Tax cuts / tax increases

[Lucky... 0]

I've posed this question before, I'd appreciate someone to show me:

- Tax cut that resulted in prosperity for all, jobs, growth, and debt/deficit health.

AND / OR:

- Tax increase that resulted in economic devastation for the nation, unemployment, GDP - neg growth, and debt/deficit increase beyond times when tax cuts were implemented.

I ask you:

- Don't be abstract

- Don't use a small, irrelevant example, only tax cuts / increases that have a major reach by way of their language and teeth.

- Don't provide anything but federal data with major tax cuts/increases that have had enough time to see the impact / result

- Use somewhat recent data, 100 years should be relevant, 50 years is very relevant

- Take into consideration other aspects of the economy while these tax cuts / increases were implemented. IOW's you can make an argument that X is a good time to raise em, Y is a good time to cut em.

- Be partisan if you wish, but I would rather focus on the tax cut / increase cause and effect.

- Provide objective data to support your contention. Provide GDP, stock market, unemployment, interest rate, or anything you find as a player in the argument that always raising taxes, always cutting taxes or provisionally changing taxes is in the best benefit for America. BTW, it's a fair argument to claim that raising taxes is good for America via its indexes and overall health, but bad for you personally.

- Also, provide the cause and effect relationship that raising taxes, cuting taxes would have on all other aspects of society, social or otherwise. Explain why you think this and provide supporting evidence that history worked that way before and would again.

- This is not a fairness excercise, feel free to interject how you think it's fair or not, but I want cause/effect of teh implementation of tax cuts and/or increases.

That should do it, hope I can find some good data and arguments to make my understanding as complete as possible.

[airdvr 200]

Doesn't need to be that complex.

If you believe the government does a better job of handling your money than you do, tax increases are a good thing all around.

If tax cuts/increases have an affect on the economy I'll submit the government is taking too much of your money out of circulation regardless.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lefty 0]

That's a lot of work for Speaker's Corner. Tell you what--I won't write your research paper for you, but I will provide you with a Wikipedia article concerning the psychological concept of "operant conditioning". Enjoy!

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[BIGUN 1,106]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Doesn't need to be that complex.

I see, 'cut taxes my friends' fixes everything? You want to say the largest GDP in the world isn't tough to manage and complex? OK.

Quote

If you believe the government does a better job of handling your money than you do, tax increases are a good thing all around.

How about when the corporations are allowed to handle our money, that's the 3rd wheel that's rarely mentioned. They are the real problem here and we need to overregulate them.

Quote

If tax cuts/increases have an affect on the economy I'll submit the government is taking too much of your money out of circulation regardless.

How are they taking money out when they are 12T in debt; they are obviously having to put too much in. My argument, and I will refine this later, is that they put too much in toward the top and it gets stuck there, versus giving it low and it immediatley circulates, overcirculation can be remedied by increasing the interest rate which appreciates the value of the dollar, undercirculation is remedied by lowering the interest rate,but as we see with the housing crunch that doesn't always work.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Tell you what--I won't write your research paper for you,

It can be as simple as making a claim that cutting taxes is good, posting an objective, data-based website that shows post-tax cut performance is positive and letting it go. Oh, what's that? That data doesn't exist? Yes, I know.

Quote

but I will provide you with a Wikipedia article concerning the psychological concept of "operant conditioning".

Oh, I see: Operant behavior "operates" on the environment and is maintained by its consequences,...

So if I were to say, 'cut taxes and the debt will triple in 8 years,' as with Reagan, then I am succombing to operate conditioning if I think that's bad and I don't want taxes cut? Whereas if I throw caution to the wind, don't worry about the ultimate state of our economy: Behaviors conditioned via a classical conditioning procedure are not maintained by consequences. Then I am, according to your inferrence, doing the smart thing.

This really supports my theory that conservatives are somewhere between a sociopth (no conscience) and a teenage boy (no consideration for consquence). Not that I need it to be supported

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it.

You should probably click on it before criticizing the poster. You might be surprised at what you find.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it.

You should probably click on it before criticizing the poster. You might be surprised at what you find.

And you're doing the same thing. I'm asking someone here to make a point, hell, cut-n-paste some dialogue from the writings, but shit, if I wanted to have a conversation with the author of that article I could write them and do that.

