Oh shit... The Republicans again.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

As Republicans assume control of the entire U.S. Congress in the new year, they are expected to push a controversial change to use more macroeconomic projections in determining the impact of tax and budget legislation on the federal deficit.

...

Republican advocates argue it would make fiscal analysis better reflect what they call economic realities. Dynamic scoring, as they envision it, would assumes that lower tax rates boost growth, offsetting some lost revenue.

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

As Republicans assume control of the entire U.S. Congress in the new year, they are expected to push a controversial change to use more macroeconomic projections in determining the impact of tax and budget legislation on the federal deficit.

...

Republican advocates argue it would make fiscal analysis better reflect what they call economic realities. Dynamic scoring, as they envision it, would assumes that lower tax rates boost growth, offsetting some lost revenue.

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

Well, it is true that anything that spurs economic growth should spur tax revenues. And "dynamic scoring" (which is another term of more reasonable economic modelling) if done properly would give a better idea of the likely consequences of any policy action. Especially if the modelling generated a range of likely outcomes. Now, it is true that there is no theoretical reason to expect that the foregone tax revenues from the lowered tax rates or reduced tax bases would be matched (or exceeded) by any increase in tax revenue from any improvement in economic activity.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Every businessman knows that if you cut revenues, profits automatically grow. Why can't the democrats figure this out?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

As Republicans assume control of the entire U.S. Congress in the new year, they are expected to push a controversial change to use more macroeconomic projections in determining the impact of tax and budget legislation on the federal deficit.

...

Republican advocates argue it would make fiscal analysis better reflect what they call economic realities. Dynamic scoring, as they envision it, would assumes that lower tax rates boost growth, offsetting some lost revenue.

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

 

[Davka]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

Yeah, Ronnie played fast-and-loose with the numbers, and hid it all behind that charming smile and aw-shucks manner of his. Our first bona-fide TV President.

 

[NobleSavage]

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

Yeah, Ronnie played fast-and-loose with the numbers, and hid it all behind that charming smile and aw-shucks manner of his. Our first bona-fide TV President.

I'd give that award to JFK.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, Ronnie played fast-and-loose with the numbers, and hid it all behind that charming smile and aw-shucks manner of his. Our first bona-fide TV President.

I'd give that award to JFK.

Yeah, Ronnie was a movie President.

 

[Bronzeage]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

Back when Clinton was in office, my GOP friends tried to tease me about the Clinton tax hike. I told them if it cost me half of what Reagan's tax cut cost me, I could live with it. They thought I was being sarcastic, but after I pointed out how many middle income tax deductions had been washed away, they couldn't argue. I had been doing my own tax returns since I graduated high school and I was very aware of what went into a tax return. The lower tax rate did not even things out for me.

The standard GOP sermon is a pledge to cut taxes, which they are happy to do, followed by a cut in spending, which never happens. This is even more disingenuous than it sounds. The neo-con wave that washed Reagan into office has always had an ulterior agenda. The failure to cut spending is part of the plan. They want government to be perpetually crippled by lack of revenue. This makes social programs easier to attack, on the basis of "we simply can't afford it." One place they never fail to curb spending is the appropriation for the IRS enforcement division. It's just another way to choke off the government's revenue stream.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

The standard GOP sermon is a pledge to cut taxes, which they are happy to do, followed by a cut in spending, which never happens. This is even more disingenuous than it sounds. The neo-con wave that washed Reagan into office has always had an ulterior agenda. The failure to cut spending is part of the plan. They want government to be perpetually crippled by lack of revenue. This makes social programs easier to attack, on the basis of "we simply can't afford it." One place they never fail to curb spending is the appropriation for the IRS enforcement division. It's just another way to choke off the government's revenue stream.

I'll take the truth, and nothing but the truth for $1600 Alex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The standard GOP sermon is a pledge to cut taxes, which they are happy to do, followed by a cut in spending, which never happens. This is even more disingenuous than it sounds. The neo-con wave that washed Reagan into office has always had an ulterior agenda. The failure to cut spending is part of the plan. They want government to be perpetually crippled by lack of revenue. This makes social programs easier to attack, on the basis of "we simply can't afford it." One place they never fail to curb spending is the appropriation for the IRS enforcement division. It's just another way to choke off the government's revenue stream.

There's too much truth here. Tone it down, the use of WMDs is not acceptable!

(Although I can understand going after the IRS. They're too unconcerned with the impact of their policies on the taxpayer. I don't care how much they need the fraud data, the TCMP audits are unacceptable without substantial compensation to the taxpayers thus inconvenienced. They're basically fishing expeditions rather than about any suspected wrongdoing.)

 

[Bronzeage]

The standard GOP sermon is a pledge to cut taxes, which they are happy to do, followed by a cut in spending, which never happens. This is even more disingenuous than it sounds. The neo-con wave that washed Reagan into office has always had an ulterior agenda. The failure to cut spending is part of the plan. They want government to be perpetually crippled by lack of revenue. This makes social programs easier to attack, on the basis of "we simply can't afford it." One place they never fail to curb spending is the appropriation for the IRS enforcement division. It's just another way to choke off the government's revenue stream.

