trumpf tax cut for the rich=how many trillions in debt will it cost the rest of us?
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax...crease-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.
your corporate dick sucking lies dont work anymore
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.
your corporate dick sucking lies dont work anymore
How many recessions were there in the 50s?
Show me a chart that shows a tax cut resulting in a tax revenue decrease, until then:
Kill yourself.
evince
Truthmatters
have you ever read the history of recessions in this country
it destroys right wing memes fool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
it destroys right wing memes fool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Superfreak
Verified User
The numbers are from the US government you moron. Those are federal tax receipts. But you are too stupid to realize that aren't you Desh?
evince
Truthmatters
look at that list of every recession we have EVER had.
you will note that the time elapsed between every recession changed due to LAWS designed to tame recessions in this nation.
those laws WORK asshole
why do your shits always want to get rid of them?
Show me a chart that shows a tax cut resulting in a tax revenue decrease, until then:
Kill yourself.
Superfreak
Verified User
Hey moron... the above simply shows that the politicians OUTSPENT their revenue. It does not show that revenues went down.
evince
Truthmatters
then prove it with facts and links dickhole
Superfreak
Verified User
Bill Clinton gave away one of the BIGGEST tax CUTS to the RICH in the history of our country. He LOWERED the CAP GAINS tax from 28% to 20%. The bulk of the top 1%'s income comes from CAP GAINS. Not ordinary income. Add in the use of muni bonds to avoid Fed Income taxes (and some state) and that was the biggest giveaway to the wealthy we have seen. Raising the income tax brackets, while leaving all the loopholes and deductions for the rich doesn't do a frigging thing.
Raising the corporate income tax rates was a big hit to the little guy. Corporate taxes are the most regressive of taxes.
the proposed use for the estate tax is to prevent an aristocracy etc etc. It has failed to do this. The ultra rich such as steve jobs pay 0. The ones who barely qualify to get hit by estate tax are those who do get hit.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
More dishonest Trumpkin nonsense.
The death tax only affects the richest 1 %
No one but the top 0.2% of Americans will pay the Estate tax this year.
The Tax Policy Center found that in 2013, only 20 small businesses and farms paid any estate tax. It estimates in 2017, maybe 50 small farms and closely held businesses will pay any such tax.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Whoopsie!!
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Out of ideas and being whooped up on by someone with a better grasp on the subject, the desperate Trumpkin repsonds with the only retort left in his bag of ignorance.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
Fun fact: Cryin' Chuck Schumer and Botox Pelosi were all for the tax cuts in Obama's last budget.
Obama said "cutting the rate to 28 percent was necessary for “putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment here at home.”
Schumer said in a committee hearing on cutting corporate taxes: “I’m game to do it because I think it’s really important for American competitiveness.”
Pelosi put out a press release in 2016 that called for congressional action, saying, “It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate rate.”
http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/27/democrats-have-done-a-180-on-corporate-taxes-heres-what-they-said-last-year/
Obama said "cutting the rate to 28 percent was necessary for “putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment here at home.”
Schumer said in a committee hearing on cutting corporate taxes: “I’m game to do it because I think it’s really important for American competitiveness.”
Pelosi put out a press release in 2016 that called for congressional action, saying, “It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate rate.”
http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/27/democrats-have-done-a-180-on-corporate-taxes-heres-what-they-said-last-year/