If there is such great content in there, bring it in, it's only a cut-n-paste away, but don't paste a book, hit the high points. Basically I'm looking for data, as anyone can recite the virtues of trickle-down, supply-side economics. I can then recite the dangers of supply-side economics and then we play outthe experiment; I'm more interested in the results than the rhetoric along the way.

Please, make a point, someone. Even if it's a point in support of my position, I would like to read another perspective.

[Lefty 0]

Perhaps my point was a bit vague so I'll rephrase. If you tax (punish) productive behavior, you will get less of it.

Now, the problem with your original post (and the link BIGUN posted--the one you didn't click) is that it views taxes in a vacuum. Are spending cuts so far out of the realm of possibility they're not even seen as a contributing factor to the issue?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Perhaps my point was a bit vague so I'll rephrase. If you tax (punish) productive behavior, you will get less of it.

And there inlies the ridiculus nature of this concept that raising taxes is punishment. People aren't taxed, money is. There is no way that the gov is going to tax you until you move money. If taxes were 1% you would still find people calling it punnishment.

Taxes are the lowest here than in most indust countries, yet people cry more here than anywhere.

Quote

Now, the problem with your original post (and the link BIGUN posted--the one you didn't click) is that it views taxes in a vacuum.

You can argue theory, heard it till my balls fell off so I decided to see how the experiment worked and realized a few anomolies with taxation processes and outcomes. OK, I hear ya, cut taxes, people have more to spend, tax revenues increase with a lower tax rate, bla, bla, bla,...... now, how has it worked out? The data is abundant, support your point. The point in the vacuum here is you, you are arguing theory w/o any supporting data.

Also, not that you read the entire OP, but I asked not to argue fairness, not partisan agenda, just process and outcome.

Quote

Are spending cuts so far out of the realm of possibility they're not even seen as a contributing factor to the issue?

I think it's taxation and spending and I would love to hear substantive and supported arguments with some kind of objective, primary data on major tax cuts and spending. Let's hear both sides of the argument.

[BIGUN 1,106]

Quote

OK, I hear ya, cut taxes, people have more to spend, tax revenues increase with a lower tax rate, bla, bla, bla,...... now, how has it worked out?

I think that data is in the article you didn't click.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,475]

>If you believe the government does a better job of handling your money
>than you do, tax increases are a good thing all around.

I do a better job deciding what clothing to buy than the government would.

The government does a better job maintaining the freeways than I would do.

If you think that you could do a better job at nuclear weapons research, freeway construction and manned spaceflight than the government, then tax cuts are a good thing all around.

[BIGUN 1,106]

>If you think that you could do a better job at nuclear weapons research, freeway construction and manned spaceflight than the government, then tax cuts are a good thing all around.

Sorry, Bill. I'm cutting taxes.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,475]

>Sorry, Bill. I'm cutting taxes.

OK. I'll let you duke it out with all the people who want to cut taxes but cut your favorite programs first.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Sorry, Bill. I'm cutting taxes.

OK. I'll let you duke it out with all the people who want to cut taxes but cut your favorite programs first.

It doesn't work that way, people who advocate tax cuts want to proliferate their programs (military) and cut their opponent's programs (social).

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, I hear ya, cut taxes, people have more to spend, tax revenues increase with a lower tax rate, bla, bla, bla,...... now, how has it worked out?

I think that data is in the article you didn't click.

Thx, but I want to read arguments on both sides, esp the side that wants tax cuts, but I'd like to read a person's position that is accompanied by a reasonable citation that supports their position. I did scan thru it and it totally supports an opposing position to that of what you believe. But this is not about you or me, it's about taxation and what is better for the US; cut or increase.

[BIGUN 1,106]

Quote

I did scan thru it and it totally supports an opposing position to that of what you believe.

huh? Is Dr. Mugabe channeling thru you?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If you think that you could do a better job at nuclear weapons research, freeway construction and manned spaceflight than the government, then tax cuts are a good thing all around.

Sorry, Bill. I'm cutting taxes.

Even tho all the data I've seen forcasts doom for the country in several areas, esp the debt, you still say cut taxes? Even the info you posted that I briefed seemed to say that tax cutting leads to trouble, you still say cut taxes? The ideology of cutting taxes my friends is a cult, rather than a logic of sound reasoning. Cut taxes fuck the outcome, just cut taxes.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

People aren't taxed, money is.

Wow.

