The correlation is not absolute, and even if it was, would not imply causation.

You are correct that our tax brackets update based on inflation, and correct that this is a good thing, but that doesn't change that the fiscal office reports from our treasury department, that I linked to, are given without any inflation adjustment.

The part in bold is exactly right, and exactly why Trump's tax cut is unlikely to have the positive long term effects that others had.

Well I tried, but you are ignoring history, facts, and basic economic principles. I applaud you for attempting to find the data points but you must understand it to use it as a debate point. No matter how many people point out your errors, you keep struggling on. So be it.

FYI, not sure what you mean by “others” but there hasn’t been much in the way of long term success in the modern economic climate. I sure wouldn’t attempt to grasp at the last two Presidencies as positive fodder. In fact they both tried tax cuts in addition to stimulus packages and corporate bailouts. The outlier in the last seven or so was Clinton thanks in part to tech innovation and even then it cooled mid Bush.

What error did I make?
I agreed with almost your entire post.
I double checked the monthly treasury statements.  There is no inflation adjustment for the older dollar values.
Are you making argumentum ad populum here?
Just because everyone here seems to believe that tax cuts actually grow Revenue, does that make it true?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well I tried, but you are ignoring history, facts, and basic economic principles. I applaud you for attempting to find the data points but you must understand it to use it as a debate point. No matter how many people point out your errors, you keep struggling on. So be it.

FYI, not sure what you mean by “others” but there hasn’t been much in the way of long term success in the modern economic climate. I sure wouldn’t attempt to grasp at the last two Presidencies as positive fodder. In fact they both tried tax cuts in addition to stimulus packages and corporate bailouts. The outlier in the last seven or so was Clinton thanks in part to tech innovation and even then it cooled mid Bush.

What error did I make?
I agreed with almost your entire post.
I double checked the monthly treasury statements.  There is no inflation adjustment for the older dollar values.
Are you making argumentum ad populum here?
Just because everyone here seems to believe that tax cuts actually grow Revenue, does that make it true?

I don’t care what your snapshot treasury statements say or your so called lack of inflation adjustment. It’s misplaced logic and data. Basically irrelevant to your argument as the economy doesn’t react instantaneously.

Yes, most here, history and economists know it is true that revenue actually grows with tax cuts, except you. Ever stop and wonder why a policy of tax cuts is issued when in a recession or slumping economy? It’s the spark that creates the roaring fire. However, If you don’t feed it or rearrange the coals, it will burn out. This is where some disagreement kicks in. 

People will argue that one single policy action is the only factor.  You need to consider supply side, consumer confidence, corporate confidence, investment, etc. Once again, taxation is the spark that can cause bad and good revenue reaction as can be described in simplistic form by the Laffer Curve or as some parties have twisted, the Laffer Line.

---

What error did I make?
I agreed with almost your entire post.
I double checked the monthly treasury statements.  There is no inflation adjustment for the older dollar values.
Are you making argumentum ad populum here?
Just because everyone here seems to believe that tax cuts actually grow Revenue, does that make it true?

I don’t care what your snapshot treasury statements say or your so called lack of inflation adjustment. It’s misplaced logic and data. Basically irrelevant to your argument as the economy doesn’t react instantaneously.

Yes, most here, history and economists know it is true that revenue actually grows with tax cuts, except you. Ever stop and wonder why a policy of tax cuts is issued when in a recession or slumping economy? It’s the spark that creates the roaring fire. However, If you don’t feed it or rearrange the coals, it will burn out. This is where some disagreement kicks in. 

People will argue that one single policy action is the only factor.  You need to consider supply side, consumer confidence, corporate confidence, investment, etc. Once again, taxation is the spark that can cause bad and good revenue reaction as can be described in simplistic form by the Laffer Curve or as some parties have twisted, the Laffer Line.

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

---

I don’t care what your snapshot treasury statements say or your so called lack of inflation adjustment. It’s misplaced logic and data. Basically irrelevant to your argument as the economy doesn’t react instantaneously.

