April was best month in history for U.S. budget

dantes · 2018-06-18T22:26:34.698Z

Yes, but preferably by someone who knows something about it. Maybe someone who can debate this issue beyond just calling it “crap”.

reflechissez · 2018-06-18T22:28:24.298Z

dantes:

Yes, but preferably by someone who knows something about it. Maybe someone who can debate this issue beyond just calling it “crap”.

He really doesn’t know much, does he? And tell other to “go and learn.”

Grimalken · 2018-06-18T22:40:20.870Z

It’s good news, hope it keeps going.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-06-18T23:02:44.661Z

Samm:

If you don’t know the difference between Government policy and the economy I can’t help you.

You said the policy was the main factor and then say government isn’t the economy. Sorry. That’s dumb.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-06-18T23:04:33.770Z

Samm:

Economics 101. Go and learn.

You say government isn’t part of the economy and preach econ 101? Oh, and by the way, taxes dont go into a black hole. So, no higher taxes dont necessarily slow the economy. Thanks for playing

Samm · 2018-06-19T05:54:28.071Z

reflechissez:

Samm:

reflechissez:

Samm:

reflechissez:

Samm:

. But generally speaking, the economy does better with lower taxes and slows down under higher taxes.

Repeating it doesn’t make it so. You can’t replace evidence with “generally speaking”. You are so certain about the correctness of your opinion that there should be mounds of evidence.

Economics 101. Go and learn.

Just admit it. You got nothin’.

For you, no. For anyone who wants to contribute rather than just bite ankles, I am open for further discussion.

The ankle biter is you, sparky. You have not proven your assertion, yet keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to offer. Tax cuts increase revenue because tax cuts increase revenue – this is all you have said. Carry on.

Weak, but then why should you change now.

WuWei · 2019-03-04T17:14:06.132Z

No, I’m not.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T17:22:49.667Z

WuWei:

Those gains, the CBO says, more than offset the 22% decline in corporate income taxes.

Wh…what… how can that be?

Most people don’t realize that corporate taxation is one of the smaller parts of the federal income stream. Increases or decreases in that component just impact a minority segment of the revenue stream.

The battle over corporate taxation is like jackals and vultures fighting over the dry bones of the carcass.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T17:26:26.609Z

SottoVoce:

So, exact same result. If you’re making an extra dollar, but spending 2 more, who cares? You’re still in the hole. I’m not sure why people are trying to hang their hats on increased revenue, when it’s far exceeded by increased spending. Glass half full I guess.

i’m with you on the need for spending cuts. I have been since the Bush Sr. years.

I think the point of the OP, though, is to address the arguments that the Trump tax cuts are causing the deficits.

But, as you point out, it’s really the spending.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T17:29:03.680Z

zantax:

lol ten characters

five.

SottoVoce · 2019-03-04T17:48:01.130Z

Guvnah:

SottoVoce:

So, exact same result. If you’re making an extra dollar, but spending 2 more, who cares? You’re still in the hole. I’m not sure why people are trying to hang their hats on increased revenue, when it’s far exceeded by increased spending. Glass half full I guess.

i’m with you on the need for spending cuts. I have been since the Bush Sr. years.

I think the point of the OP, though, is to address the arguments that the Trump tax cuts are causing the deficits.

But, as you point out, it’s really the spending.

It’s pretty simple. Money in must equal money out. I don’t know how many more times we have to suffer through hardline supply-side economics experiments to understand tax cuts are not a magic bullet and can be quite harmful.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T18:15:21.074Z

SottoVoce:

It’s pretty simple. Money in must equal money out. I don’t know how many more times we have to suffer through hardline supply-side economics experiments to understand tax cuts are not a magic bullet and can be quite harmful.

It’s what killed Brownback in Kansas too. He cut taxes (and resulted in reduced revenue) but did not cut spending. It crushed Kansas’ state budget.

I would support cuts in taxes if they were accompanied with a 2x cut in spending. (Even 1.5x. But we never see even a dollar-for-dollar match in spending cuts.)

We’ve been spending ourselves into oblivion for decades. For generations. I’ve been expecting the house of cards to fall for quite a while, and I’ve been surprised at how long we’ve avoided the day of reckoning. The bigger the house grows, the messier will be the resulting rubble. And we peons are helpless to change that.

SottoVoce · 2019-03-04T18:31:22.065Z

I agree 100% with everything you just said. Cutting spending is difficult, but if you’re not willing to pay the taxes, you have to cut spending.

dantes · 2019-03-04T20:42:46.378Z

It’s much smaller than it used to be. As a percentage of federal revenue, it’s fallen dramatically as employment taxes has increased considerably.

federal-tax-receipts-by-source-percent-of-gdp.png1005×724 84.5 KB

It’s now so small that it might as well not exist. The corporations have won.

DOLOOP · 2019-03-04T21:32:19.292Z

dantes:

It’s much smaller than it used to be. As a percentage of federal revenue, it’s fallen dramatically as employment taxes has increased considerably.

It’s now so small that it might as well not exist. The corporations have won.

I’m not a big fan of this graph if I’m reading it correctly.

If the “Employment taxes” it references are FICA and Medicare, then it is putting those programs in with receipts for all government spending, which is not helpful given that they are separate from an expenditure perspective. Indeed, individual and corporate income taxes do nothing, and should do nothing, to support the programs that are indicated by the employment taxes.

A better chart would be to exclude employment taxes. At that point, I think we’d see that, while declining, the overall contribution of corporate taxes to year-to-year funding of the federal government is much more noticeable.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T22:46:07.395Z

dantes:

It’s now so small that it might as well not exist.

It shouldn’t exist.

Guvnah · 2019-03-04T22:50:05.881Z

DOLOOP:

If the “Employment taxes” it references are FICA and Medicare, then it is putting those programs in with receipts for all government spending, which is not helpful given that they are separate from an expenditure perspective.

There was a time when they weren’t called taxes.

Essentially the government has usurped those payments into general revenue (whether or not they actually call them that) and unabashedly call them taxes now.

And given the trajectory of that line, it won’t be long before that’s the primary revenue source for the fedgov.

I don’t like it either.

dantes · 2019-03-04T22:53:02.276Z

Of course all taxation decisions are basically arbitrary. I’m sick of massive corporations hiring teams of lawyers to thwart legislation. It’s a legal arms race that the government won’t win given the influence corporations can have on legislation. In any event, it makes more sense to me to make all income actually count as income, earned and unearned. No corporate tax rate means you can tax dividends and capital gains higher without running into issues with double taxation.

theduke · 2019-03-04T23:40:49.300Z

WuWei:

No, I’m not.

Nobody would confuse you with being close to the dems.

WuWei · 2019-03-05T00:25:06.798Z

I’m so far to the right of Republicans I can’t even see them.