Join The Debate!

TrueMoron

First you quote me, then you say “WHAT CAUSED THE EXTRA GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY?"

If your reading comprehension was above the 2nd grade level, you would have seen that in my example growth was fixed at 10% - there was no extra growth. Or maybe you just can't tell the difference between an example, reality, and that bizarre delusion you've got going on.

“This is where IDIOT liberals can NEVER see second level effects…”

If your reading comprehension was above the 2nd grade level, you would have seen my VERY NEXT paragraph: “[T]he real question is how much of a positive impact on the economy a tax cut will have.” And I point you to actual studies of the matter by respected economists. Tell me, have you read these papers? Why not?

“Reagan cut rates rather substantially - the top end from 70% to, what was it, I believe, 28%.”

No. The Reagan tax cut (ERTA of 1981 – really Kemp-Roth) cut the top rate (among others) from 70% to 50%. The 1986 tax reform was architected by Bill Bradley, and while it cut the top rate on earnings to 28%, it also increased taxes on most capital gains to the same as ordinary income, with some taxable at 33% (reversing part of the Reagan cuts in this area), and closed many loopholes used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying tax. This reform simplified the tax code dramatically, and eliminated bracket creep. But more important than all of this, the 1986 reform increased taxes on corporations so that it would be revenue-neutral.

“This was a cut so severe that SURELY, absolute reductions in tax revenues would have plagued us for generations…”

Several mitigating factors here.

“These cuts caused… huge growth in the economy...”

No. The huge amount of excess capacity in the economy following the worst recession since the 1930s and the normalization of price inflation combined in an unprecedented way to spur the economy to record growth. Would the economy have grown without the Reagan tax cuts? Absolutely – there’s no way it couldn’t. Would it have grown as fast? Probably not – lower taxes mean less burden on the economy. But the difference is difficult to estimate. That’s why economists create models that try to estimate the effects of policy changes.

“YOU, like the fools in the CBO [that's Congressional Budget Office] who make "static" revenue projections based on straight linear algorithms simply don't grasp human nature and that economic BEHAVIOR ALSO CHANGES when incentives change ... it's NOT LINEAR, IDIOT!!!!”

My goodness, but you’re sure of yourself. And naturally, wrong as usual. First off, I don’t think you have any idea what economists actually do. I mean, you think that we don’t understand that decision-making is affected by changes in policy? Perhaps you should look into the work of Lucas, or Kahneman, or even Nash. Secondly, note that the “fools” running the CBO are Republicans, and even they couldn’t find enough favorable assumptions to actually make your argument work. What, you think they weren’t inclined to find your position true? Third, did you read even the TITLE of Mankiw’s paper, you pathetic waste of space? Mankiw was the standard-bearer of “dynamic scoring” long before you ever heard of it. And according to his study, using “dynamic scoring,” a tax cut on capital in our economy would “pay for” just over half of its cost in the long run. [Sorry, again, for using terms with which I shouldn’t expect a tyro like you to be familiar. The “long run” is FOREVER.] A rate cut on labor would only make up 15% of its cost in the long run. [Oh, and a "tyro" is a novice.]

I know you know you’re wrong. I’m sorry your pride is such that you can’t just admit it. What a sad little person you are.

“you said, and I quote again, "Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period.", which in plain English means a SMALLER amount, NOT a smaller amount than it hypothetically could have been!”

Sigh. Let me ask you something. I’ll use small words. I would also say that in our economy, increasing tax rates leads to more revenue, period. You would say this is also categorically wrong, correct? (“Categorically” means absolutely.)

“And the hypothetical is the best you have since you and nobody else, including Mankiw do not know [sic - nice grammar there] what could have happened had incentives remained as atrociously bad as they were...”

Or how much higher revenues would have been without the tax cuts. Tell me, how were “incentives” different in 1977-1980 from, say, 1956-1959? When were taxes higher? And which period had greater economic prosperity? Here’s a hint – the answers don’t help you.

I’m sorry reality is so inconvenient for you.

“[By the way, the Carter economic debacle is a typical example of what happens when liberals control all three branches of government ... in ONLY four years, Carter and his liberal allies in the Congress had the country on the ropes ... economically, militarily, and culturally! [Note: I AM the source since I lived thru that sorry period and being more aware than a rock - something that you are apparently NOT - I know what the effects were!]”

Talk about your irrelevant sources! I guess you remember 1973-1977 fondly? Unprecedented inflation, Watergate, a recession that lasted two years and was the worst since the Great Depression, the fall of Vietnam, and the emergence of disco! As for the military, Carter reversed an eight year trend of declining military spending (which began as an appropriate response to the end of the Vietnam war). In real terms military spending was 6.5% higher in Carter’s final budget than it was in the budget that preceded him. Do you recall that mandatory registration for the draft was discontinued in 1975, and re-instated by Carter?

“Also, I notice you HAD to cite the CBO as a great source of knowledge - as I said before, those FOOLS continue to make static projections… but that's because it benefits the f'ing LIBERAL tax and spend agenda.”

You mean the CBO that was under Republican control for the five years before the study was published? Yes, I’m sure they were interested in benefiting a liberal agenda. What a moron you are.

“You're just another liberal fool who uses as a tactic spewing large quantities of irrelevant numbers and irrelevant sources trying to deceive your adversaries ... sorry, FOOL, it didn't work this time!”

Yes, God forbid facts get in the way of the ravings of a lunatic. You know, “irrelevant sources” such as actual economists who’ve studied the issue. Rant on!

“Finally, you don't need Nobel level research to grasp the simplest economic concepts... that's just more bullsh*t from you and your liberal buddies.”

Um, no, you said you would listen to Williams, Sowell, and the Nobel-winning supply-siders. I declined to respond to two invitations, which were to (1) name a Nobel-winning supply-sider and (2) to cite any economic study that refutes my so-basic-anybody-with-a-brain can get it assertion: in our economy, lower tax rates lead to lower tax revenues. Talk about simple concepts that all but the most feeble-minded can grasp.

“All your bullsh*t about "reducing" revenues flies in the face of common corporate practice of "reducing" current profits to invest in greater returns in the future...”

This is not at all an apt comparison, though I understand why someone as simple as you might think it is, however.

Look, this is getting really boring, and I doubt anybody else is going to wade through all of your ranting to get down here. You won’t think about the theory, you won’t look at the evidence, you’ve made up your half-witted mind and there’s nothing I can do to help you, so I’ll be leaving now. I’ll check back to see if you’re willing to answer any of these unanswered questions, but otherwise, the last word is all yours.

1. Why, if tax rate cuts cause revenues to increase, did the Reagan administration increase rather than decrease Social Security tax rates?

2. Why, if tax rate cuts cause revenues to increase, did Social Security revenues grow so much faster under Reagan than did income tax revenues?

3. Why do you think that tax cuts (Reagan) have such tremendous impacts, but tax increases (Clinton) have such negligible ones?

4. Can you name these supply side Nobel prize winners to whom you listen?

5. If not, how can you tell when you’re listening to them?

6. Has Sowell or Williams done any work that specifically and statistically addresses the question of tax revenues and tax cuts?

7. What kind of a moron are you?


And just for the record:

1. Everything you wrote in your original post was factually wrong.

2. In our economy, tax cuts will never make up for lost revenue through additional tax collected on tax cut-generated growth. Still waiting for any evidence otherwise.

Goodbye, he of the rapidly deteriorating cognitive ability. I hope you can find something in life that gives you the happiness you are so obviously lacking.

.