Yes, most here, history and economists know it is true that revenue actually grows with tax cuts, except you. Ever stop and wonder why a policy of tax cuts is issued when in a recession or slumping economy? It’s the spark that creates the roaring fire. However, If you don’t feed it or rearrange the coals, it will burn out. This is where some disagreement kicks in. 

People will argue that one single policy action is the only factor.  You need to consider supply side, consumer confidence, corporate confidence, investment, etc. Once again, taxation is the spark that can cause bad and good revenue reaction as can be described in simplistic form by the Laffer Curve or as some parties have twisted, the Laffer Line.

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

Exactly.  Thank you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don’t care what your snapshot treasury statements say or your so called lack of inflation adjustment. It’s misplaced logic and data. Basically irrelevant to your argument as the economy doesn’t react instantaneously.

Yes, most here, history and economists know it is true that revenue actually grows with tax cuts, except you. Ever stop and wonder why a policy of tax cuts is issued when in a recession or slumping economy? It’s the spark that creates the roaring fire. However, If you don’t feed it or rearrange the coals, it will burn out. This is where some disagreement kicks in. 

People will argue that one single policy action is the only factor.  You need to consider supply side, consumer confidence, corporate confidence, investment, etc. Once again, taxation is the spark that can cause bad and good revenue reaction as can be described in simplistic form by the Laffer Curve or as some parties have twisted, the Laffer Line.

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

---

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

Exactly.  Thank you.

Post #63 and #65 is your statements that tax cuts decrease revenue. All extra curricular aside, you are wrong. You even attempt to support your argument with short term data. Here lies the issue. There is no point that you’ve made that is cohesive to what Jaggy stated referring to economic equilibriums or that changes are not immediate. In fact other than Laffer, you have been polar opposite. Even then, it appears you may be misinterpreting the Laffer curve. I introduced it to show tax cuts work in the “Prohibitive Range” by increasing consumer spending and demand. Businesses will grow and hire. Goverment revenue will increase in the long-run. You argue against fact and all of this by definitively stating “tax cuts decrease revenue.” Data is dangerous when used incorrectly.


If your point was wait and see or data doesn’t yet reflect current economic growth, than that is what you should have been supporting all along...Not a bogus tax cuts decrease revenue belief (non-recovery or recession).

---

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

If you're on the left side of the peak of the laffer curve, tax cuts will decrease revenue roughly in proportion to the cut.
Economic growth could work in the opposite direction, bringing increased revenue.  A tax cut often stimulates economic growth in the short term.  But the growth may not be as strong, as a percentage, as the cut was, again as a percentage.
And any tax cut that was done for temporary stimulation should be rolled back once the economy is healthy again.
And in order to find out if it might have worked, you have to adjust the raw numbers for inflation.
And even after you've done all that, all you have is a correlation.  It was not a controlled experiment.  You can not prove that it always works that way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

And any tax cut that was done for temporary stimulation should be rolled back once the economy is healthy again.

Lol, like the original tax rate wasn't the problem to begin with?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It is an absolute economic principle that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the impact tax cuts would have on tax revenue. This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve that you referenced. The Laffer Curve contradicts your earlier point that there is an absolute principle that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I think that that is the crux of the argument you and mikesez are having. At what point does lowering the tax rate decrease rather than increase tax revenues? Due to the myriad of factors that can affect the economy's health, and thus impacting tax revenues, accurately predicting that point is difficult. I would think that we may be approaching that point, based on recent data, but it will take awhile to be able to truly gauge the long term impacts.

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

Tax cuts can increase tax revenues, but they also can decrease tax revenues. That's the whole point of the Laffer Curve. The waters have been sufficiently muddied when you make factually incorrect claims like the one bolded above, or your earlier statement,"It's not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue." (Emphasis added)

---

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

Tax cuts can increase tax revenues, but they also can decrease tax revenues. That's the whole point of the Laffer Curve. The waters have been sufficiently muddied when you make factually incorrect claims like the one bolded above, or your earlier statement,"It's not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue." (Emphasis added)

Fret not, we will never ever be far enough left on that curve to even necessitate a real discussion about it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Tax cuts can increase tax revenues, but they also can decrease tax revenues. That's the whole point of the Laffer Curve. The waters have been sufficiently muddied when you make factually incorrect claims like the one bolded above, or your earlier statement,"It's not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue." (Emphasis added)

Fret not, we will never ever be far enough left on that curve to even necessitate a real discussion about it.

