Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 23293031323334353637 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 560

Thread: What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

  1. #481 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are the one who chose the 1980's as the cut-off for the tax rates. Now you are changing your argument. And, as usual, you failed to comment on the main point--that higher tax rates 50's-70's raised less federal revenue as a percentage of GDP than the lower tax rates. How would you give all those new benefits with less revenue.
    Since you used the 80's as the cut-off point, I didn't calculate the averages for later years. Bush's tax cuts did not have much an effect but the recession did. However, if we look at recent data:
    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%

    The much lower tax rate rates of recent years raised as much or more revenue as a percent of GDP than the 70-91% rates of the 50's-60's-70's.
    So you did it again!

    You deliberately exclude data because it completely undermines your case!

    Why do you do that? Is it just because you don't want to have to eat shit? Because that's what it looks like.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  2. #482 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are the one who chose the 1980's as the cut-off for the tax rates. Now you are changing your argument. And, as usual, you failed to comment on the main point--that higher tax rates 50's-70's raised less federal revenue as a percentage of GDP than the lower tax rates.
    NOT TRUE!

    Because you're not listing it out by year and because you completely left out 2000-2015 in what you posted!
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  3. #483 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    5,694
    Thanks
    185
    Thanked 1,353 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 50 Times in 49 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Well, fortunately revenue-to-GDP % means nothing.

    So you look at one single metric and think that applies to the proposal as a whole.

    Just curious, what were the size of those deficits in relation to the actual budget?
    It has everything to do with it when we are talking about raising taxes for the purposes of getting more revenue so we can provide free healthcare, free education, higher Social Security benefits, and forgiving student loan debt.

    Your assumption is that raising the tax rates provides more revenue for your programs, but it actually provided less. What other metric is relevant?

    The size of which deficits?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  5. #484 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are the one who chose the 1980's as the cut-off for the tax rates. Now you are changing your argument. And, as usual, you failed to comment on the main point--that higher tax rates 50's-70's raised less federal revenue as a percentage of GDP than the lower tax rates. How would you give all those new benefits with less revenue.

    Since you used the 80's as the cut-off point, I didn't calculate the averages for later years. Bush's tax cuts did not have much an effect but the recession did. However, if we look at recent data:

    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%

    The much lower tax rate rates of recent years raised as much or more revenue as a percent of GDP than the 70-91% rates of the 50's-60's-70's.
    You have the same terrible habit cawacko does, which is making false arguments and withholding exculpatory information because it completely undermines your case.

    You're also using a metric that has absolutely no relevance to what we're talking about.

    You rely on that metric, using shady techniques, to false frame your argument. Then when called out on it, you jump to a non-sequitur and still don't provide the missing info.

    It's obvious why you do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  6. #485 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It has everything to do with i
    No it doesn't.

    The only reason it does is because you cannot make an argument using any other figures or numbers.

    And you're not even using all the data here...you're "summarizing it" without providing your source, and you're leaving out years that undermine your case!

    Sophistry.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  7. #486 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It has everything to do with it when we are talking about raising taxes for the purposes of getting more revenue so we can provide free healthcare, free education, higher Social Security benefits, and forgiving student loan debt.
    When the government collects taxes, are they collecting a % of the GDP? No.

    So how is revenue-to-GDP relevant?

    It's just obscuring the actual numbers in a vacuum.

    Of course, the deficit doesn't stay the same when the tax rates get changed, does it?

    A better measurement to use would be deficit-as-a-percentage -of-GDP.

    But using those numbers would reveal that when taxes are raised, the percentage drops, and when they're cut, the percentage rises.

    You using just revenue is looking at just one half of the equation, and you're not even looking at that completely because you're excluding data that undermines your case.

    That's deliberate on your part because you make sophistic arguments so you don't have to eat shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  8. #487 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The size of which deficits?
    Are you kidding me?

    What fucking deficits do you think?

    The ones directly related to the revenue you're talking about.

    So you say that from X date to X date, revenue % of GDP remained unchanged.

    Yet from X date to X date, deficit % of GDP changes dramatically.

    You leave the deficit part out and try to focus on the revenue, but the revenue means nothing without being placed in the context of the budget and deficit.

    You don't go that far because doing so completely undermines your entire argument.

    So what happens then is you argue that raising taxes would cut revenue, even though that has never happened in the federal budget ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  9. #488 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It has everything to do with it when we are talking about raising taxes for the purposes of getting more revenue so we can provide free healthcare, free education, higher Social Security benefits, and forgiving student loan debt.

