The Proposed New Tax Reform

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:I'm confused by these conservatives and their need to cut the deficit. If they have the purse strings and the White House I'm guessing the budget gets balanced. But who knows.

Yeah, come over here and be snide about this while squealing along with other liberals over every proposed spending cut.

No, I'm legitimately confused Goose. What's going on with the budget? Was not shutting the government down so important to the republicans that they caved on almost everything? What exactly is the direction this administration is taking us? I'm goin gto be honest and say I have no clue now. Most confusing set of say one thing and do the other I've been involved with.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:I'm confused by these conservatives and their need to cut the deficit. If they have the purse strings and the White House I'm guessing the budget gets balanced. But who knows.

Yeah, come over here and be snide about this while squealing along with other liberals over every proposed spending cut.

If you take money from the Great Lakes and use it to build a wall...it's not really a spending cut.

The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.

That's true. It's also virtually meaningless, as revenues during every year of the Obama administration were higher than any year of the Reagan administration.

More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"

I don't intend to spend a ton of time on this, but I haven't been able to find year by year revenues broken down by tax bracket. The author should have sourced this article if he's not talking out of his ass here.

All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.

Again, true but virtually meaningless. According to the numbers I found (source), here are the years since 1960 in which revenue was lower than the previous year: 1971, 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009. In every other year, revenues were higher than the preceding year.

That article was shit, Goose.