Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% This Year — Is Trump Tax Cut Paying For Itself?
Topic Started: Jul 11 2018, 07:37 PM (550 Views)
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% This Year — Is Trump Tax Cut Paying For Itself?

Supply-Side Economics: Democrats scoffed at Republicans who said the Trump tax cuts would at least partially pay for themselves through higher economic growth. But it looks like the GOP had it right all along, as revenues climb.

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

The CBO says the gain "largely reflects increases in wages and salaries."

link
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

What a remarkable guy. He's creating more jobs so government can collect more taxes. Both sides have more money.

Shouldn't leftists cheer for this?
Support Papa John's and MAGA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dcbl
Member Avatar
Good guys wear white hats
just like we said they would

nothing to see here folks, move along

apocalypse incoming with Trump SCOTUS nominee, literally millions will DIE
Republicans sign checks on the front, democrats sign them on the back…True story!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

Keynesian stimulation of the economy cannot happen efficiently or cost effectively at near full employment. Tax cuts could create supply side growth in the long term, but capital accumulation takes more than a year, and there is little evidence that income taxes are particularly onerous an obstacle to capital as corporate or capital gains taxes would be. So there's no real model - even within conservative economics! - for how tax cuts at this interval could magically pay for themselves instantly, (presumably by expediting the instant construction of factories to employ the mostly nonexistent unemployed), and indeed the large body of work on revenue optimal taxation seems to indicate that the peak revenue happens at tax rates well above fifty percent in most countries. However, we don't really need a model to explain this. Income tax gains have been going up for years now, sometimes by more; business gonna cycle.
Edited by Mystique, Jul 11 2018, 08:22 PM.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:15 PM
There is seemingly no evidence for this. Nor does it make sense per any economic model.
Makes perfect sense...you give producers more of their money, cut regulations and provide other incentives to invest in their businesses and they rev up the economy which brings in more tax revenue...and as the article said....more people working and higher wages equals more taxes paid as well....

It ain't rocket science....except to Keynesians.....

Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:21 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:15 PM
There is seemingly no evidence for this. Nor does it make sense per any economic model.
Makes perfect sense...you give producers more of their money, cut regulations and provide other incentives to invest in their businesses and they rev up the economy which brings in more tax revenue...and as the article said....more people working and higher wages equals more taxes paid as well....

It ain't rocket science....except to Keynesians.....

Or monetarists. Or Austrians, if they still exist. There's no real school of economics today(although the idea that economics is composed of competing schools is mostly a reductionist view taken by oversimplified youtube video's. The vast majority of economists today fall within the new-neoclassical synthesis, which is an amalgamation of many economic traditions, including contributions from various different strains of keynesian macroeconomics, but also montetarism and austrianism, which are often portrayed as a competing "schools", as well as the deep well of pre and post keynesian micro economics) that believes serious economic development can be easily sustained, particularly in rich countries and not quickly. This is because the US already has a very large stock of capital, so extra capital investment yields very little or even negative return; most profitable investment is derived from technological growth, which is a slow and sometimes very random process that is difficult to influence with traditional economic policy. There is also a natural rate of unemployment in the country, that cannot be surmounted without severe diminishing returns, and even then never fully reduced.

Ironically, what you are arguing IS a vulgar form of Keynesianism, the idea that you can just pump more money in to the economy to rev up demand and make the economy boom. This is not true, and runs afoul not just of true keyesnianism, but of micro economics as understood by literally all of economics, including conservative leaning economists.
Edited by Mystique, Jul 11 2018, 08:33 PM.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:30 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:21 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:15 PM
There is seemingly no evidence for this. Nor does it make sense per any economic model.
Makes perfect sense...you give producers more of their money, cut regulations and provide other incentives to invest in their businesses and they rev up the economy which brings in more tax revenue...and as the article said....more people working and higher wages equals more taxes paid as well....

It ain't rocket science....except to Keynesians.....

Or monetarists. Or Austrians, if they still exist. There's no real school of economics today(although the idea that economics is composed of competing schools is mostly a reductionist view taken by oversimplified youtube video's. The vast majority of economists today fall within the new-neoclassical synthesis, which is an amalgamation of many economic traditions, including contributions from various different strains of keynesian macroeconomics, but also montetarism and austrianism, which are often portrayed as a competing "schools", as well as the deep well of pre and post keynesian micro economics) that believes serious economic development can be easily sustained, particularly in rich countries and not quickly. This is because the US already has a very large stock of capital, so extra capital investment yields very little or even negative return; most profitable investment is derived from technological growth, which is a slow and sometimes very random process that is difficult to influence with traditional economic policy. There is also a natural rate of unemployment in the country, that cannot be surmounted without severe diminishing returns, and even then never fully reduced.

Ironically, what you are arguing IS a vulgar form of Keynesianism, the idea that you can just pump more money in to the economy to rev up demand and make the economy boom. This is not true, and runs afoul not just of true keyesnianism, but of micro economics as understood by literally all of economics, including conservative leaning economists.
If you're relying on economists opinions to rev the economy you've already given up....how does the Enron guy Krugman still have a job????