As soon as money starts making itself and paying my bills without my help then your claim may be valid.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

People aren't taxed, money is.

Wow.

As soon as money starts making itself and paying my bills without my help then your claim may be valid.

So if you earn 0 then you are taxed? If you earn 100k/yr you are taxed at X, then go back to earning 50k/yr and get taxed x. So the taxes assigned to you have 100% to do with what you earn and how much of that you can write off. I realize you want to play the victim, so it has to be you being victimized by the government, buy poor people, etc, but your taxes assigned have 100% to do with your income minus your writeoffs according to that year's tax table.

The government just taxes movement of money, conservatives love the game, but then hate the ugly side of it when they get charged a fee for moving money. Go buy a car, most states have sales tax, go earn money, there are employment taxes.

Go ahead and provide evidence that cutting taxes helps the country. Not theory, had enough of that, shown me empirical evidence. In science we make observations and draw conclusions, please, show me your evidence and draw your conclusion that the country does better with low taxes. That is, if you feel that way, not trying to put concepts into your mind.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Even tho all the data I've seen forcasts doom for the country in several areas, esp the debt, you still say cut taxes? Even the info you posted that I briefed seemed to say that tax cutting leads to trouble, you still say cut taxes? The ideology of cutting taxes my friends is a cult, rather than a logic of sound reasoning. Cut taxes fuck the outcome, just cut taxes.

Cut spending, then cut taxes, when it's possible to do so. (Gonna be a really long time at the rate they're running up the bill now).

I'll say it again, cutting taxes doesn't to trouble - if spending is also reduced to make up for it. Running up a massive debt causes trouble.

If taxes were so great, why not just tax everybody 100%? I don't buy into the "magic number" theory of tax rates. The lower they are, the better. However, lowering them without reducing spending is irresponsible.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Cut spending, then cut taxes, when it's possible to do so.

Why not do both at the same time, worked for GHWB and Clinton? There is no connect between the two, the legislative processes are argued at different times and laws enacted differently. And by a look at history, if there is acorrelation, it's inverse, meaning when a president cuts taxes he increases spending. When a president increases spending, he cuts taxes.

Quote

I'll say it again, cutting taxes doesn't to trouble - if spending is also reduced to make up for it.

You can say it again and again, you just haven't shown data to suggest that cutting taxes leads to prosperity. Of course it's hard to establishwhich is better; tax increases or spending cuts. Since political science is a bastard science anyway, we can't run experiments and make observations, we just make observations, we cannot fully extract the independent variable and test it in a vacuum. What we can conclude tho is that when taxes are raised and spending cut then we do enjoy a better economy. So how can we extract which is more important, if one is 100% over the othr - doubtful, or how to apportion the credit for tax increase or the spending cuts for the improved economy. I think it's ignorant to impose our personal opinions as fact that one is 100%, the other 0%, so how do we design a rational experiment or method of observation to establish which act is predominant? I guess we could make futher obsevations of previous presidents, which I think I will do. Of course other factors have to be REASONABLY considered. Perhaps visiting the Great Depression would be a good place to start, or perhaps subsequent eras. I think I have my work cut out for me.

Quote

Running up a massive debt causes trouble.

That's kinda moot; we'll take judicial notice of that one.

Quote

If taxes were so great, why not just tax everybody 100%?

Not sure of the year, but FDR was the biggest taxer of all presidents. Over 50k was taxed at 91% I understand. Of course that was the greatest economic recovery of all times as well and Hoover led the way in his last year realizing his early tax cuts led to the horror of teh GD and reversing them.

Quote

I don't buy into the "magic number" theory of tax rates. The lower they are, the better.

And see I can get that anywhere, I want a data-based explanation or a theory. Your theory seems to be based upon trickle-down economics, which have been fully debunked by now, I hope you don't subscribe to supply-side economics, do you? Pounding your hand on the table rejecting tax increases 'just 'cause' isn't rational. I think we can find a way thru observation of the last 100 or so years and being objective.

Quote

However, lowering them without reducing spending is irresponsible.

Also, spending isn't spending. IOW's, welfare to the poor is immediately spend on smaller items and creates a demand for those items, but where are they manufactured and what kinds of employment do they create? Corporate welafre takes longer to see teh impact, but they might be more prone to create better employment, however there might be a probablility for the funds to get hung up in higher paying jobs for fewer.

