02 Oct 2011, 3:34 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Are you now seeking to contradict your previous statement?
The Charming Inuyasha wrote:
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
02 Oct 2011, 3:37 pm
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Are you now seeking to contradict your previous statement?
The Charming Inuyasha wrote:
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
Nope, because the chart is Federal Revenues as a % of GDP, and GDP is not a fixed variable. So nice try.
02 Oct 2011, 3:41 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
02 Oct 2011, 3:47 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
Funny when I do some digging I find the opposite:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
Look at Chart #2, cause the image won't link over.
02 Oct 2011, 4:02 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
Funny when I do some digging I find the opposite:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
Look at Chart #2, cause the image won't link over.
Oh I think you have misread those are myths the Heritage foundation is trying to create about the bush tax cuts.
<-Joke <-cuz you are slow
Everybody go look at the "paper" essentially what the think tank hack is trying to do
is say tax revenues increased in a year when they actually went down 2006-2007 if you stand on your head
and squint. Actual revenues reported by the same place he claims to have got his say the opposite.
So we have to decide if we trust raw data put in a long range chart
or cooked and cropped data in a short one from a admittedly partisan source.
02 Oct 2011, 4:03 pm
02 Oct 2011, 5:40 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
Funny when I do some digging I find the opposite:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
Look at Chart #2, cause the image won't link over.
Oh I think you have misread those are myths the Heritage foundation is trying to create about the bush tax cuts.
<-Joke <-cuz you are slow
Everybody go look at the "paper" essentially what the think tank hack is trying to do
is say tax revenues increased in a year when they actually went down 2006-2007 if you stand on your head
and squint. Actual revenues reported by the same place he claims to have got his say the opposite.
So we have to decide if we trust raw data put in a long range chart
or cooked and cropped data in a short one from a admittedly partisan source.
You would have a point, except for the fact, you overlooked a key bit of information that completely destroys your narrative. The Bush tax cuts were signed into law in 2003, and if you look at 2004, the drop in revenue was negligible compared to 2001 to 2003 (results from Enron and 9/11). So 2004 was about the same as 2003, then we see a sharp increase in Government revenues from 2005 to 2007. Then we see a decline in 2008 which is the result of the Housing Bubble bursting.
Your statements of Bush's tax cuts causing a decrease in revenue is operating at the assumption that the tax cuts in question were implimented in 2001, which is two years BEFORE they were signed into law.
So, explain to me why are you counting the decline in revenue before the tax cuts were implimented as proof that the tax cuts caused a drop in revenue?
Care to revise your remarks?
02 Oct 2011, 6:23 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
Funny when I do some digging I find the opposite:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
Look at Chart #2, cause the image won't link over.
Oh I think you have misread those are myths the Heritage foundation is trying to create about the bush tax cuts.
<-Joke <-cuz you are slow
Everybody go look at the "paper" essentially what the think tank hack is trying to do
is say tax revenues increased in a year when they actually went down 2006-2007 if you stand on your head
and squint. Actual revenues reported by the same place he claims to have got his say the opposite.
So we have to decide if we trust raw data put in a long range chart
or cooked and cropped data in a short one from a admittedly partisan source.
You would have a point, except for the fact, you overlooked a key bit of information that completely destroys your narrative. The Bush tax cuts were signed into law in 2003, and if you look at 2004, the drop in revenue was negligible compared to 2001 to 2003 (results from Enron and 9/11). So 2004 was about the same as 2003, then we see a sharp increase in Government revenues from 2005 to 2007. Then we see a decline in 2008 which is the result of the Housing Bubble bursting.
Your statements of Bush's tax cuts causing a decrease in revenue is operating at the assumption that the tax cuts in question were implimented in 2001, which is two years BEFORE they were signed into law.
So, explain to me why are you counting the decline in revenue before the tax cuts were implimented as proof that the tax cuts caused a drop in revenue?
Care to revise your remarks?
nope
Read the whole chart tiny partizen
02 Oct 2011, 6:37 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
that explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Is that what I forgot?
So should I take the fact that you quoted your own contradiction as an admission that
you know you are wrong?
Revenue went Down actually didn't it.
The other chuckle in the chart is the revenues did not increase under Reagan either
But they did under Clinton weird.
But spending did.
But keep on lying little buddy it makes your side look great.
Funny when I do some digging I find the opposite:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
Look at Chart #2, cause the image won't link over.
Oh I think you have misread those are myths the Heritage foundation is trying to create about the bush tax cuts.
<-Joke <-cuz you are slow
Everybody go look at the "paper" essentially what the think tank hack is trying to do
is say tax revenues increased in a year when they actually went down 2006-2007 if you stand on your head
and squint. Actual revenues reported by the same place he claims to have got his say the opposite.
So we have to decide if we trust raw data put in a long range chart
or cooked and cropped data in a short one from a admittedly partisan source.
You would have a point, except for the fact, you overlooked a key bit of information that completely destroys your narrative. The Bush tax cuts were signed into law in 2003, and if you look at 2004, the drop in revenue was negligible compared to 2001 to 2003 (results from Enron and 9/11). So 2004 was about the same as 2003, then we see a sharp increase in Government revenues from 2005 to 2007. Then we see a decline in 2008 which is the result of the Housing Bubble bursting.
Your statements of Bush's tax cuts causing a decrease in revenue is operating at the assumption that the tax cuts in question were implimented in 2001, which is two years BEFORE they were signed into law.
So, explain to me why are you counting the decline in revenue before the tax cuts were implimented as proof that the tax cuts caused a drop in revenue?
Care to revise your remarks?
nope
Read the whole chart tiny partizen
I actually did read the chart, and you neglected to mention the inconveinent fact that the Bush Tax cuts were enacted in 2003. The decline we see between 2007 and 2008 are the results of the Housing Bubble bursting not the Bush Tax Cuts.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm
02 Oct 2011, 6:52 pm
02 Oct 2011, 6:53 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Oct 2011, 7:04 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Just the same, the Bush tax cuts couldn't have helped things, considering that the economy was going to hell in a hand basket.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
What caused the economy to go to hell in a hand basket is largely the fault of Government... The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make loans to people whom couldn't afford said loans.
Those poor banks, forced to take advantage of people.
Even if the government did screw up, they meant well. The banks in turn altered mortgage and loan agreements, made blanket foreclosures, often without regarding if the customer was in arrears, or even foreclosed on some people who never even took out a loan!
So forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic toward the banking industry.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Oct 2011, 7:10 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I hate getting these |
13 Mar 2024, 8:11 am |
| Does anyone else hate being outdoors? |
30 Mar 2024, 11:36 am |
| I hate being autistic. I want a cure now. |
58 minutes ago |
| Why do people hate lima beans? |
10 Apr 2024, 7:38 pm |