:dunno:
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:35 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:30 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:21 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:15 PM
There is seemingly no evidence for this. Nor does it make sense per any economic model.
Makes perfect sense...you give producers more of their money, cut regulations and provide other incentives to invest in their businesses and they rev up the economy which brings in more tax revenue...and as the article said....more people working and higher wages equals more taxes paid as well....

It ain't rocket science....except to Keynesians.....

Or monetarists. Or Austrians, if they still exist. There's no real school of economics today(although the idea that economics is composed of competing schools is mostly a reductionist view taken by oversimplified youtube video's. The vast majority of economists today fall within the new-neoclassical synthesis, which is an amalgamation of many economic traditions, including contributions from various different strains of keynesian macroeconomics, but also montetarism and austrianism, which are often portrayed as a competing "schools", as well as the deep well of pre and post keynesian micro economics) that believes serious economic development can be easily sustained, particularly in rich countries and not quickly. This is because the US already has a very large stock of capital, so extra capital investment yields very little or even negative return; most profitable investment is derived from technological growth, which is a slow and sometimes very random process that is difficult to influence with traditional economic policy. There is also a natural rate of unemployment in the country, that cannot be surmounted without severe diminishing returns, and even then never fully reduced.

Ironically, what you are arguing IS a vulgar form of Keynesianism, the idea that you can just pump more money in to the economy to rev up demand and make the economy boom. This is not true, and runs afoul not just of true keyesnianism, but of micro economics as understood by literally all of economics, including conservative leaning economists.
If you're relying on economists opinions to rev the economy you've already given up....how does the Enron guy Krugman still have a job????


:dunno:
Do you trust markets? Because large corporations and financial firms overwhelmingly rely on economists opinions who, despite their faults, at least don't believe that the industrial revolution happened because after ten thousand years, rich people were finally rich enough to want to will technologically advanced factories in to existence without cost or diminishing returns.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:38 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:35 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:30 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:21 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:15 PM
There is seemingly no evidence for this. Nor does it make sense per any economic model.
Makes perfect sense...you give producers more of their money, cut regulations and provide other incentives to invest in their businesses and they rev up the economy which brings in more tax revenue...and as the article said....more people working and higher wages equals more taxes paid as well....

It ain't rocket science....except to Keynesians.....

Or monetarists. Or Austrians, if they still exist. There's no real school of economics today(although the idea that economics is composed of competing schools is mostly a reductionist view taken by oversimplified youtube video's. The vast majority of economists today fall within the new-neoclassical synthesis, which is an amalgamation of many economic traditions, including contributions from various different strains of keynesian macroeconomics, but also montetarism and austrianism, which are often portrayed as a competing "schools", as well as the deep well of pre and post keynesian micro economics) that believes serious economic development can be easily sustained, particularly in rich countries and not quickly. This is because the US already has a very large stock of capital, so extra capital investment yields very little or even negative return; most profitable investment is derived from technological growth, which is a slow and sometimes very random process that is difficult to influence with traditional economic policy. There is also a natural rate of unemployment in the country, that cannot be surmounted without severe diminishing returns, and even then never fully reduced.

Ironically, what you are arguing IS a vulgar form of Keynesianism, the idea that you can just pump more money in to the economy to rev up demand and make the economy boom. This is not true, and runs afoul not just of true keyesnianism, but of micro economics as understood by literally all of economics, including conservative leaning economists.
If you're relying on economists opinions to rev the economy you've already given up....how does the Enron guy Krugman still have a job????


:dunno:
Do you trust markets? Because large corporations and financial firms overwhelmingly rely on economists opinions who, despite their faults, at least don't believe that the industrial revolution happened because after ten thousand years, rich people were finally rich enough to want to will technologically advanced factories in to existence without cost or diminishing returns.
Sorry...not buying what your selling...

Posted Image

Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:45 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:38 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:35 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 08:30 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 08:21 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Or monetarists. Or Austrians, if they still exist. There's no real school of economics today(although the idea that economics is composed of competing schools is mostly a reductionist view taken by oversimplified youtube video's. The vast majority of economists today fall within the new-neoclassical synthesis, which is an amalgamation of many economic traditions, including contributions from various different strains of keynesian macroeconomics, but also montetarism and austrianism, which are often portrayed as a competing "schools", as well as the deep well of pre and post keynesian micro economics) that believes serious economic development can be easily sustained, particularly in rich countries and not quickly. This is because the US already has a very large stock of capital, so extra capital investment yields very little or even negative return; most profitable investment is derived from technological growth, which is a slow and sometimes very random process that is difficult to influence with traditional economic policy. There is also a natural rate of unemployment in the country, that cannot be surmounted without severe diminishing returns, and even then never fully reduced.

