trumpf tax cut for the rich=how many trillions in debt will it cost the rest of us?
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
You don't know how to read a graph, god you're fucking dumb. I will explain it to you like the retard that you are, the red line is the top marginal tax rate, the blue line is tax revenue, the blue line doesn't go down when the red line goes down, so to reiterate one more time, tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue you dopey bitch.
evince
Truthmatters
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Mike Patton , Contributor
I provide analysis on the economy, investing and financial planning.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Really?
Bush Ii tax cuts for the rich 2002 National Debt; 4 TRILLION
6 years later; National Debt 10 TRILLION
Maybe you should shut up now.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2008/09/30/another-opportunity-for-independent-advisors
here is keks author on 9/30 2008
the man said nothing about the coming crash BEFORE it happened and then was completely UNAWARE of what it would bring once it started to happen
here is keks author on 9/30 2008
the man said nothing about the coming crash BEFORE it happened and then was completely UNAWARE of what it would bring once it started to happen
The graph is not an opinion it is hard indisputable data, you stupid bitch.
The housing market collapse had jack and shit to do with tax cuts, you are mentally deficient, kill yourself.
The numbers are from the IRS you retarded cunt. Don't like that one?
How about this one:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Thnx for playing dipshit.
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue
Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue
By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. * The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the*tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. *if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. *So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us? *See Historical Tax Rates.
Investment has been shown to increase both after tax cuts and tax increases.* Investment increased both after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increases and after George W Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.* The reason is simple: investors were confident because the economy was growing and therefore felt that it was a good time to invest. *In other words, it’s demand and other market signals that investors care about most, not tax rates. *Tax rates can no doubt play a role (especially if they are disproportionately high), but the tax rate fluctuations between the Clinton vs Reagan and Bush tax rates are rather inconsequential to investor behavior.
Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue
By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. * The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the*tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. *if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. *So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us? *See Historical Tax Rates.
Investment has been shown to increase both after tax cuts and tax increases.* Investment increased both after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increases and after George W Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.* The reason is simple: investors were confident because the economy was growing and therefore felt that it was a good time to invest. *In other words, it’s demand and other market signals that investors care about most, not tax rates. *Tax rates can no doubt play a role (especially if they are disproportionately high), but the tax rate fluctuations between the Clinton vs Reagan and Bush tax rates are rather inconsequential to investor behavior.
evince
Truthmatters
Taxes on the Wealthy
Over a longer timeline, we can see if there exists a correlation between taxes on the wealthy and GDP growth. *Unfortunately, we find no correlation between the two.* Cutting taxes on the rich appears to have resulted in no increase in the rate of GDP growth. *According to the logic of tax cut advocates, the post World War II boom should never have happened given that tax rates on the the top earners were exponentially higher than they are now (something to keep in mind when Republicans claim that raising taxes on the rich back to what they were during those disastrous Clinton years (as Obama has been trying to do) will stifle economic growth).
Over a longer timeline, we can see if there exists a correlation between taxes on the wealthy and GDP growth. *Unfortunately, we find no correlation between the two.* Cutting taxes on the rich appears to have resulted in no increase in the rate of GDP growth. *According to the logic of tax cut advocates, the post World War II boom should never have happened given that tax rates on the the top earners were exponentially higher than they are now (something to keep in mind when Republicans claim that raising taxes on the rich back to what they were during those disastrous Clinton years (as Obama has been trying to do) will stifle economic growth).
evince
Truthmatters
In Conclusion
Any argument that tax cuts (especially on the wealthiest Americans) increases revenues simply ignores the facts and misunderstands human nature.* The wealthiest Americans will invest as long as they expect a return on their investment.* This means their main concern is the health of the economy (demand, interest rates, the market, etc). *In fact, one can even argue that higher tax rates encourage more investment and production in order to offset taxed earnings.
In times of economic growth, the wealthiest Americans (and for that matter, corporations) will invest.* In times of economic downturn, both will, in general, hold onto their money, no matter how low taxes are.* Any argument that the Reagan of Bush tax cuts increased revenues of GDP growth is nothing more than a selective play on the facts.
Any argument that tax cuts (especially on the wealthiest Americans) increases revenues simply ignores the facts and misunderstands human nature.* The wealthiest Americans will invest as long as they expect a return on their investment.* This means their main concern is the health of the economy (demand, interest rates, the market, etc). *In fact, one can even argue that higher tax rates encourage more investment and production in order to offset taxed earnings.
In times of economic growth, the wealthiest Americans (and for that matter, corporations) will invest.* In times of economic downturn, both will, in general, hold onto their money, no matter how low taxes are.* Any argument that the Reagan of Bush tax cuts increased revenues of GDP growth is nothing more than a selective play on the facts.
Holy fuckballs you're retarded, I literally just provided you with 4 separate graphs from 4 different sources proving that tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue, they're plain numbers that anyone can look at yourself.
evince
Truthmatters
Kill yourself.
suck your own balls dickbrain
that article I linked to even uses your own idiot charts to prove how they are wrong bag o dicks