Clinton surplus "myth" II

Continuing the discussion from: http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/262592-clinton-surplus-myth-52.html

 

Sure it will. If you have gross income of say, $12 trillion, and your effective tax rate is 20%, your revenues are $2.4 trillion.

If you raise the effective tax rate to 25%, your revenues are 3.0 trillion. 0.6 trillion higher than with the lower effective tax rate.

I did substantiate my claims. The onus is now on you to show I'm wrong. You obviously didn't go to law school.

 

Pass a law increasing the tax rate or decreasing deductions and loopholes or more enforcement by the IRS or some combination thereof.

 

You have already stated that the relationship between tax revenues and tax rates is not significant.

Have you established that decreasing deductions and loopholes will necessarily result in higher tax revenues?

Is the IRS not adequately enforcing our tax laws at present?

 

You have not demonstrated how to raise individual's effective tax rates. Your argument is based upon a giant IF which you have not explained or substantiated in any way.

You didn't substantiate anything. You are merely talking about IF this and IF that. Of course, IF you raise effective tax rates, tax revenues will increase. The problem is that you don't actually know how to raise effective tax rates. You are just speculating.

 

My bad. I thought your post was saying describe the relationship between tax rates and income as opposed to revenues (because Squid's point was about income, see post #506) . On re-reading it I realize I mis-read your post because you incorrectly identified your post as being Squid's point.

Based on your post (and not Squid's) I'll correct my response:

Revised response: I specifically identified the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, as have many others in this thread. The relationship is that revenues = effective tax rate * gross national income. It takes no special technical expertise at all to describe. Just a knowledge of basic macroeconomics.​

If it increases the effective tax rate of taxes collected it will result in higher tax revenues for any given level of gross national income.

I'm not familiar enough with IRS enforcement to answer.

 

Who said anything about an individual's effective tax rates? We are talking about macroeconomics.

Are you trying to argue it is impossible to raise the national effective tax rate?

Sure I did. What is the problem with an "if"? Never got to conditional functions in your math classes, eh?

It's not big deal to raise effective tax rates, putting aside the politics. I explained how in my previous post.

 

You are claiming that raising tax rates will cause tax revenues to increase, but you have already stated there is no significant relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. If there is no significant relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, then how can you claim raising tax rates will somehow cause revenues to increase?

 

Do you even bother to read my posts? Or do you just blindly fire off the same nonsense irrespective of what I write?

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/273593-clinton-surplus-myth-ii.html#post1061890679

 

Do you even bother to read my posts? Or do you just blindly fire off the same nonsense irrespective of what I write?

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/273593-clinton-surplus-myth-ii.html#post1061890679

 

Yes, I am reading your lying garbage, though I do not know why. The basic thrust of your argument is that raising tax rates will cause revenues to increase. But you have zero evidence to back this up.

 

Well then why in the hell would you argue that I "stated there is no significant relationship between tax rates and tax revenues" when I had just explicitly stated that my post stating that was an error from misunderstanding your post and corrected it?

Please identify what you claim is my "lying garbage".

We're just seeing you resort to ad homs as you always do.

 

Your argument is the same tired leftist crap as usual. You say we need more tax revenues to pay for the insane spending in Washington, and that we can accomplish this by raising tax rates, but you have no evidence which shows that raising tax rates will cause revenues to increase. Your position is faith-based nonsense which you attempt to obfuscate with cheap lawyering tricks and tactics. Everything you type is lying garbage these days.

 

I know. Arguing that we need more revenues when they are propotionately at 60 years lows is such lying garbage. And why would anyone think that raising taxes would bring in more revenues? Cheap lawyering tactics. Rush says so.

Thanks for demonstrating the kind of reasoning and analysis I've come to expect from our conservative friends.

 

I know. Arguing that we need more revenues when we have a trillion dollar deficit and revenues are propotionately at 60 years lows is such lying garbage. And why would anyone think that raising taxes would bring in more revenues? Cheap lawyering tactics. Rush says so. Faith based nonsense.

Thanks for demonstrating the kind of thoughtful reasoning and analysis I've come to expect from our conservative friends.

 

Glad you agree. The problem is spending. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can stop embarrassing yourself.

That's what everyone has been asking you. Apparently, you don't have an answer.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

More lying garbage from you.

 

Your continued childish ranting is only so entertaining. Maybe someone else will find it enjoyable.

 

And maybe you will find some evidence which shows raising tax rates will actually raise revenues. Not holding my breath.

 

Equations don't "show" anything. They are just constructs of mathematics. The equation you are using is just useless. It has no predictive power whatsoever. If that equation were relevant to the real world, it could be used to predict revenues with near-perfect accuracy and precision. For instance, the equation "f=ma" has been PROVEN to be predictive under a number of circumstances; your equation, however, cannot predict its way out of a wet paper bag. It is just some idea in your head, not actual evidence.

 

I already made a cogent and rational argument. That equation has no demonstrated predictive power. You have no idea under what set of circumstances it applies or does not apply. You cannot actually use it for anything pertaining to the real world like you can with "f=ma" or "v=d/t".

 

you have no way to substantiate this. You are simply guessing

your I know you are but what am I schtick is pretty lame.

 

correction : R = f(I) = ET*I