There's too much truth here. Tone it down, the use of WMDs is not acceptable!

(Although I can understand going after the IRS. They're too unconcerned with the impact of their policies on the taxpayer. I don't care how much they need the fraud data, the TCMP audits are unacceptable without substantial compensation to the taxpayers thus inconvenienced. They're basically fishing expeditions rather than about any suspected wrongdoing.)

That's always the easy sell version. The IRS just wants more money, so they pull a name from a hat and go on a raiding party. When that tired old song is playing, few people remember that a great deal of tax revenue flows through an employer's hands before the IRS sees it. When that is combined with the SS matching contribution, it is a lot. It's enough to tempt any potential tax cheat. A businessman who thinks he can steal from all of the people of the United States is not going to be concerned about stealing from his employees.

That concerned is even less when he knows the IRS simply doesn't have the manpower or budget to find him.

 

[Medicine Man]

Reagan didn't debunk them because he closed a lot of loopholes at the time he cut tax rates. Reagan's actions shouldn't really be evaluated as a tax cut in the first place.

I do agree about Bush, though.

Back when Clinton was in office, my GOP friends tried to tease me about the Clinton tax hike. I told them if it cost me half of what Reagan's tax cut cost me, I could live with it. They thought I was being sarcastic, but after I pointed out how many middle income tax deductions had been washed away, they couldn't argue. I had been doing my own tax returns since I graduated high school and I was very aware of what went into a tax return. The lower tax rate did not even things out for me.

Yeah....the Republicans always have been too-trustful....trusting that Americans never would crunch.....​

...The Actual-Numbers!!!
August 5, 1996

*​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

 

[maxparrish]

Oh boy... not even in charge yet and it is looking bad. link

In other words, Fuzzy Math is back bitches!

Sure, the Reagan and W tax cuts completely debunked the idea that tax cuts kick up tax revenue more than they reduce tax revenue, but we don't want pesky facts to get in the way.

Well, it is true that anything that spurs economic growth should spur tax revenues. And "dynamic scoring" (which is another term of more reasonable economic modelling) if done properly would give a better idea of the likely consequences of any policy action. Especially if the modelling generated a range of likely outcomes. Now, it is true that there is no theoretical reason to expect that the foregone tax revenues from the lowered tax rates or reduced tax bases would be matched (or exceeded) by any increase in tax revenue from any improvement in economic activity.

Shockingly, I agree.

 

[Derec]

Every businessman knows that if you cut revenues, profits automatically grow. Why can't the democrats figure this out?

A better analogy would be a business cutting prices and increasing revenue due to volume outpacing lower per-unit revenue.

 

[Medicine Man]

Every businessman knows that if you cut revenues, profits automatically grow. Why can't the democrats figure this out?​

'Cause Lil' Dumbya proved otherwise.....

*​

Tax-Cuts DON'T Boost Revenues!!
December 6, 2007

​

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every businessman knows that if you cut revenues, profits automatically grow. Why can't the democrats figure this out?

A better analogy would be a business cutting prices and increasing revenue due to volume outpacing lower per-unit revenue.

How is that a better analogy, or better put, how is that even analgous? If you lower a price, the idea is that you can sell more and make up the difference.

If you cut income tax revenue, jobs have to be created in order to generate an increase for income tax revenue to counter the tax cut, because the income itself isn't going to jump up to cover the revenue shortfall.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A better analogy would be a business cutting prices and increasing revenue due to volume outpacing lower per-unit revenue.

How is that a better analogy, or better put, how is that even analgous? If you lower a price, the idea is that you can sell more and make up the difference.

If you cut income tax revenue, jobs have to be created in order to generate an increase for income tax revenue to counter the tax cut, because the income itself isn't going to jump up to cover the revenue shortfall.

Jimmy all you need is faith. Look at Kansas, they are almost there. They just need to cut revenue even more and their budgets will be balanced.

 

[Derec]

How is that a better analogy, or better put, how is that even analgous? If you lower a price, the idea is that you can sell more and make up the difference.

Because taxes act as a cost on the economy.
It is certainly a much better analogy than the one you provided.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is that a better analogy, or better put, how is that even analgous? If you lower a price, the idea is that you can sell more and make up the difference.

Because taxes act as a cost on the economy.
It is certainly a much better analogy than the one you provided.

I'm not following. I wasn't offering an example, but the actual representation.

Federal Government collects X in taxes.
Republicans get in power and reduce taxes by 10%, so revenue is now 0.9X.
The only way to break even are two contributors.
1) Current taxpayers pay more in income taxes, not likely because they'd need to be getting about 10% more income.
2) Jobs are created and more income taxes are paid with those new jobs.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't agree with supply side economics, I'm a free marketer, but I do understand the argument.

The argument is that when taxes are cut (to a certain extent) then the money that was previous removed from the economy is now put to use in the economy, creating more goods (sales tax) and jobs (income tax). Although each person is paying a lower rate, the net effect of more jobs and more sales makes up for it in volume.

Of course such a scenario is much too interventionist for my tastes. It smacks to much of Keynesian-lite.