The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Tax cuts historically raise tax revenues becuase of increased economic activity,

Bought into that lie, have you?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Bought into that lie, have you?

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term. The last three Presidents to try it all had success(JFK, RWR, and yes, GWB)

As for me....I'd rather see the source of the problem addressed first......spending.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term.

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

Perhaps....but it has also been done on the State level too......Bill Richardson, the current 4th place contender for the Democratic nomination lowered taxes in his state and viola.....revenue increased.

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Bought into that lie, have you?

It is true if you cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. But Republicans never seem to want to do that. They'd rather give tax breaks to big corporations and the very wealthy, which doesn't help at all.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

It is true if you cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. But Republicans never seem to want to do that. They'd rather give tax breaks to big corporations and the very wealthy, which doesn't help at all.

But if they are the ones paying 80+ percent of the taxes it's gonna be kinda hard to cut taxes at all without cutting theirs wouldn't you agree?

[JWBear]

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

Here.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Here.

From your link -

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.