Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I posted bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury results. Raw data proves that tax revenue grew AFTER both the Reagan and Bush tax RATE cuts. Why I have to explain to you the benefits of YOU keeping more of your own money is beyond me.
*** 2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004*** ***2005*** ***2006*** ***2007*** ***2008*** ***2009***
******Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70 3,659.30 3,995.20 4,197.00 4,074.00 3,726.90
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20 2,546.80 2,807.40 2,951.20 2,780.30 2,409.30
***Personal*current*taxes 1,232.30 1,234.80 1,050.40 1,000.30 1,047.80 1,208.60 1,352.40 1,488.70 1,438.20 1,140.00
Personal income tax revenue in billions
Yr
2003 2047 billion
2004 2213
2005 2546
2006 2807
2007 2951
you fail to understand, or deliberaly ignore, that those stats do not prove your point. This has been explained to you in detail before.
What they prove is that after the tax rate cuts personal income tax revenue went up. You can draw your own conclusion as to why and I have yet to see that conclusion.
Actually, it doesn't really prove that tax cuts were the reason, nor do you stats go back far enough to gage it historically. There's a fallacy called the causal relationship fallacy. You should investigate it.
What it shows is that tax revenue went up AFTER the rate cuts. you draw your own conclusions. Regardless of the conclusion explain to me how personal income tax revenue went up AFTER the rate cuts and how growing revenue causes deficits?
Not really, but even if it did, you can't show that rate cuts was the cause (causal relationship error). And, you don't go back far enough to have a hsitorical view. Your stats simply can't tell you what you think it tells you.
BTW, how's revenue right now, with tax cuts?
whether or not tax rate cuts caused the growth in revenue or not isn't the issue, the fact is govt. income tax revenue grew AFTER those rate cuts. You have yet to prove they didn't cause the revenue growth. Keep diverting from reality which you always do.
AS for now, "your" President is preventing job creation by creating uncertainty in the business world. No business is going to invest their own money to employ people not knowing what their costs are going to be after January 1. That is the record Obama supporters have to run on and many are running away from.
You don't understand how proof works. I don't have to prove they didn't, though I have shown historically there has been no clear effect one way or the other. The burden on is on you show they are the cause. And as revenue has gone down, with the tax cuts in place, how are you going to do that?
I proved that govt. revenue grew AFTER the tax cuts so you can explain why that happened but refuse to do so.
Any number of factors could have effected that in the short time window you provide. Just as other factors explain why were where we are now (this is an explanation btw). What you have to prove is the reason is the tax cuts (again see causal relationship fallacy).
So did tax revenue grow after the TAX rate cuts? how can growing revenue cause deficits?
You have as yet to proved the tax cuts DID cause revenue growth. Your explanation is a non sequitur and simplistic lacking any serious analysis. You can't just say revenue went up and say the tax cuts was the cause. As has been pointed out population growth is one of the factors, but I'm sure there are many more.whether or not tax rate cuts caused the growth in revenue or not isn't the issue, the fact is govt. income tax revenue grew AFTER those rate cuts. You have yet to prove they didn't cause the revenue growth. Keep diverting from reality which you always do.
Ebing a broken record doesn't help, but you can spend more than revenues grew, and we did. But that isn't in dispute. What you have to prove is not only bthat revenues grew, but that tax cuts were the sole reason. You haven't done that.
Again, causal relationship error fallacy.
You have as yet to proved the tax cuts DID cause revenue growth. Your explanation is a non sequitur and simplistic lacking any serious analysis. You can't just say revenue went up and say the tax cuts was the cause. As has been pointed out population growth is one of the factors, but I'm sure there are many more.
Please tell us why Bush borrowed $500 billion from China?
You haven't proven that tax cuts didn't create jobs and grow govt. revenue thus your argument is moot. Fact is govt. revenue grew AFTER the tax rate cuts thus cannot cause deficits.
I have supported that their is no evidence that tax cuts produced jobs. Yes, I have done that.
There is evidence that there was job growth after the tax rate cuts, you haven't explained how that happened and how govt. revenue growing causes greater deficits?
Nor have you shown what it means to your thesis now that with tax cuts in place, revenue is down. Nor have you shown that tax cuts are the sole reason for increased revenues. Again, your call here ignores who really ahs the burden. I've done all required to conunter your position.
Revenue is down because this Administration continues to destroy jobs thus reducing the number of taxpayers. There are 4 million less taxpayers today than when Obama took office so tell me what affect that has on tax revenue?
As I pointed out yesterday you don't seem to have a clue as to how to run a business. With potential costs rising for employees why would you hire anyone today instead of waiting for tax policy to be determined?
Ahhh, for reason other than tax cuts. thanks for agreeing with me. This clearly shows your thesis wrong. Tax cuts are not the answer, as other factors decide whether revenue goes up or down. Gald you finally admit this.
Next. :neener
Nor have you shown what it means to your thesis now that with tax cuts in place, revenue is down. Nor have you shown that tax cuts are the sole reason for increased revenues. Again, your call here ignores who really ahs the burden. I've done all required to conunter your position.
Here are some census figures:
1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
2010 309,162,581 9.9%
This alone explains revenue growth.
There are four components of GDP, figure out what they are and what percentage they contribute to GDP and then tell me that tax policy doesn't matter.
There is no evidence tax cuts effect the economy, and I have shown that.
But thanks for agreeing with me.
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?