Tax cuts don't make basic economic sense - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15143479
Steve_American wrote:Like a typical right winger, you accuse me of lying with figures, while doing it your self.


Yet, of course, you cannot cite a single instance when I "lied with figures"? Of course not. Because I never have.

In 1983 Reagan raised FICA taxes by almost 100%. So, when you say "tax revenues" increases did you mean income tax revenues or all tax revenues?


Immediately after accusing me of being dishonest, you immediately launch into attacking me on a point I have never discussed. This is the epitome of dishonesty.

If the bank can make a loan, it wasn't constrained.


The fact that the bank had to take a loan to make a loan shows that it was constrained.

This image shows 2 things.
1] Averaged over Reagan's 8 years he had 5% inflation in each year. Is it any surprise that tax revenues went up after his income tax curs? I think not.
2] Oils prices were around $32/barrel for the 1st 5 years and then dropped to about $16/barrel for the last 3 years. These high oil prices meant that the US Gov. had to pay a lot for oil/gas. Compare these prices to the 70s. Until 1973 they were about $3/b, then in '74 jumped to $11/b and increased to $14 over the next 5 years. Then they jumped again in '79 to $22/b, and reached $37/b in '80.


Unless your argument is that inflation increased over decreases in tax cuts, which is impossible, then yes, I call BS on your figures.

The only ways Reagan spent more money that I remember were a) he increased the size of the US Navy, and b) had to spend more on everything because of inflation. But, I may not remember all the ways Reagan increased spending.


Your remembrances mean nothing. His expenditures went up every year OVER increased revenues. No source disputes this fact, so if you disagree, you're simply stupid.

This may be my last reply because I'm sick of shooting down his attempts to dispute my claim.


You have yet to shoot down a single claim. But if you ever TRY, I'll let you know.

I repeat the corrected claim for the lurkers. I admitted that my sources had combined the CARES Act spending with the actions of the Fed. Res. that had bought US bonds, corp. bonds , and even corp. stock shares to make sure that the stock market didn't crash. The Feds actions were actually larger that the CARES Act. But, Wolvenbear has ignored my correction and claimed that I had moved the goalposts for the last 3 or 4 replies. So, yes I moved them as soon as he made his 1st reply. Now, he s refusing to give any credit for my doing that. He keeps repeating numbers that relate only to the CARES Act.
. . . Maybe he doesn't grok that the Fed. Res. bank isnot independent. That the Gov. (Treasury Sec.) can give it suggestions or orders. That the Gov., therefore, includes the Fed. n any case, Repubs in Congress were well are of promises made by the Fed. Chairman to "do whatever is necessary" in the pandemic.

Now, he points out that "small business" has a strange definition. It is "fewer than 500 employees". My definition would be more like fewer than 50 employees, for my thinking in this pandemic of what businesses that needed the relief the most. For me a corp. with 400 employees is a large business. Therefore, I don't accept that the CARES Act was written well. I'm not able to research to see what part of the $18 B to $45 B (of the $500B authorized) actually spent under the PPP part of the CARES Act went to corps I would call small. medium size or large, let alone 'huge'. About $100M *seems* to have gone the Trimp and his family.
.


So, in short, "I had no idea what I was talking about. Wolvenbear repeatedly corrected me. I have been wrong on every single point I have argued, but ignore it because I am too lazy or stupid to look stuff up before I argue it. Is that about the long and short of your argument, you dishonest hack?

You have spent this entire post backpedalling from one stupid assertion to another. You have made a dozen incorrect claims, which have all been disproven, yet, dispite being proven wrong, you insist you are still correct. What am I missing here?
#15143935
I feel it needs reiterating. Steve's original point was that almost all of the stimulus funds went to the top 1% of society. To date, he has not shown a single piece of evidence that a single dollar has gone to the "top 1%". Since none of the top 10% of businesses emply less than 500 people, the claim is wrong. Yet the goalposts keep getting shifted to keep from refusing to admit error.
#15143944
Wolvenbear wrote:
I feel it needs reiterating. Steve's original point was that almost all of the stimulus funds went to the top 1% of society. To date, he has not shown a single piece of evidence that a single dollar has gone to the "top 1%". Since none of the top 10% of businesses emply less than 500 people, the claim is wrong. Yet the goalposts keep getting shifted to keep from refusing to admit error.



