Tax cuts for rich do not spur job growth

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: It will bring down the deficit, which according to "you guys" is a critical issue, it will enable tax breaks for small business hiring to be enacted without increasing the deficit, it will help with providing job retraining education, etc., etc.

Are you just trolling or do you have anything substantial to add?

Like the "deficit reduction" taxes added to every gallon of fuel sold back in the 1980's reduced the deficit that was accrued during the Reagan administration? Spending drives the deficit, not revenue. Deficits occur when spending exceeds revenues. Doesn't matter how much revenue one takes in when one spends in excess of that revenue. The deficit problem we have is a spending problem, not a revenue one.

I know you like bumper sticker solutions, but as you said deficits occur when spending exceeds revenues. Notice there are two parts that drive deficits, spending and revenues. Deficits occur when either spending increases, or revenues decrease. Right? Simple math. When you reduce revenues, such as occurred with Bush tax cuts, without corresponding reduction in spending, deficits occur. Right? Or when you increase spending, such as funding two wars, without corresponding increases in revenue, such as occurred in the Bush administration, deficits occur. Right?
I know you are going off on an attempt to deflect from the topic of this thread, but let's focus on the topic, that is tax cuts to the wealthiest do not create jobs.

And raising taxes on those who pay the most in taxes isn't a bumper sticker solution? rofllol Good luck trying to tax our way out of this economic sink hole... and you stilll won't tell us oh wise one, what is a "fair" tax rate for the 1%? Just pick a number, any number you think is fair.

Heisenberg wrote: And raising taxes on those who pay the most in taxes isn't a bumper sticker solution? rofllol Good luck trying to tax our way out of this economic sink hole... and you stilll won't tell us oh wise one, what is a "fair" tax rate for the 1%? Just pick a number, any number you think is fair.

And you have not asked me what a fair tax rate for the 1% is. I will tell you, an effective rate of 35% would be fair.

Tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, was already falling prior to the tax rate cuts that happened in 2003. Tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, increased after the tax rates were cut. That data supports the premise that cutting tax rates reduces the deficit as much as the premise that increasing tax rates does given that both of them have been shown to increase revenue. Revenue as a percentage of GDP went up when tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration, the Kennedy administration and the Truman administration (over the veto of Truman). All of those tax revenue increases resulted from tax rate cuts spurring additional investment which helped the economy grow at a faster rate than it had previously been growing and all of them therefore reduced the deficits by increasing the tax revenues.

It is impossible to state that the economy would have grown as much and as quickly in the absence of the tax rate cuts of 2003 as it did with them, which is the premise that you rely on to sustain the argument that those tax rate cuts increased the deficit. What can be stated with certainty is that prior to the tax rates being cut, when the tax rates were at the same levels they were at when there were "budget surpluses" under Clinton, the tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP was falling even as the gross number of dollars in tax revenue continued to be greater than they were under Clinton. The tax rate cuts signed by Bush resulted in not only more gross dollars being sent to the treasury, the tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP went up as well. When revenues increase deficits decrease - isn't that the argument you are trying to make here Dog? The Bush Tax cuts netted revenue increases, which by your own logic reduced the deficits that occurred as a result of the excessive spending that the administration engaged in.

PrintSmith wrote: Tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, was already falling prior to the tax rate cuts that happened in 2003. Tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, increased after the tax rates were cut. That data supports the premise that cutting tax rates reduces the deficit as much as the premise that increasing tax rates does given that both of them have been shown to increase revenue. Revenue as a percentage of GDP went up when tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration, the Kennedy administration and the Truman administration (over the veto of Truman). All of those tax revenue increases resulted from tax rate cuts spurring additional investment which helped the economy grow at a faster rate than it had previously been growing and all of them therefore reduced the deficits by increasing the tax revenues.

It is impossible to state that the economy would have grown as much and as quickly in the absence of the tax rate cuts of 2003 as it did with them, which is the premise that you rely on to sustain the argument that those tax rate cuts increased the deficit. What can be stated with certainty is that prior to the tax rates being cut, when the tax rates were at the same levels they were at when there were "budget surpluses" under Clinton, the tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP was falling even as the gross number of dollars in tax revenue continued to be greater than they were under Clinton. The tax rate cuts signed by Bush resulted in not only more gross dollars being sent to the treasury, the tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP went up as well. When revenues increase deficits decrease - isn't that the argument you are trying to make here Dog? The Bush Tax cuts netted revenue increases, which by your own logic reduced the deficits that occurred as a result of the excessive spending that the administration engaged in.

