That data does nothing to prove your central thesis that tax cuts "let people keep more of what they earned".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lowest unemployment since the moon landing.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
That data does nothing to prove your central thesis that tax cuts "let people keep more of what they earned".
moron, GDP has skyrocketed.
So what? Education spending as a percentage of GDP has remained about the same for 50 years, save for COVID.
Your central thesis was that tax cuts let you keep more of what you earned, and I showed you in the data that wasn't the case.
Since then, you've been having outbursts because you can't seem to reconcile your dogma with the empirical evidence showing it's bunk.
This is an extremely fair comparison
But you're not making any point here, and you're not supporting your theory that cutting taxes "lets people keep more of what they earned" with this link.
your retarded math is hilarious
in 1978 gdp was 2,351,600M and we spent 6% on education (I rounded up)
in 2020 gdp was 21,060,500M and we spent 5.1% on education (I rounded down)
So quite clearly, education spending is NOT skyrocketing like you said it was.
You are fixated on ambiguous "spending" but what you're neglecting is that over the last 50 years, taxes have been cut, and consequently over those same 50 years, the personal savings rate has declined.
So how can you prove your theory that tax cuts "let you keep more of what you earned" when the data shows personal savings were at their highest when the top tax rate was 90%?
But you're not making any point here, and you're not supporting your theory that cutting taxes "lets people keep more of what they earned" with this link.
that is not a theory - it is axiomatic
allowing people to keep more money gives them more money. not a theory - an axiom.
so why do savings go down when people are allowed to keep more of their money?
easy - and already covered you half wit. savings rates are lower than inflation rates. We live in a perverse time where People are being encouraged to not save - but to spend. When you save for later, things are more expensive later. So people stopped saving for the future and decided to borrow instead.
that is not a theory - it is axiomatic.
No, it's a theory until it can be proven...and so far, you haven't proven it.
In fact, you've proven the opposite...personal savings rates are higher when taxes are higher, according to the data you shared on this thread.
allowing people to keep more money gives them more money. not a theory - an axiom.
No, it's a theory...a pretty bad one too that is easily knocked down by the empirical evidence showing a decline in personal savings as taxes have been cut.
Again, according to the data you shared on this thread.
No, it's a theory until it can be proven...and so far, you haven't proven it.
In fact, you've proven the opposite...personal savings rates are higher when taxes are higher, according to the data you shared on this thread.
x+1 > x
I proved it
when I have something, and you allow me to have more of something, I now have more.
so why do savings go down when people are allowed to keep more of their money?
I've already explained this, but I'll do so again because unlike you, I actually remember what I say and will stand behind it.
Personal savings go down because deficits force spending cuts on things like education and health care, which forces people who rely on those social systems to spend more out of their own pocket. So people go into debt to pay for things like tuition and medical bills because the government isn't picking up as much of a share after cutting its own revenue.
For instance in Kansas, Medicaid premiums were hiked, provider payments were cut, co-pays were increased, drug costs went up, and tuition at state schools was hiked after the Brownback Tax Cuts because they created deficits that had to be closed per the BBA.
savings rates are lower than inflation rates
Because of tax cuts.
We have 50 years' worth of data that shows personal savings declined as taxes were cut.
Personal savings were at their highest levels when the top tax rate was 90%.
I've already explained this, but I'll do so again because unlike you, I actually remember what I say and will stand behind it.
Personal savings go down because deficits force spending cuts on things like education and health care, which forces people who rely on those social systems to spend more out of their own pocket. .
in both education and healthcare, the government is spending more than ever though. so your theory is crap.
I proved this for education - adjusted for both inflation and population growth, the government is spend more today. that is a fact.
here is the education example that clearly proved you wrong
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_236.55.asp
We live in a perverse time where People are being encouraged to not save - but to spend.
Well here's the thing you stupid idiot...the economy only grows through spending.
So if you pull your spending back, and I pull my spending back, and the government pulls its spending back, how is the economy supposed to grow?
If personal savings are the hill you want to die on, then you should be arguing for a return to the conditions that produced those rates...and sadly for you, those conditions include a top tax rate of 90%.
Because of tax cuts.
We have 50 years' worth of data that shows personal savings declined as taxes were cut.
Personal savings were at their highest levels when the top tax rate was 90%.
Correct because real wages were higher. Tax cuts have been directed almost entirely at the wealthiest Americans who have used that money to further build THEIR wealth while refusing to raise wages. A recipe for disaster.
x+1 > x
I proved it
when I have something, and you allow me to have more of something, I now have more.
No you didn't.
What you stupidly showed was that the highest rate of personal savings occurred when the top tax rate was 90%.
Your theory is that cutting taxes lets people keep more of what they earned, but the data contradicts that.
So you need to figure out why the personal savings rate declined as taxes were cut...and you can't guess at that with more hair-brained theories you can't support.
There is no data that exists that shows people save more when the tax rate is lowered.
when I have something, and you allow me to have more of something, I now have more.
Yes, we know this is your caveman thinking, but what you can't seem to reconcile is the fact that as taxes were cut, the personal savings rate declined.
When personal savings were at their highest rates, what was the top tax rate?
in both education and healthcare, the government is spending more than ever though.
Maybe in gross dollars, but not as a percentage of GDP which your link hilariously proved.
So if you pull your spending back, and I pull my spending back, and the government pulls its spending back, how is the economy supposed to grow?
when 5% of the population are using 50% of the resources, I think we have a growth problem.
you sound like a guy on steroids asking how he is going to keep getting bigger if he stops injecting drugs into his veins.
so your theory is crap.
No, your theory is crap because you can't prove it beyond insisting really, really hard.
You rely on conventional wisdom, but your conventional wisdom is fucked because you can't reconcile the data with your theory.
both in gross dollars and inflation adjusted dollarsMaybe in gross dollars, but not as a percentage of GDP which your link hilariously proved.
in all cases you are wrong. we are not cutting spending, we are increasing spending.
No, your theory is crap because you can't prove it beyond insisting really, really hard.
You rely on conventional wisdom, but your conventional wisdom is fucked because you can't reconcile the data with your theory.
I proved your theory crap. spending is up, not down.
so your theory is crap and your facts are wrong.