Republicans have been sluicing money at the rich since the 80s.
#15144453
Wovernbear claimed that "tax revenue" rose in every year of the Reagan Admin. He was wrong.
Since we were talking about income tax cuts, we really should just look at revenue from income taxes. However, total taxes are more favorable to him and they still didn't increase each year.
In 1983 revenue fell, and then in 1983 Reagan increased the FICA & Medicare taxes that brought in a lot of money.
Also, inflation was pretty high. Increasing the GDP by 1.6% when inflation is over 3% means that real GDP fell by about 1.5%. It also means that real tax revenues were lowered when you discount for the inflation.
Data to evaluate the affects of inflation on GDP growth and on total tax revenues.

From U.S. & WORLD ECONOMIES US ECONOMY
. . . US Federal Government [total] Tax Revenue
"Fiscal Year Revenue [total revenue]
FY 1989 $991 billion
FY1988 $909 billion
FY 1987 $854 billion
FY 1986 $769 billion
FY 1985 $734 billion
FY 1984 $666 billion . The year the 1983 ICA tax increase took effect.
FY 1983 $601 billion . Notice that total tax revenue fell.
During the first year of Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981,[19] which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%. This act slashed estate taxes and trimmed taxes paid by business corporations by $150 billion over a five-year period. In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax increase on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.[20] In 1984 another bill was introduced that closed tax loopholes.

FY 1982 $618 billion . Reagan rolled back (=increased) some taxes.
FY 1981 $599 billion . Reagan cut taxes.
FY 1980 $517 billion . The year Reagan elected.
FY 1979 $463 billion"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Link to a graph of inflation each year spanning Reagan's Admin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rected.png

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s- ... ue-3305762
Fiscal Year Revenue [total revenue]
FY 2021 $3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020 $3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019 $3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 $3.25 trillion
FY 2014 $3.02 trillion
FY 2013 $2.77 trillion
FY 2012 $2.45 trillion
FY 2011 $2.30 trillion
FY 2010 $2.16 trillion
FY 2009 $2.10 trillion
FY 2008 $2.52 trillion
FY 2007 $2.57 trillion
FY 2006 $2.41 trillion
FY 2005 $2.15 trillion
FY 2004 $1.88 trillion
FY 2003 $1.78 trillion
FY 2002 $1.85 trillion
FY 2001 $1.99 trillion
FY 2000 $2.03 trillion
FY 1999 $1.82 trillion
FY 1998 $1.72 trillion
FY 1997 $1.58 trillion
FY 1996 $1.45 trillion
FY 1995 $1.35 trillion
FY 1994 $1.26 trillion
FY 1993 $1.15 trillion
FY 1992 $1.09 trillion
FY 1991 $1.05 trillion
FY 1990 $1.03 trillion
FY 1989 $991 billion
FY1988 $909 billion
FY 1987 $854 billion
FY 1986 $769 billion
FY 1985 $734 billion
FY 1984 $666 billion
FY 1983 $601 billion . Revenues actually fell.
FY 1982 $618 billion . Note the slower rise in tax revenues because inflation fell as well as taxes being cut.
FY 1981 $599 billion
FY 1980 $517 billion
FY 1979 $463 billion . Note that from '73 to '80 OPEC had caused oil prices to rise and so inflation was very high, and this made tax revenue rise rapidly.
FY 1978 $399 billion
FY 1977 $356 billion
FY 1976 $298 billion
FY 1975 $279 billion
FY 1974 $263 billion
FY 1973 $231 billion
FY 1972 $207 billion

.

@Tainari88 Some of the other Puerto Rican army[…]

Is NYC dead forever?

We are now starting to see article saying how pla[…]

@Julian658 It's called a MIXED Economy. P[…]

Your conspiracy theory about the European Union c[…]