Ironically, what you are arguing IS a vulgar form of Keynesianism, the idea that you can just pump more money in to the economy to rev up demand and make the economy boom. This is not true, and runs afoul not just of true keyesnianism, but of micro economics as understood by literally all of economics, including conservative leaning economists.
If you're relying on economists opinions to rev the economy you've already given up....how does the Enron guy Krugman still have a job????


:dunno:
Do you trust markets? Because large corporations and financial firms overwhelmingly rely on economists opinions who, despite their faults, at least don't believe that the industrial revolution happened because after ten thousand years, rich people were finally rich enough to want to will technologically advanced factories in to existence without cost or diminishing returns.
Sorry...not buying what your selling...

Posted Image

That's actually a huge mischaracterization of what he wrote, although, yes, Krugman is a political hack and his political writings basically suck. However, he is an economic genius, and the oped being misquoted has little to do with macroeconomics(and, even then, macroeconomics isn't even his field of study. If you think he's getting New Trade Theory wrong, then lets talk). If you want to see him discuss the economics of Trump more academically, this is much more serious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sksD3NhG0mM

I mean, I know economics and I didn't expect a recession, no one I knew did, and I am 100% certain that Krugman didn't literally predict an eternal recession. Although supply side shocks from trade or immigration reform, or financial crises stemming from proposed deregulation, COULD cause a recession depending on severity, gradation and the like, although with the deregulation that is highly speculative and could even then only cause a recession maybe decades later. The vast majority of economists aren't employed in the business of predicting recessions, which is borderline impossible per, ironically, conventional econonomics; at least outside of very abstract business cycle predictions that are detached from any real specifics. Krugman, specifically, does not even study the area of economics within which this is an area of economics.

Although if you think his trade theory is wrong, and that the free market is actually bad at determining patterns of industrial development, I'd be curious as to why.



JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:23 PM
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Clone confirms he hates the free market. Reporters are standing by for further comment.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:24 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:23 PM
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Clone confirms he hates the free market. Reporters are standing by for further comment.
Krugman is anything but free market...

Well except when there is an alien invasion....

Posted Image
Edited by clone, Jul 11 2018, 09:27 PM.
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:26 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:24 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:23 PM
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Clone confirms he hates the free market. Reporters are standing by for further comment.
Krugman is anything but free market...

Well except when there is an alien invasion....

:moonbat:
He got a nobel prize for elaborating upon the efficiency gains from free trade and free market patterns of industrial development, observations you apparently disagree with soooo
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:28 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:26 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:24 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:23 PM
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Clone confirms he hates the free market. Reporters are standing by for further comment.
Krugman is anything but free market...

Well except when there is an alien invasion....

:moonbat:
He got a nobel prize for elaborating upon the efficiency gains from free trade and free market patterns of industrial development, observations you apparently disagree with soooo
Obama got a Nobel prize for World Peace....a half dozen drunk azz whacked out Norwegians and Swedes tossing a lib a prize doesn't impress me much....

Other than to take note that (like 70-01) whatever they are recommending....if you want to capitalize on it....do the exact opposite....

Posted Image
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Trump defies economic models.
Support Papa John's and MAGA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Drudge X
Jul 11 2018, 09:45 PM
Trump defies economic models.
Not true....he just uses ones that predate the current Mystique followed Nostradamus's....this his magic wand....

Posted Image
Edited by clone, Jul 11 2018, 09:50 PM.
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:44 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:28 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:26 PM
Mystique
Jul 11 2018, 09:24 PM
clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:23 PM
Your economic genius is a farking moron...
Clone confirms he hates the free market. Reporters are standing by for further comment.
Krugman is anything but free market...

Well except when there is an alien invasion....

:moonbat:
He got a nobel prize for elaborating upon the efficiency gains from free trade and free market patterns of industrial development, observations you apparently disagree with soooo
Obama got a Nobel prize for World Peace....a half dozen drunk azz whacked out Norwegians and Swedes tossing a lib a prize doesn't impress me much....

Other than to take note that (like 70-01) whatever they are recommending....if you want to capitalize on it....do the exact opposite....

Posted Image
That's not quite how laureates are selected, but, regardless, his work has completely transformed his field, and is now accepted and expounded upon as fact within the field. If you study trade economics, you will learn Krugman. Surely, revolutionizing a field of study is essentially as deserving a nobel as one could get. You also still seem very hostile to the pro-market work which won him the award, the filthy Swedes who rewarded pro-market work, and seem to not be posting any real arguments other than childish insults and memes.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

clone
Jul 11 2018, 09:48 PM
Drudge X
Jul 11 2018, 09:45 PM
Trump defies economic models.
Not true....he just uses ones that predate the current Mystique followed Nostradamus's....this his magic wand....

Posted Image
Lol, which economic models are those?
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mystique
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Jul 11 2018, 09:45 PM
Trump defies economic models.
This is true.
JILL STEIN OR BUST 2016
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply