that rate to 22%, you will collect 6% less. This is not debatable.

What would happen to that 6% that's kept by the taxpayer compared to that 6% after the IRS takes it?

 

[rahl]

What would happen to that 6% that's kept by the taxpayer compared to that 6% after the IRS takes it?

not relevant to anything being discussed.

 

[iguanaman]

The deficit grows because the Government spends more money than they take in,
and the problem is not just a Republican problem.

But it is a Republican staple. Remember "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"? Then there is the fact that no Republican President has left office with the deficit lower than when he came in. That cannot be coincidence.

 

[iguanaman]

What would happen to that 6% that's kept by the taxpayer compared to that 6% after the IRS takes it?

If that taxpayer was one of the 1% it would go into hedge funds that bid up the prices of commodities we all use.

 

[KLATTU]

Yes, it is. There is no magic bump in economic output when you lower taxes. We have decades of data showing you that. It’s why whenever you guys cut taxes, we end up with less revenue and exploding deficits.

that's a risible lie. Bush cut taxes. At first revenues dipped, predictably as tax cuts don't have an immediate impact. Then they began to rise, and by 2008 the deficit would probably have been gone, if not for the big recession, which of course had nothing to do with tax cuts.
You make the same mistake most do- presuming it's a binary situation ( work/doesn't work) . Tax cuts are not a panacea that always produces favorable results all the time. But generally speaking, they are pro-growth,all else equal.

 

[rahl]

that's a risible lie. Bush cut taxes. At first revenues dipped, predictably as tax cuts don't have an immediate impact. Then they began to rise, and by 2008 the deficit would probably have been gone, if not for the big recession, which of course had nothing to do with tax cuts.

The recession was not caused by the tax cuts. That is the only thing you got right in these 2 sentences.

You make the same mistake most do- presuming it's a binary situation ( work/doesn't work) .

It is binary lol. Something either works as intended, or it doesn't.

Tax cuts are not a panacea that always produces favorable results all the time. But generally speaking, they are pro-growth,all else equal.

Nope. Tax cuts have nothing to do with growth, employment etc. Increased employment is entirely fueled by increased demand for production. Tax rates are meaningless. We know empirically, because we have decades upon decades of data, that tax cuts do not magically increase economic output. All they do, every...............single.....................time..............................is reduce revenue and explode deficits.

 

[KLATTU]

The recession was not caused by the tax cuts. That is the only thing you got right in these 2 sentences.

It is binary lol. Something either works as intended, or it doesn't.

every...............single.....................time..............................is reduce revenue and explode deficits.

Except…..the …… bush….. tax cuts . If you want to go with the Binary construct, ok, the bush tax cuts worked as intended. After and inititial dip in revenue, they began to climb. The deficit shrank. They produced economic growth. #checkmate

 

[NOVA66]

Sarcasm?

The U.S. Treasury says.

Why does the United States owe so much debt?
Continued decreases in the amount of taxes paid by corporations and the wealthiest Americans have resulted in less money coming in. At the same time, spending continues to increase.