Tax cuts called a cost by the Left, Matthews gets it

[Conservative]

This appears to be a list of revenues, but not a list of tax rates.

What steps have you taken in your analysis to rule out mere correlation and arrive at causation?

Perhaps it is just when the country is flush we drop tax rates and because we are flush that revenues increase. What did you use to rule out the possibility that correlation is not the same as causation for this case?

What steps? I look at the numbers and revenue is higher AFTER the tax rate cuts which is contrary to what you and everyone else is being told by the Democrat Party. how can that be? You cut tax rates and govt. revenue goes up? Why?

If govt. revenue goes up after tax cuts how can tax cuts cause deficits since there is more revenue? Not sure how old you are but we were told for years that every year of the Bush Administration "it was the worst economy since Hoover and where are the jobs?" Bush inherited a recession, cut tax rates in July 2003, govt. revenue grew, job creation occurred.

You are about the fourth person in this forum that uses the term correlation does not equal causation. Is that what they teach you in school these days? Try learning logic and common sense and think for a change. What does your parents do when they get to keep more of what they earn and have greater take home pay because of tax cuts? Think about it and how your parents and 150 million other taxpayers affect the economy when they keep more of what they earn?

Liberalism is all about dependence and tax cuts scare the hell out of liberal leadership. People with more of their own money need less of that so called liberal help. I worry about you if I have to convince you the value of keeping more of what you earn. Pretty frustrating and really not worth the effort.

You want tax rates go to the IRS to get rates and if you want revenue by year you can get that at the Treasury Website. The facts are there for all to see, govt. revenue went up AFTER tax rate cuts. Is there any correlation between the tax cuts and revenue growth. Obviously you don't think so therefore tell me why govt revenue grew?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you have no actual response to Stockman other then your opinion that he's wrong. Typical.

yet you consider your OPINION to be gospel while denigrating anyone who doesnt buy into your tax hike cravings. Stockman has an opinion that is not based on undisputable facts

try again

 

[TurtleDude]

Can I have a link to this please? I wonder if tax cuts usually come about in times when the country is doing well financially.

an interesting question =why did Clinton jack taxes up if things were great as his supporters claim. There are many other reasons to cut taxes that are not dependent on how the country is "doing" at the time

 

[pbrauer]

What steps? I look at the numbers and revenue is higher AFTER the tax rate cuts which is contrary to what you and everyone else is being told by the Democrat Party. how can that be? You cut tax rates and govt. revenue goes up? Why?

Because the population keeps growing so does the work force, its no mystery, the revenues keep going up whether there is a tax cut or not.

1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
2010 309,162,581 9.9%

In ten years the population grew 10% or 1% per year.

 

[Conservative]

Because the population keeps growing so does the work force, its no mystery, the revenues keep going up whether there is a tax cut or not.

1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
2010 309,162,581 9.9%

In ten years the population grew 10% or 1% per year.

What exactly does that prove? Population is up the past two years and revenue is down, why? By the way, I really appreciate your post "in the basement" and it just shows how little class you have. Thanks for proving it.

 

[pbrauer]

What exactly does that prove?

It's an argument as to why revenues and jobs went up. You had to ask?:roll:

Population is up the past two years and revenue is down, why?

There is a deep recession. You had to ask? :roll:

By the way, I really appreciate your post "in the basement" and it just shows how little class you have. Thanks for proving it.

Why do you think they call it the basement? Haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[Conservative]

It's an argument as to why revenues and jobs went up. You had to ask?:roll:

There is a deep recession. You had to ask? :roll:

Why do you think they call it the basement? Haven't you figured that out yet?

So because it is called the basement that gives you the right to make the comments you made? That shows little class. I recognized after being invited there by another poster what that place is and refused to take part. You didn't have a problem personally attacking me there and I have little use for that kind of rhetoric.

This is a deeper recession than it needed to be. it ended in June 2009 and yet today things are worse than they were last year but that fact is something you refuse to accept. How can you say things are better today than they were last year and what economic policy or prediction has Obama made that made any improvement to the economy or has been accurate?

As for population growth, doesn't make any difference how many people live in this country now, where are the jobs?

 

[Thorgasm]

Moderator's Warning:

What happens in The Basement, stays in The Basement.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

how can that be? You cut tax rates and govt. revenue goes up? Why?

It could be from a variety of factors. However,even if I were unable to come up with any, it still wouldn't demonstrate that what you're saying about the cause and effect relationship between tax cuts and govt revenue increases is correct. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am asking about how you reached that conclusion.

You are about the fourth person in this forum that uses the term correlation does not equal causation. Is that what they teach you in school these days? Try learning logic and common sense and think for a change.

Acknowledging that there's a distinction between mere correlation and causation is a foundation of rational thought.

I worry about you if I have to convince you the value of keeping more of what you earn. Pretty frustrating and really not worth the effort.

This statement is something different than what I was discussing with you. I was asking about how you reached the conclusion that reducing taxes always increases govt revenue. Thats something different than appreciating what I have.

You want tax rates go to the IRS to get rates and if you want revenue by year you can get that at the Treasury Website. The facts are there for all to see, govt. revenue went up AFTER tax rate cuts. Is there any correlation between the tax cuts and revenue growth.

From what you posted it seems that revenue goes up almost all the time w/o regard to cuts or increases.

Obviously you don't think so therefore tell me why govt revenue grew?

It's not obvious that I think any such thing. I don't pretend to know exactly why govt revenue grows from year to year. That was why I asked you questions about how you came to your conclusion.

If you haven't taken the time to make sure that what you have observed is indeed causation all you have to do is say so.

It may be worth noting that tax revenue also tracks closely to the population of the country--as one increases, the other does as well. Perhaps they are related.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What exactly does that prove? Population is up the past two years and revenue is down, why?

We have had the benefit of tax cuts for those two years. If you hypothesis is correct, why didn't the income go up?

 

[obvious Child]

It could be from a variety of factors. However,even if I were unable to come up with any, it still wouldn't demonstrate that what you're saying about the cause and effect relationship between tax cuts and govt revenue increases is correct. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am asking about how you reached that conclusion.

You should give up on that right now. At least a dozen users here have asked him to extrapolate and prove with statistics that it was tax cuts and not a hundred other factors that caused revenue to go up. We all got personally attacked for merely asking him to give us something more then "I say so." He even went so far as to say "I don't care about linear regression" despite that being the absolute strongest argument he could give to proving it was in fact tax cuts. Conservative will never back his arguments with anything other then "I want it to be true, therefore I say it is."

Acknowledging that there's a distinction between mere correlation and causation is a foundation of rational thought.

Then by such measures, Conservative is not of rational thought.

 

[BrickInTheWall]

How about we change the direction of the debate a bit.

Regardless a good call to Reaganonimcs and Trickle Down Theory. How about we take the money yielded from the 5% increase on top earners from the Bush-Era tax cuts and fund new jobs in national interest projects. Or How about a more Regressive approach, a one percent federal sales tax on end consumers to fund job creation. (For an American making 40,000/year and assuming 1/2 for non-purchase items such as mortgage were talking about $200 a person.)

Any Devil's Advocates?