Printsmith wrote: I addressed the premise by exposing the fatal flaw in the logic used to sustain it. Taking a single metric and using it to prove the sweeping conclusion would net you a failing grade in even an introductory statistical analysis class. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with reason and logic is capable of understanding that. And yet not only was the article written, it was regurgitated as if there was even a sliver of merit contained within it. To label it as a prime example of liars attempting to use statistics as a means of forwarding a theory they wished to establish is a spot on analysis of the contents of the written diarrhea the link directed anyone who clicked on it to.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=...t=statistics#p236790 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=22336&p=236790&hilit=statistics#p236790<!-- l -->

Printsmith wrote: Logic doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours Raees. Looking solely at one metric and formulation.g a sweeping conclusion from it would garner a failing grade in any statistical analysis class - even an introductory one.

Another instance of liars using statistics to forward a theory they wish to establish is what this latest opinion piece reverberating inside the "progressive" echo chamber is, and nothing more.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=...t=statistics#p236777 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=22336&p=236777&hilit=statistics#p236777<!-- l -->

PrintSmith wrote: "The old saying is that “figures will not lie,” but a new saying is “liars will figure.” It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish." - Carrol D Wright, 1889, excerpt from address given to the Convention of Commissioners of Bureaus of Statistics of Labor.

120 years later, here we are - unable to prevent liars from figuring in the interest of trying to convince the electorate to believe some cockamamie theory they wish to advance. Now that's "progress" . . . . .

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=...t=statistics#p221193 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20631&p=221193&hilit=statistics#p221193<!-- l -->

And yet you use select "statistics" to advance your pet theory.

Funny how repeating a proven lie over and over again still does not make it true:

The TRUTH about Tax-Cuts for the Rich / The Devastating Chart Romney Hopes You Never See

Tax Cuts For The Rich Linked To Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth, Study Finds

A new study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found that over the past 65 years, tax cuts for the rich have not led to economic growth and instead are linked to greater income inequality in the United States.

The study found that cutting taxes for the rich does not increase saving, investment, or productivity growth. "The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie," the study said.

Two graphs show the lack of connection between tax rates for the rich and economic growth:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/775292/thumbs/o-TAX-CUTS-FOR-THE-RICH-570.jpg?4

Two graphs from the study show a clear connection between higher taxes for the rich and less income inequality:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/775285/thumbs/o-TAX-CUTS-FOR-THE-RICH-570.jpg?3

Those findings are inconvenient for the Romney campaign. In a continuation of trickle-down economic theory, the Republican presidential nominee has argued that cutting taxes for the rich would "stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment," thus "breathing life into the present anemic recovery."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 89686.html

Repeat the lie often enough, and loud enough, and there is a percentage of the sheeple that will believe it... Goebbels would be so proud...

One of the reasons I don't visit sites like Huff-n-Puff which continue to use Goebbles' tactics to distribute their propaganda.

Something the Dog Said wrote: And yet you use select "statistics" to advance your pet theory.

I am using them in the manner that you are using yours Dog. Your argument that the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficits relies on you being able to show that the economy would have grown as much and as quickly in the absence of those cuts as it did with those cuts in place. Given the reality that you have no ability to meet that burden, your entire argument is without merit.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Democrats controlled Congress and Senate for about six weeks, hardly enough time to implement a major tax policy change. The Congressional Research Service is not "my" non-partisan source, but is a highly respected and well thought of agency of the Library of Congress for almost 100 years. But feel free to provide your own sources and we can compare.

Enough to get Obamacare passed? Or maybe Obama and his team did believe that increasing taxes on the rich would actually hurt job creation? And were willing to decrease tax receipts for a couple in order to stimulate the economy.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: And yet you use select "statistics" to advance your pet theory.

I am using them in the manner that you are using yours Dog. Your argument that the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficits relies on you being able to show that the economy would have grown as much and as quickly in the absence of those cuts as it did with those cuts in place. Given the reality that you have no ability to meet that burden, your entire argument is without merit.

You are actually arguing that the unfunded Bush tax cuts did not increase the deficit. Remember, Reagan was forced to increase taxes in order to pay for his tax cuts.

FY2002 - first year of Bush tax cuts - revenue dropped $140 billion
FY2003 - revenue dropped $220 billion

Analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice claims that the Bush era tax cuts resulted in $1,918.9 billion in lower revenue from FY2001 through FY2009, and that the total cost if implementing the cuts (including interest payments on debt) was $2,141 billion.