It's Time To Kill The Absurd Notion Cutting Taxes For The Rich Grows The Economy

Nov 2005
9,382
3,890
California
You've got to be kidding. You talk smack like that and then make the absolute rookie mistake of citing statutory tax rates?
Effective tax rates are what matters.
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s | Tax Foundation
Not kidding.

First off, pay attention to what I actually said: "The tax rate for the rich is lower now than it was in 1980. "

Secondly, read your own article:

Does that substantiate my actual statement?
Why yes. Yes it does!

Your response pretends to disprove something I said when it clearly demonstrates my statement as 100% accurate.
But thanks for that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Dec 2018
4,480
1,247
New England
Not kidding.

First off, pay attention to what I actually said: "The tax rate for the rich is lower now than it was in 1980. "

Secondly, read your own article:
Does that substantiate my actual statement?​
Why yes. Yes it does!​
Your response pretends to disprove something I said when it clearly demonstrates my statement as 100% accurate.​
But thanks for that!​
Um, 1980 (the year you cited) had a slightly lower rate that the latest data on that graph. And, because you missed initially, the top 10% bear a far higher tax burden as a percentage of overall taxation now vs. then.

Spend less time on your cute gifs and more thinking.
 
Nov 2005
9,382
3,890
California
Um, 1980 (the year you cited) had a slightly lower rate that the latest data on that graph.
No. It doesn't.
Are you blind?
Let's emphasize the point...
Average-Effective-Tax-Rate-on-the-Top-1-Percent-of-U.S.-Households.png

That's YOUR graph. The 1980 rate is noticably higher than the 2014 (end data) rate.

Other sites dispute the claim of the tax foundation.
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014​
Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness



And, because you missed initially, the top 10% bear a far higher tax burden as a percentage of overall taxation now vs. then.
The above graphs deal with 1% and they prove you wrong.
Provide proof of your claim regarding 10%.


Spend less time on your cute gifs and more thinking.
Learn to read a chart and you wouldn't embarrass yourself...
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,719
27,500
La La Land North
No. It doesn't.
Are you blind?
Let's emphasize the point...
View attachment 4353

That's YOUR graph. The 1980 rate is noticably higher than the 2014 (end data) rate.

Other sites dispute the claim of the tax foundation.
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014​
Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness




The above graphs deal with 1% and they prove you wrong.
Provide proof of your claim regarding 10%.



Learn to read a chart and you wouldn't embarrass yourself...
But I still argue that this type of data is useless unless it is clearly defined what revenue streams are subject to that income tax.

The major reason for wealth inequality is that the rich make most of their money from financial instruments which are not taxed as income so aren't taxed at income tax rates. In 1944-45 the rate was 94% on income after deductions. Their deductions then were almost everything. So just quoting rates is meaningless.
 
Dec 2018
4,480
1,247
New England
No. It doesn't.
Are you blind?
Let's emphasize the point...
View attachment 4353

That's YOUR graph. The 1980 rate is noticably higher than the 2014 (end data) rate.

Other sites dispute the claim of the tax foundation.
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014​
Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness




The above graphs deal with 1% and they prove you wrong.
Provide proof of your claim regarding 10%.



Learn to read a chart and you wouldn't embarrass yourself...
By what, two or three percentage points? That's the gap that has your panties in a twist? Good Lord.

Beat that drum all you like. The facts remain that the federal government has not been starved for revenue from tax cuts, as your earlier post implied; there's been a healthy YOY tax revenue growth rate of 6% since 1980, a sustained level of growth any Fortune 500 CEO would kill for. Neither have the tax cuts shifted the burden to those not in the upper brackets. Quite the opposite has happened; the top 10% of earners pay a larger share of the tax burden than they did before.

The problem of the debt was and remains excess spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkaway
May 2019
854
190
USA
Look at the data, year by year, did the deficit rise or fall, which party controlled the White House.
You will see that in the vast majority of years when the deficit rises, there is a Republican in the White House, in the vast majority of the years where the deficit falls,, there is a Democrat in the White House. No such correlation occurs with congress, half the time the deficit rises, Republicans control congress, half the time Democrats, the same with when the deficit falls.

What methodology are you using?
I am not using any methodology. I am merely looking at the given data. If you look to the last column on the right hand side you see the deficit or surplus indicated with a $ sign. If you look at just who controlled congress, it has been consistent that the Democrat controlled congress had the higher deficits. This makes sense because the Democrat party that I was in at one time absolutely did want to spend more.

The exception in a bigly way(lol) is recently with Trump.
 
Dec 2015
18,449
17,658
Arizona
By what, two or three percentage points? That's the gap that has your panties in a twist? Good Lord.

Beat that drum all you like. The facts remain that the federal government has not been starved for revenue from tax cuts, as your earlier post implied; there's been a healthy YOY tax revenue growth rate of 6% since 1980, a sustained level of growth any Fortune 500 CEO would kill for. Neither have the tax cuts shifted the burden to those not in the upper brackets. Quite the opposite has happened; the top 10% of earners pay a larger share of the tax burden than they did before.

The problem of the debt was and remains excess spending.
NO! No! The problem of the debt IS and remains excess spending and inadequate revenue to cover excess spending.
 
Dec 2018
2,368
1,382
Unionville Indiana
A few points that trickle downers willfully refuse to acknowledge:

... That’s strike one for the assertion that “the tax cuts have not cost the U.S. Treasury money.” Actually, it’s strikes one, two and three, because even by Wesbury’s standard, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that President Donald Trump signed into law in December has so far cost the Treasury money. But it’s important also to point out — again and again, because people in Congress and elsewhere keep embracing the fallacy that tax cuts reliably increase revenue — that his standard is ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous first of all because it ignores inflation, which, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, averaged 2.1 percent over the first half of this year, turning that 0.2 percent January-June gain into a 1.8 decline in real tax revenue. Substitute the deflator used in calculating real gross domestic product, and it’s a 1.9 percent decline.

Even if tax revenue had increased in real terms, though, this still wouldn’t demonstrate that the tax cuts hadn’t cost the Treasury money. That’s because real tax revenue usually goes up when the economy is growing. So when the Congressional Budget Office or Joint Committee on Taxation makes an estimate of the revenue losses from a tax cut, they aren’t saying that tax revenue will go down by that amount in absolute terms; they’re saying that it will be that much lower than they think it would have been in the absence of the tax cut. ...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
Nov 2005
9,382
3,890
California
By what, two or three percentage points? That's the gap that has your panties in a twist? Good Lord.
Who said my panties were in a twist?
All I said was it was lower.
YOU are the one who is trying to make a big deal out of this. I just want the truth made clear while you revel in bad lies.

The facts remain that the federal government has not been starved for revenue from tax cuts, as your earlier post implied...
QUIT WITH THE DUMB LIES NatMorton.
I did not say the federal government has been starved from revenue from tax cuts.

What I did say was this: Time after time we see Repubs arguing for tax cuts (which will predominantly benefit the rich) and the reasoning that is repeatedly trotted out is a dumb claim that tax cuts for the rich grow the economy.
This thread is here to expose that claim of "give tax cuts to the rich so they can grow the economy" as a bad lie.

The response's from the right are consistently to either ignore the actual issue at hand or they obfuscate and derail (as you have been doing) because they cannot address the truth.
But that doesn't stop members of the right from repeating that dumb lie over and over again.


I more fully appreciate now why nobody else replied to your obvious thread derailment attempt. You have trouble reading graphs and then attack others who correct you. You refuse to stay on topic and you lie about other people's statements.
Let me know when you're able to avoid such cheap tactics...