Tax cuts were never intended to increase tax revenues, so stop saying that

[jmowreader]

The GOP's primary goal is to end social spending. The only way they'll ever accomplish that goal is to reduce revenues to the point where there's no money left for it, and the most time-proven way to reduce revenues is just to stop collecting so many taxes.

[JaneyVee]

1. +1

[daleanime]

2. K&R....

[edhopper]

3. They were meant

To help rich people keep more money.period.

They sold it on the revenue bullshit.
They still do, look at Kansas.

[jmowreader]

11. I don't think that's the case

On each $1 million in taxable income, a one-percent move in the tax rate is only a $10,000 adjustment. To most people, ten grand is a chunk of change. To someone with several million, it's not that noticeable. Giving a rich guy a tax cut is like me working an extra day every once in a while - yeah, the extra money is nice but I can't do anything substantial with it. I can't buy a new car or get a better house with one extra day every so often.

On the other hand, cutting one percent from the taxes of the nine million millionaires in the US WILL reduce government revenues to the point where we'll have to slash spending to make ends meet.

[edhopper]

14. That is the case

Listen to republicans talk about "the rate". I.e. the top tax rate.

The rich just want to keep it all.

And BTW, why do you think Cap gains will stay low, rich people keeping their money.

Estate taxes, rich people.

[JonLP24]

21. Someone posted a study here somewhere

To someone that is poor an extra $50 or $100 is a significant addition, but it was the rich people that were more than willing to cheat for that extra $50.

[brush]

4. Yep, that old 'trickle down/austerity' thing is just a BS talking point . . .

that the knowing repugs just spouted to get rich people richer even though they knew it was BS.

The stupid ones like Brownback of Kansas believed it and implemented it once he got his chance.

I think he knows now it doesn't work but you'll never hear a peek out of him or other repugs about that colossal failure in Kansas — huge tax cuts, state jobs/services cut, a dramatic shortfall in state revenue and no new jobs materializing in the private sector to make up for the money lost in the tax cuts.

[JaneyVee]

5. Can anyone seriously imagine the hellscape of a society...

We'd be living in if we eliminated social spending? It would be literal anarchy.

[jmowreader]

7. Including among the shopkeeping class

The Waltons would go through the roof if we eliminated welfare, AFDC, Social Security etc...because a HUGE amount of the money that is given to people in the form of cash assistance is ultimately spent at Walmart.

I realize the crime rate would rise dramatically - desperate people would feel they have nothing left to lose by getting imprisoned - but it would also hit the rich hard.

Dear Paul Ryan: The Jungle is a warning, not an instructional manual.

[JaneyVee]

9. Crumbling infrastructure, mass disease, crime, anarchy.

[jmowreader]

12. All that and much more

You need a strong foundation for a strong building. America is that building. The only way America will be strong is if the bedrock of America - the hard-working men and women in the working class - have what they need to survive...clean water and air, safe homes and communities, wholesome foods, and a reasonable belief things will get even better if they work hard.

[onecaliberal]

6. I'm not sure why anyone believes a single

Word uttered by republicans. Or any corporate rep. really. Lots of dems telling that lie these days as well.

[jmowreader]

8. Because Republican lies sound really good

Which would you LIKE to believe: that the only way to bring the government back to fiscal sanity is for everyone to pay more in taxes and receive less in services, or that cutting taxes will jump-start the economy so dramatically the country will just be swimming in dough?

A version of the same theory killed the mortgage industry during the Bush administration: "oh, don't worry, by the time the interest rate on your mortgage resets, you'll be making so much money you can afford this house with ease!"

[onecaliberal]

10. We've had this bullshit policy for 30

Years now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's been an epic failure. I don't just believe everything I hear on teevee. If people are too stupid to understand that infrastructure, education, social welfare, aren't free then I guess they refuse to believe their own lying eyes.

[elleng]

13. Right.

'I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'

Grover Norquist

[MillennialDem]

15. You have to be a real dipshit to think tax cuts increase tax revenues

Technically the Laffer Curve is correct, if tax rates were 98% and we dropped them to 50% revenues would go up because more people would work.

But Cenk on TYT pointed out the Laffer Curve also goes in the other direction which Republicants seem to ignore. If tax rates were 2% and we hiked them to 50% revenues would also go up because yeah maybe fewer people would work (or put in less overtime / extra work?) but the revenue generated from any work they do would be huge in comparison. You aren't going to work 25x more hours because tax rates are 2% instead of 50% :p

We are on the point of the Laffer Curve where raising taxes raises revenue. If we weren't, no sane democrat would call for tax hikes... hell no sane democrat would call for anything BUT tax cuts just like the republicants.....

[kentuck]

16. I think a lot of DUers need to ponder this reality...

...and understand just which side they are really on? Sure! Let's cut the payroll tax on Social Security just a little and give a tax break to all the working people of America? Huh?

[jmowreader]

22. Exactly

The last time they cut the payroll tax on Social Security, I didn't even notice it...and I don't make a huge amount of money. Problem is, Social Security noticed it a lot.

[Jim Beard]

17. Since I am an FDR Democrat

I am going to address this as such and the times.

The thread parent is correct about these people.

The only time I would offer tax cuts for the wealthy is if they invested in the economy. Make it mandatory, non of this crap of we will give you tax cuts and we hope you will invest in the economy. Make it mandatory in the tax code they only get the cuts if they spend to invest in company's or designated projects.and make that cover all corporations too.

I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone or hurt their feelings.

[jmowreader]

19. The word for what you want is "loopholes"

I like loopholes - as long as they are accompanied by a high tax rate.

Here's my program in a nutshell: Start with a 70 percent top marginal rate and do not ever fuck with it. Then use a lot of credits and deductions to encourage the necessary social behavior that tax cuts are supposed to cause. If you want companies to create jobs, offer job-creation credits. If you want them to buy lots of new trucks, offer a deduction for truck purchases - but when you do, make sure the "truck" is clearly a cargo vehicle, so the business community doesn't think "hey, free Hummers!" like they did the last time we tried a truck deduction.

[Jim Beard]

20. You said it much better than I

Thank you very much, there's not too many of us around anymore.

[MisterP]

18. straight from the Coke-bottom-lensed, tease-haired horse's mouth

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/

too bad it's the hegemonic economic theory of 80% of Congress

[pansypoo53219]

23. how to drown FDR.