"If I drop something with a known mass from the top of a building with a known height, I can predict virtually exactly when the object will hit the ground." We used a ramp with a ball and had to figure where it would hit. Teacher would grab the ball at the end of the ramp, we figured how long it took to go the distance, then she let it go... Certainly predicting this election and the mental illness of Democrats is hard to do, so coming up with the effect of taxes on revenue blah, blah, blah cannot be easy. We had the Bush Tax cuts and now the economy is improving even though we have been told for a year that business is not hiring because they are afraid of what Obama's taxes will be. So do they now know that Obama is winning today and just figured what their taxes are?
Astute! Law school candidate. And I just told you that unless you are claiming there is an negative effect on gross income from increased taxes, then an increase in the effective tax rate will result in higher revenues for whatever level of gross income is achieved. I made no predictive claim. Please be honest.
All I am trying to say is that some functions model reality accurately and precisely and others do not. The way you determine the difference between the two is through observation and control and I don't know what observations and controls form the basis for the revenue function being cited in this thread by individuals like Iriemon and Meta. Simply think about this. We were able to go to the moon and back because of simple Newtonian mechanics. The income function in this thread has been used for what in the real world? See the difference between F = ma and R = ET * I?
um, yes,....... you did. You predicted that the net effect would be positive. Save your silliness for the Springer show.
Yeah, I see the difference. The laws of physics have no brain and need none, but the laws of man do. The real world does more than math, it does the art of a woman; revenue, comes from the income of carefully sculpted lips, cheeks, nose, and eyes (oh, she hid them behind sun glasses, but gave me a peak when I wanted more), a cute cut of hair, and a body that could model the newest Jordache jeans, times, the effective tax of a lifetime of a finely aged mind. Mass of bright eyed voters at the polls (including 69 year old former Canadian, she said she was retired but man, she was really pretty, married to guy who is a little older, his mistress is the computer, I am talking a total piece of nature or Gods artwork. She mentioned running run 7 miles up and down the beach, which I have no doubt looking at her that she could. She used to have long blond hair when she was in India during Indira Gandhi nice lady next to us was from India) * acceleration due to a three page ballot from hell where old people were dropping like flies including the woman the 69 year old church lady was helping = force of the art of an incredibly beautiful woman making the experience much better than those who had to stare at Obamas butt ugly face inside their polling place.
Are you sure you read the paragraphs I pointed you to? If you did, then answer me this... Would you agree that taxing x amount of money from someone has an equal but opposite effect on incomes as compared to putting the same x amount of money back into the pocket of the same person or the pocket of someone who is just as likely as the first person to spend money on the same types of goods and services? -Meta
I observe that if a = b/c then it follows logically that c = b/a. There are other observations involved as well of course, and some rational assumptions too. If you want to know the basis for any part, then all you have to do is point to the part and ask for the basis. So, that said, are you suggesting that there is something wrong with the equations? -Meta
Say for instance you take a certain amount of money from someone in tax. Now if they would have spent the money to create greater efficiency (no gain in jobs) that over time increases their income for greater revenue, or if they use the money to expand business with creating domestic jobs that creates more income for them and for those working for them and you get revenue. If they were not going to either increase efficiency or expand, but were just going to let it earn interest. First it could allow for loaning money to the sweaty black guy in the Falling Down movie that is “not economically viable”, he starts a business and we get revenue. Or they loan it to people for babysitting a housing glut and you lose massive amount of revenue. If the money goes into the hands of someone who is going to improve themselves (teaching themselves to fish) does not immediately create as much short term revenue, you sold a book or a course, but if they spend it, it could create revenue in the short term but it is like giving a man a fish (it lacks long term value). http://www.sesric.org/baseind-indicators.php If say college or technical school enrollment is going up with spending one could expect revenue to increase more in the future than in the short term. If a = b/c then ca = b {then again remember I am brain dead} That is why it would be best to look as similar events and create multipliers that reflect real world probabilities due to social and economic factors.
Right, the multiplier effect. And note that it works both ways. Investment in the national future. Should in general not be under-prioritized in favor of short-term gains. Right, If a=b/c then ca=b and c=b/a -Meta
so you don't know if raising taxes would increase revenue ? Or would you care to predict and say that it would ?
I know that increasing the effective tax rate would increase the amount of revenues collected for any given level of gross income. I've said that many times. Please be honest. Whether gross income goes up or down for any year depends on numerous variables as you have pointed out. But on average it goes up about 5-6%. So on average you'd expect revenues to go up 5-6% plus the relative increase in the effective tax rate. So in general we'd see a relative increase in tax revenues. Just like we saw in the 1990s when Clinton raised taxes. And conversely, if we cut the effective tax rate, in generally we'd see a relative decrease in tax revenues. Just like we saw in the 2000s when Bush cut taxes.
Your statement, "When there's a surplus, it means that more money came in than was spent; when there's a deficit, it means that more money was spent than came in," is also true. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway if used correctly will give you these numbers, all I did was add the simple arithmatic showing the deficit for that year. If you don't believe my numbers check the math. I rounded off to the approximate billion. Insert Oct 1, 1993 as a beginning date.. Debt=4,406,339,573,433.47 ..........Sep 30, 1994.......................... ......Debt=4,692,749,910,013.32 ........Deficit=286 billion ..........Sep 29, 1995.......................... ......Debt=4,973,982,900,709.39........ Deficit=280 billion ..........Sep 30, 1996.......................... ......Debt=5,224,810,939,135.73 ........Deficit=241 billion ..........Sep 30, 1997.......................... ......Debt=5,413,146,011,397.34 .........Deficit=189 billion ..........Sep 30, 1998.......................... ......Debt=5,526,193,008,897.62 .........Deficit=113 billion ..........Sep 30, 1999.......................... ......Debt=5,656,270,901,633.43 .........Deficit=130 billion ..........Sep 29, 2000.......................... ......Debt=5,674,178,209,886.86 .........Deficit=18 billion Insert Sep 28, 2001 as an end date ..........Debt=5,807,463,41 2,200.06..........Deficit=174 billion Yes, revenues, not the borrowed money from the trust funds. The total deficit can be gotten from the debt as described above. According to the treasury site the FY 2000 deficit was $18 billlion, easily ascertained by subtracting the end total national debt at the end of FY 1999 from the end total national debt for FY 2000. That is the FY 2000 deficit, as per the definition from the treasury site, "You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. In other words the deficits of one year add to the previous deficit and each deficit increases the debt"Correct, over the period of each Fiscal Year. "The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt," which means that what is borrowed from the trust funds adds to the total national debt. When I said, "One debt going down does not mean a surplus if you created more debt from additional borrowed money," it meant exactly that. The general treasury borrowed money from the trust funds (not just SS/MC, but several others as well and used part of that money to pay down on budget debt. Unfortunately the debt amount paid down was not as much as was added debt owed the trust funds. In fact my position has never changed, you just have not been smart enough to understand the reality of it all.[/QUOTE]