I agree. We are likely near the peak of the curve, but the tax rate would have to be reduced or increased significantly in order to have a substantial negative impact on tax revenues. In my opinion, the recent tax cuts will likely have a net positive outcome long-term, but that just may be me being optimistic.

---

Exactly.  Thank you.

Post #63 and #65 is your statements that tax cuts decrease revenue. All extra curricular aside, you are wrong. You even attempt to support your argument with short term data. Here lies the issue. There is no point that you’ve made that is cohesive to what Jaggy stated referring to economic equilibriums or that changes are not immediate. In fact other than Laffer, you have been polar opposite. Even then, it appears you may be misinterpreting the Laffer curve. I introduced it to show tax cuts work in the “Prohibitive Range” by increasing consumer spending and demand. Businesses will grow and hire. Goverment revenue will increase in the long-run. You argue against fact and all of this by definitively stating “tax cuts decrease revenue.” Data is dangerous when used incorrectly.


If your point was wait and see or data doesn’t yet reflect current economic growth, than that is what you should have been supporting all along...Not a bogus tax cuts decrease revenue belief (non-recovery or recession).

Tax cuts almost always decrease revenue in the short term.  
Federal receipts for the months of Jan-Mar and May-Jun 2018 are capturing the short term trend as one would expect.  When the receipts for April 2019 are reported, we will see the full picture of short term data.  And a reduction is more likely than not.
The only time that tax cuts can increase revenue in the short term is if you are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve.  But where is the peak of the Laffer Curve?

"The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.[4] There is a consensus among leading economists that a reduction in the US federal income tax rate would not raise annual total tax revenue.[5]   ...  In 2012, economists surveyed by the University of Chicago rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to federal US income taxes of the time in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut”, none of the economists surveyed agreed and 71% disagreed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


Tax cuts can trigger effects that will increase revenue in the long term.  Perhaps people get off of the sidelines of the economy and off of the black market, or perhaps new investments were made that start to yield dividends.  
We won't know if this one had that effect for another couple of years.  The likelihood of interest rates increasing doesn't improve the chances, though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And any tax cut that was done for temporary stimulation should be rolled back once the economy is healthy again.

Lol, like the original tax rate wasn't the problem to begin with?

It's complicated.
The stimulative effect could also be rolled back by way of spending cuts, yes.
Or, instead of increasing the rate on an existing tax, that rate could be kept low and a new tax with a low rate could be introduced as the economy gets healthy again.
The point is that some step should be taken to reduce the budget deficit (or even balance the budget, while we're dreaming) as the economy gets healthy.  Spending cut or tax increase, it doesn't really matter from a macroeconomic perspective.
Doing what Trump and the Republicans in Congress did is, macroeconomically, irrational.  They did it because their donors wanted to pay less tax.  There was no other reason, it won't help the economy, it won't grow revenue, and it will make our choices harder and more limited in the future.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol, like the original tax rate wasn't the problem to begin with?

It's complicated.
The stimulative effect could also be rolled back by way of spending cuts, yes.
Or, instead of increasing the rate on an existing tax, that rate could be kept low and a new tax with a low rate could be introduced as the economy gets healthy again.
The point is that some step should be taken to reduce the budget deficit (or even balance the budget, while we're dreaming) as the economy gets healthy.  Spending cut or tax increase, it doesn't really matter from a macroeconomic perspective.
Doing what Trump and the Republicans in Congress did is, macroeconomically, irrational.  They did it because their donors wanted to pay less tax.  There was no other reason, it won't help the economy, it won't grow revenue, and it will make our choices harder and more limited in the future.

