have the tax cuts caused tax revenues to go up?

[rushmc 23]

Personally I will agree with Walter E Williams

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The tricky part if figuring out the impact those dollars that remain in the hands of the public have on the overall economy, which effects the GDP, which impacts the tax revenues.

it's tricky proving that X% tax cuts lead to Y% change in net revenues. You can't easily isolate the external factors.

It's trivial normalizing revenue against inflation and population.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Does anyone REALLY think the gov needs MORE money to spend?? I mean one can certainly say "we need to spend it differently" but raise TAXES??? Cut programs and spend the money better (whatever that may be) but raise more taxes. Thats nuts.

Everyone thinks what you say. But then they want their social security, their mortage deduction, public schools, lower income tax brackets, competent TSA guards at the airports, and an asskicking military to keep our enemies at bay.

In short, they want the cake without the bill.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Personally I will agree with Walter E Williams

I'm sure you and Walt are far better informed than Greenspan, Bernenke, the CBO, and GWB's own economists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

Ask a former GW Bush economic advisor (2003-2005) and Harvard professor.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally I will agree with Walter E Williams

I'm sure you and Walt are far better informed than Greenspan, Bernenke, the CBO, and GWB's own economists.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

Quote

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Hmm..surge in revenues... we know DAMN sure it wasn't from the government reining in spending...what COULD have caused it? Hmm... I wonder....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

if they don't agree with YOUR opinion I'm sure you'll just discount them.

Just go ahead and tell someone they're full of shit before they even say anything? Is that the new thing among college professors, Dr. Kallend?

Thanks Bill.

Every one of these statements has been previously posted in SC, yet just TODAY in the DOW thread you claimed that there was nothing to back up my statement on tax revenues.

What a stupid post. Really! It's inane.

Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to make about revenues.

Let me explain it another way, since you seem to be having trouble with this:

If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

if they don't agree with YOUR opinion I'm sure you'll just discount them.

Just go ahead and tell someone they're full of shit before they even say anything? Is that the new thing among college professors, Dr. Kallend?

Thanks Bill.

Every one of these statements has been previously posted in SC, yet just TODAY in the DOW thread you claimed that there was nothing to back up my statement on tax revenues.

What a stupid post. Really! It's inane.

Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to make about revenues.

Let me explain it another way, since you seem to be having trouble with this:

If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

So now YOU know more about economics than Greenspan or Bernanke? Why not apply for the job, I hear it pays quite well.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally I will agree with Walter E Williams

I'm sure you and Walt are far better informed than Greenspan, Bernenke, the CBO, and GWB's own economists.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

Quote

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Hmm..surge in revenues... we know DAMN sure it wasn't from the government reining in spending...what COULD have caused it? Hmm... I wonder....

Not tax cuts, apparently.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and
>revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to
>make about revenues.

No, but it does prove he backed up his statement. You can disagree with his sources, but that's not the same as not backing it up.

>If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

If the air is clear, AND the head of the EPA, the chief scientist of NCAR and a former atmospheric scientist all agree that it is free of pollution - it's likely they know more about it than you do.

[billvon 3,119]

>Hmm..surge in revenues... we know DAMN sure it wasn't from the
> government reining in spending...what COULD have caused it?

Actually, as someone else pointed out, increasing government spending can _cause_ such a surge in revenues. But more likely was just an economic cycle of the sort that has happened since we started observing it.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

>Hmm..surge in revenues... we know DAMN sure it wasn't from the
> government reining in spending...what COULD have caused it?

Actually, as someone else pointed out, increasing government spending can _cause_ such a surge in revenues. But more likely was just an economic cycle of the sort that has happened since we started observing it.

So, it's like global warming?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and
>revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to
>make about revenues.

No, but it does prove he backed up his statement. You can disagree with his sources, but that's not the same as not backing it up.

So which one of those guys is saying revenues are not going up?

Quote

>If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

If the air is clear, AND the head of the EPA, the chief scientist of NCAR and a former atmospheric scientist all agree that it is free of pollution - it's likely they know more about it than you do.

I agree... but this has little if anything to do with Kallend's claim.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Actually, as someone else pointed out, increasing government spending can _cause_ such a surge in revenues. But more likely was just an economic cycle of the sort that has happened since we started observing it.

So, it's like global warming?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Actually, as someone else pointed out, increasing government spending can _cause_ such a surge in revenues. But more likely was just an economic cycle of the sort that has happened since we started observing it.

So, it's like global warming?

Exactly. A bunch of people scream and shout and try to use the government to push their personal agendas for personal gain. And both have an ultimate goal of trying to bankrupt those with more money than them.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

>Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and
>revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to
>make about revenues.

No, but it does prove he backed up his statement. You can disagree with his sources, but that's not the same as not backing it up.

So which one of those guys is saying revenues are not going up?

Quote

>If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

If the air is clear, AND the head of the EPA, the chief scientist of NCAR and a former atmospheric scientist all agree that it is free of pollution - it's likely they know more about it than you do.

I agree... but this has little if anything to do with Kallend's claim.

Repeating the same thing over and over (in the face of evidence to the contrary) does not make it true, it just makes you look foolish and vindictive.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Repeating the same thing over and over (in the face of evidence to the contrary) does not make it true, it just makes you look foolish and vindictive.

You mean like claiming a point has been proven when it hasn't?

[billvon 3,119]

>So which one of those guys is saying revenues are not going up?

None of them. Nor are any of them saying that tax cuts CAUSED revenues to go up. Indeed, most of them said that tax cuts DID NOT cause revenues to go up.

(You do understand the whole causation thing, right?)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>So which one of those guys is saying revenues are not going up?

None of them.

Except Professor Kallend!!!

Quote

Nor are any of them saying that tax cuts CAUSED revenues to go up. Indeed, most of them said that tax cuts DID NOT cause revenues to go up.

(You do understand the whole causation thing, right?)

Why are you directing this to me? I never disagreed with those points.

The funny thing about this recent tit-for-tat with the perfesser is his claim could be correct. I just asked him to show proof of that claim and he's consistently ducked, dodged and evaded my requests.

Same as it ever was...

[billvon 3,119]

>Except Professor Kallend!!!

Where did he say that?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Except Professor Kallend!!!

Where did he say that?

Hey Bill,

You've been defending his statement. Which statement did you think this was about?

[billvon 3,119]

>Which statement did you think this was about?

I just asked you that. Where did Kallend say revenues did not go up, as you claimed?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The funny thing about this recent tit-for-tat with the perfesser is his claim could be correct. .

Same as it ever was...

It is correct. Same as it was when I first made it, months ago.

REAL government revenues (after adjusting for inflation and population growth) have declined 4.7% since the end of the Clinton adminstration. The accumulated revenues under the Bush administration are $14.09Trillion, whereas if the revenues during the last Clinton year had continued just at the same level (not even inflating or increasing due to population growth) the accumulated revenue would be $14.18Trillion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

What statement did you think Kallend was backing up when you posted the following? How did you conclude I was questioning that specific statement?

Quote

>Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and
>revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to
>make about revenues.

No, but it does prove he backed up his statement. You can disagree with his sources, but that's not the same as not backing it up.

[billvon 3,119]

I will answer your question if you answer mine.