    Your assumption is that raising the tax rates provides more revenue for your programs, but it actually provided less. What other metric is relevant?

    The size of which deficits?
    Like cawacko, you think you're more clever than you truly are.

    How does revenue as a percentage of GDP determine whether or not we can afford to pay for something?

    It doesn't.

    None of this does.

    It's just a phony issue you're trying to raise so you don't have to eat shit and admit that raising taxes on the wealthy would make it possible to pay for programs that are necessary.

    You're a fraud. I see right through you.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  10. #489 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    15,676
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 7,542 Times in 5,126 Posts
    Groans
    2,859
    Groaned 1,514 Times in 1,412 Posts

    Default

    Let's see. Tax rate 35 percent. How much money is collected? Change top rate to 70 percent. Can you explain how that would not increase revenue? When Ike was president, we had a tax rate of over 90 percent. We built our national highway system . Now we can't maintain it. Of course back then corporations did not have so many ways to evade taxes and they had a higher rate. They contributed over 30 percent of revenue collected. Now under 10. Sorry, but the cold hard fact is we have allowed the people on top get away with paying a slive of the tax rate they once paid. Now we have a wealth gap that is worse than the Gilded Age. A terrible wealth gap is a threat to the system. Money=power.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    PoliTalker (01-11-2019)

  12. #490 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    5,694
    Thanks
    185
    Thanked 1,353 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 50 Times in 49 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    NOT TRUE!

    Because you're not listing it out by year and because you completely left out 2000-2015 in what you posted!
    If it will make you happy I can calculate revenue as a percent of GDP since 2000. You always pick trivial items to detract from the main discussion.

    What is your conclusion about higher tax rates of the 50-70's raising less revenue than lower rates of the 80s-80s?

    Revenue as a % of GDP:

    2000-2010: 17.1%
    2011-2017: 15.3%

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  14. #491 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%
    So...0.9% of GDP is how much money?

    Well, let's figure it out.

    GDP is currently about $20T.

    1% of GDP would be $200B.

    Free public college would cost $85B a year at most.

    So if we raised taxes so that it resulted in revenues growing by a measly 1% of GDP, we'd be able to afford free public college 2.5x over EACH YEAR.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  15. #492 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If it will make you happy I can calculate revenue as a percent of GDP since 2000. You always pick trivial items to detract from the main discussion.

    What is your conclusion about higher tax rates of the 50-70's raising less revenue than lower rates of the 80s-80s?

    Revenue as a % of GDP:

    2000-2010: 17.1%
    2011-2017: 15.3%
    You're withholding again!

    Why do you do that?

    What are the totals by each year, and from where are you getting this source?
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  16. #493 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    5,694
    Thanks
    185
    Thanked 1,353 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 50 Times in 49 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Like cawacko, you think you're more clever than you truly are.

    How does revenue as a percentage of GDP determine whether or not we can afford to pay for something?

    It doesn't.

    None of this does.

    It's just a phony issue you're trying to raise so you don't have to eat shit and admit that raising taxes on the wealthy would make it possible to pay for programs that are necessary.

    You're a fraud. I see right through you.
    You need to take some economics. Revenue as a % of GDP determines whether we can pay for something because it determines how much revenue we collect.

  17. #494 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Revenue as a % of GDP:
    2000-2010: 17.1%
    2011-2017: 15.3%
    So again, by withholding the years and lumping them all together, you are holding back exculpatory information.

    So from 2015-2017, you said before rev-GDP was this:

    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%

    Which means from 2011-2014, it was much lower. It had to be because how else are you getting to that 15.3% number if 2015-2017 averaged around 17.4%?

    Now what was the revenue-GDP from 2012 to 2013?

    That's the important data because at the end of 2012, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expired.

    So if rev-GDP grew from 2012-2013 that's because of higher taxes on the rich.

    It's no mystery why you're holding that info back from your posts.

    You're such a dishonest fucking fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

  18. #495 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    18,108
    Thanks
    2,578
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,980 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 624 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You need to take some economics. Revenue as a % of GDP determines whether we can pay for something because it determines how much revenue we collect.
    No it doesn't.

    You're making shit up as you go.

    You're doing that because you just got caught faking your way through this conversation, so you're trying to establish a make-believe standard.

    FRAUD.
    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.

Similar Threads

  1. I'll Not Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 06-29-2013, 11:21 AM
  2. GM Crops Do Not Increase Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 08:04 AM
  3. Taxing the Rich
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
  4. Instead of more Taxing 'The Rich'....
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:09 AM
  5. Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 07:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •