ZipCat Posted March 21 Author Report Share Posted March 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, GP1 said: From 1980 to 1990 Federal tax revenue increased from $518 billion to $1.0 trillion. Finish reading the article you googled: Quote "After the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 revenues fell by 6% in real terms. This promoted a tax increase that passed the House in late 1981 and the Senate in mid-1982 called the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This act was an agreement between Reagan and the Congress that raised revenues for the following years. Following that increase, there were 3 other tax increases from 1983 to 1987 for other various reasons. In total, the US lost over $200 billion in 2012 chained dollars due to the original tax cut in the first four years and around $1 billion for the second tax cut. Revenues grew from 1982 to 1987 by a total of $137 billion in revenue which adds up to roughly $64 billion in net revenue lost because of the cuts.[13] Yeah the net impact was negative revenues because of the 1981 Reagan Tax-cut, and they raised taxes 3-times after it was passed because it was so disastrous. Thus making the claim, a complete and utter lie. Because of course it is...it defies all mathematical sense. You don't cut your income working at Goldman Sachs by working at McDonalds and think you're magically going to make more money. The concept is beyond futilely stupid; and yet a single generation of men has fallen for it THREE TIMES. When are you going to learn? Don't rely on the AI from google, it does a terrible job of accurately finding information. Edited March 21 by ZipCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 54 minutes ago, ZipCat said: Finish reading the article you googled: Yeah the net impact was negative revenues because of the 1981 Reagan Tax-cut, and they raised taxes 3-times after it was passed because it was so disastrous. Thus making the claim, a complete and utter lie. Because of course it is...it defies all mathematical sense. You don't cut your income working at Goldman Sachs by working at McDonalds and think you're magically going to make more money. The concept is beyond futilely stupid; and yet a single generation of men has fallen for it THREE TIMES. When are you going to learn? Don't rely on the AI from google, it does a terrible job of accurately finding information. I don't know the article. My numbers are correct. Government revenue increased in the 80s. Military spending left the government with massive debt by the end of the 80s. It's the spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZipCat Posted March 21 Author Report Share Posted March 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, GP1 said: I don't know the article. My numbers are correct. Government revenue increased in the 80s. Military spending left the government with massive debt by the end of the 80s. It's the spending. Sure, but they lack the proper context that you lost revenue long term, and that it's under what you would have had if you hadn't changed it, thus making the claim "tax revenue increased" isn't true. Quote It's the spending. Stop saying this. If you have a $500 car note, and you go from working at Goldman Sachs to working at McDonalds and now you cannot pay the $500 car note, it's not the spending that's the problem...you have a revenue problem. But where I will agree with you is this: MILITARY SPENDING you are absolutely correct. That is part of the problem. But to sit there and say that Cutting Taxes didn't creat the $30-trillion debt is just a blatant lie. Yes it did. Regan, Bush and Trump didn't bother to cut spending to the military to pay for the tax cuts, they both raised military spending and cut taxes and the go "gee, guess we're spending too much on national parks!". It's a lie. You know it. I know it. Stop saying it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and at least admit that IT WAS NOT the EPA, Department of Education, USAID, Aid to Ukraine that created the National Debt. If you cannot admit that, you just are not an honest person. Edited March 21 by ZipCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, ZipCat said: Sure, but they lack the proper context that you lost revenue long term, and that it's under what you would have had if you hadn't changed it, thus making the claim "tax revenue increased" isn't true. Stop saying this. If you have a $500 car note, and you go from working at Goldman Sachs to working at McDonalds and now you cannot pay the $500 car note, it's not the spending that's the problem...you have a revenue problem. But where I will agree with you is this: MILITARY SPENDING you are absolutely correct. That is part of the problem. But to sit there and say that Cutting Taxes didn't creat the $30-trillion debt is just a blatant lie. Yes it did. Regan, Bush and Trump didn't bother to cut spending to the military to pay for the tax cuts, they both raised military spending and cut taxes and the go "gee, guess we're spending too much on national parks!". It's a lie. You know it. I know it. Stop saying it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and at least admit that IT WAS NOT the EPA, Department of Education, USAID, Aid to Ukraine that created the National Debt. If you cannot admit that, you just are not an honest person. You should have stopped at "Sure". The spending is a lot of things. A drop of water does not cause a flood. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZipCat Posted March 22 Author Report Share Posted March 22 (edited) 15 minutes ago, GP1 said: A drop of water does not cause a flood. Correct. The "drops" in the bucket are individual line items in the federal budget. The flood is the cutting of the dam year-on-year. It's the cutting of the dam that causes the flood, not the drops in the bucket. You're absolutely right about that, you just don't have a correct understanding of the analogy. Edited March 22 by ZipCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 2 hours ago, ZipCat said: Correct. The "drops" in the bucket are individual line items in the federal budget. The flood is the cutting of the dam year-on-year. It's the cutting of the dam that causes the flood, not the drops in the bucket. You're absolutely right about that, you just don't have a correct understanding of the analogy. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip_ME87 Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 15 hours ago, GP1 said: Does anyone really think people in the 1950s making $200,000 per year and only took home $18,000? That's not the way marginal tax rates work and you know it. Do you work for FOX News? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 2 hours ago, Zip_ME87 said: That's not the way marginal tax rates work and you know it. Do you work for FOX News? You're missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip_ME87 Posted Sunday at 11:22 AM Report Share Posted Sunday at 11:22 AM 22 hours ago, GP1 said: You're missing the point. Your post was pointless because it was inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted Sunday at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted Sunday at 01:45 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Zip_ME87 said: Your post was pointless because it was inaccurate. No it wasn't. Nine percent of two hundred thousand is eighteen thousand. Edited Sunday at 01:52 PM by GP1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip_ME87 Posted Sunday at 10:59 PM Report Share Posted Sunday at 10:59 PM 9 hours ago, GP1 said: No it wasn't. Nine percent of two hundred thousand is eighteen thousand. For federal income tax purposes, it was. Nothing the IRS does is that simple. lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.