The tax cuts of the early 80's and early 2000's led to immediate trouble and the spending didn't seem to have a great imapct on jobs. Even tho the tax poilicies of major cuts led to some good tax revenue in the 2000's, the debt was at an all-time high. So there are a lot of factors and data to consider, but at this point what we do know is that tax cuts paired with increased spending leads to disaster; we have not yet determined which is more relevant to taht disaster. We alos know that tax increases paired with spending cuts leads to economic bliss, but we still have yet to determine which is more relevant.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

And see I can get that anywhere, I want a data-based explanation or a theory.

Well, you're probably not going to get that from me. You're not going to convince me that higher taxes are good for me either. I can take better care of myself than the government can, for cheaper, much cheaper.

Quote

Your theory seems to be based upon trickle-down economics, which have been fully debunked by now, I hope you don't subscribe to supply-side economics, do you?

My economic theory is based on "stop spending so much f*ucking money on pointless shit".

Quote

Pounding your hand on the table rejecting tax increases 'just 'cause' isn't rational.

Expecting me to want the government to take more of my money when they're already doing such a piss-poor job with the money they have now isn't rational.

Quote

I think we can find a way thru observation of the last 100 or so years and being objective.

Hmm... over the last 100 years government power, spending, and taxing has skyrocketed, freedom and prosperity have gone way down.

Quote

Also, spending isn't spending.

Is this the point where you start arguing about what the definition of 'is' actually is?

Quote

IOW's, welfare to the poor is immediately spend on smaller items and creates a demand for those items,

Money not taken from the rich gets spent on cars, houses, and in banks, etc.. giving the poor jobs so that they don't have to be poor.

If you give a man a fish....


You're over thinking things. Who spends your money better, you, or the government? Who is going to be more frugal and cost-conscious with your money, you or the government?

Why is the government wasteful and inefficient? There's no perceived benefit for them not to be.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well, you're probably not going to get that from me. You're not going to convince me that higher taxes are good for me either.

Well at least it's nice to have 1 open-minded person on here. Data and 100 years of history is overrated, I agree.

Quote

I can take better care of myself than the government can, for cheaper, much cheaper.

Unless you become disabled, elderly, etc and need teh help, then it's, "HELP ME GOV."

Quote

My economic theory is based on "stop spending so much f*ucking money on pointless shit".

If you could give me a while to research that technical aspect appreciate it. Actually, that's where the rub lies, I call social spending important, you will deny it but military spending is justified, as the Russians are coming.

Quote

Expecting me to want the government to take more of my money when they're already doing such a piss-poor job with the money they have now isn't rational.

If you were elderly or disabled you would think it's great. That's my dad, hardcore Repub until he got old, now he's a Howard Dean Liberal.

Quote

Hmm... over the last 100 years government power, spending, and taxing has skyrocketed, freedom and prosperity have gone way down.

There have been many cycles, we can't shove it all together. Actually, the debt was manageable until the early 80's, which is when tax cutting and runaway spending was the fashion.

BTW, prosperity has flourished for the upper class, so to say prosperity hasn't flourished is wrong.

Quote

Is this the point where you start arguing about what the definition of 'is' actually is?

Well, you were being constructive for a while. Social spending benefits different people and has a different impact than does military spending, so all spending isn't the same. I illustrated that but you've decided to have your mind wide shut.

Quote

Money not taken from the rich gets spent on cars, houses, and in banks, etc.. giving the poor jobs so that they don't have to be poor.

This is where you're wrong again. The rich have money for cars, houses, etc., letting them keep again more and more just creates big numbers in their bank accounts and stangnates the economy for us. Rich people don't want for things, they keep track of their wealth via numbers as if it's a game.

Quote

If you give a man a fish....

And when we're done with the cute expressions we can talk the economy. However, now that you bring that up, you apparently advocate spending on education; I agree. Clinton was big for that.

Quote

You're over thinking things. Who spends your money better, you, or the government?

Considering I'm usually broke, they do. As for overthinking and oversimplifying the largest GDP in teh world, lets not be juvenile.

Quote

Who is going to be more frugal and cost-conscious with your money, you or the government?

Trying to compare me saving gas money, to the largest GDP in the world is so ridiculous it's laughable.

Quote

Why is the government wasteful and inefficient? There's no perceived benefit for them not to be.

It's a series of different agendas based upon different regimes. BTW, tell me of the programs you call waste.