"It won't grow the economy" except every other time it's been tried...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's complicated.
The stimulative effect could also be rolled back by way of spending cuts, yes.
Or, instead of increasing the rate on an existing tax, that rate could be kept low and a new tax with a low rate could be introduced as the economy gets healthy again.
The point is that some step should be taken to reduce the budget deficit (or even balance the budget, while we're dreaming) as the economy gets healthy.  Spending cut or tax increase, it doesn't really matter from a macroeconomic perspective.
Doing what Trump and the Republicans in Congress did is, macroeconomically, irrational.  They did it because their donors wanted to pay less tax.  There was no other reason, it won't help the economy, it won't grow revenue, and it will make our choices harder and more limited in the future.

"It won't grow the economy" except every other time it's been tried...

The cuts of 1987 don't appear to be correlated to greater economic growth after the cut.  Neither do the cuts of 2001 and 2003.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No his beginning argument is that tax cuts no way, no how increase revenue. I was attempting to show that is just not correct, no matter what your political economic beliefs. It’s basic economics that says it in fact does. 

The additional information is me being responsible and also stating that even though initial tax cuts will spark revenue increases, there is a point that addition or subtraction of other economic policy will need to be injected to steer the economy further. Thanks for muddying the water though.

If you're on the left side of the peak of the laffer curve, tax cuts will decrease revenue roughly in proportion to the cut.
Economic growth could work in the opposite direction, bringing increased revenue.  A tax cut often stimulates economic growth in the short term.  But the growth may not be as strong, as a percentage, as the cut was, again as a percentage.
And any tax cut that was done for temporary stimulation should be rolled back once the economy is healthy again.
And in order to find out if it might have worked, you have to adjust the raw numbers for inflation.
And even after you've done all that, all you have is a correlation.  It was not a controlled experiment.  You can not prove that it always works that way.

I’ll tap out. I’ve tried every which way to show that you are wrong but exceptions are being introduced that cause conflict. 
Facts are being deliberately ignored. History is being ignored. I’ll just sit over here and smile shaking my head.

---

So if the tax rates were zero would this increase revenues? Or how about 1 percent?
It's pure ideology.to say tax cuts increase tax revenue blindly.

---

So if the tax rates were zero would this increase revenues? Or how about 1 percent?
It's pure ideology.to say tax cuts increase tax revenue blindly.

Zero tax rates would definitely increase my revenues.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The corporate tax cuts were necessary to return the US to parity with Europe. We were continually losing jobs and corporate headquarters to their lower tax rates, and revenue from corporate taxes would have declined even further without the cut. The rest of the tax cuts were revenue neutral, giving the working class a tax cut at the expense of the highly paid management class, especially those in high tax states. None of this was expected to raise tax revenues (although it may have), just to slow the decline.

The spending increase was a mistake, but we have very few Pubs (and no Dems) willing to cut spending. Because of that this has become a non-issue as far as the elections are concerned.

Back to the original topic, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the pathetic lack of economic understanding from the Dems, with emphasis on the party's left wing progression into full blown Venezuelan style socialism. The Pubs have gotten lots of gifts from the Dems recently, with Hillary and AO-C the two huge gifts.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The corporate tax cuts were necessary to return the US to parity with Europe. We were continually losing jobs and corporate headquarters to their lower tax rates, and revenue from corporate taxes would have declined even further without the cut. The rest of the tax cuts were revenue neutral, giving the working class a tax cut at the expense of the highly paid management class, especially those in high tax states. None of this was expected to raise tax revenues (although it may have), just to slow the decline.

The spending increase was a mistake, but we have very few Pubs (and no Dems) willing to cut spending. Because of that this has become a non-issue as far as the elections are concerned.

Back to the original topic, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the pathetic lack of economic understanding from the Dems, with emphasis on the party's left wing progression into full blown Venezuelan style socialism. The Pubs have gotten lots of gifts from the Dems recently, with Hillary and AO-C the two huge gifts.

If you think anything that Ocasio-Cortez has said has anything to do with anything that's going on in Venezuela during the last 50 years, you lack understanding of one or the other.
Note I am not defending her, but, Venezuela is very much a special case. 
It would be much more correct to compare what Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez want to do to what has happened in Canada or in Mexico.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.