9cents tax of a dollar whos fault.

"Raising taxes increases revenue.
Lowering taxes decreases revenue"

If these are serious statements, I'm speechless...and its not even worth responding to.

John Galt touched on it...but let me point it out again:

People in the KC metro area have the option of paying less sales tax in MO....just another problem with our high state sales tax.

"If you don't care if the Kansas State government goes tits up in 5 years and Kansas turns into a real life Road Warrior movie, then feel free to lower taxes as much as you like"

...a very paternalistic view of government, which is becoming more prevalent...and scares the shit out of me.

Raising taxes increases revenue.
Lowering taxes decreases revenue.
The myth that lowering taxes increases revenue is a LIE. (You get about 32 cents back MAX for every dollar you lose.) Originally Posted by Longermonger

And your source for this lie is?

It has been proven time and time again that lowering tax rates spurs economic activity - mainly from the increase of spendable income, especially when it comes to the selling of long-term assets, stocks and bonds. In the case of sales taxes, as LA_Crew pointed out, if you are lucky enough to reside on the border with another state with lower taxes, you will make your purchases there. I, myself, purchase gasoline on the Missouri side of the state line.

This weekend, the state of Missouri will have its "no sales tax" weekend on school supplies, computers, clothes, shoes, etc. Don't you think the Wal-Mart on the Missouri side of 135th and State Line Road will be crowded? How's that going to bring more revenue into the Kansas state treasury?

Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[18] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[19] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[20] While few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[4] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[21] “ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[21]

Copy & Paste from Wiki but I think it gets the point across. Reaganomics gets credit when little is due. Economic policies BEFORE he took office and TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT have more to do with the long recover. So do Baby Boomer coming of age. Also, keep in mind that it is easy to stimulate the economy when you're going on a Defense Department spending spree and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on stuff like $600 hammers.

And your source for this lie is? Originally Posted by fritz3552

George W. Bush's top economist, the guy that invented the Laffler Curve, and the conservative National Review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mankiw

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...llZjU3NzZhMWY=

NSA you used the magic words: dynamic and static. I always try to explain it like this to the uninformed. Originally Posted by john_galt

Hey! Those words relate to the National Review article that I just clobbered you guys with! LOL

You guys are using the static magical thinking about supply-side economics of the past (1970's-ish) while your party has moved on. Maybe you should be more dynamic and catch up to what they were saying 4 months ago??? You know, so you don't seem so...uninformed.

Here is the history of tax reciepts...on the right side of the sheet, you can see the reciepts as a percent of GDP. Even though we have had widely varying tax rates over the last 50 years, the reciepts stay fairly static, between 17-20 percent with very rare exception.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

What does this mean? Well, raising taxes do not generally increase what is brought in (as a % of gdp). The only affect tax rates can have is on the actual GDP itself...and in a negative way.

So why raise taxes? During the campaign, Obama was confronted with this question pertaining to Cap Gains...his response...it had to do with 'fairness'.

Anyway, let me look into my crystal ball, around ten months from now. We will be given the news that there is a huge revenue shortfall in the state ...somehow...unexpectedly ...whodathunkit...sale tax revenues will not have matched projections...nobody saw it coming, but people bought fewer big ticket items, and people scurried across the border for groceries...it will be a big surprise...and the solution put forth will be....wait for it...we have to raise taxes!

I know, I know, you stayed up really, really late on wikipedia and google to impress us, and found one phrase in a thought provoking article that could maybe be twisted and simplified into looking like Art Laffer has abandoned supply side...but he hasn't, and the real world hasn't either. (and its Laffer, not Laffler btw - and he has been burning up the airwaves doing interviews critical of raising taxes as recently as two weeks ago, so I wouldn't count him as a convert just yet)

Anyone want to bet that the 1% bump in sales tax actually brings in what was forecasted? Anyone seriously believe that? We all know it won't...but why? It will slow down economic activity in the state...its as obvious as a day is long. We all intuitively know this...its just a matter of acknowledging it.

Interesting that, after WWII, the US Deficit was 6% (of GDP) or less.

Until we get to the 2009 Obama Budget:

Year & deficit
2009 = 9.9%
2010 =10.6%
2011 = 8.3% (estimated)

Thank you, Democrats ...

It was a valiant effort Longer. Just as anything in life, you can find one expert who believes one thing and another who believes just the opposite. Theories sound good too but real world results are more telling of the truth.

And while you may think Reaganomics wasn't successful, the real problem was in the fact that congress cannot control its spending. The right amount of tax cuts coupled with spending cuts result in surpluses to the treasury. While it is true to the point that if you cut taxes too low revenues will decrease. But it is shown that high taxes will definitely decrease revenue.

But you can keep believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause. Me? I'll pay attention to real world outcomes.

Good point Biggest.

Notice also (with some calculation), the gdp predictions are:

2009 - $14.2 trillion -
2010 - $14.6 trillion - 2.8% growth
2011 - $15.3 trillion - 4.8% growth
2012 - $16.1 trillion - 5.2% growth
2013 - $17.1 trillion - 6.2% growth
2014 - $18.2 trillion - 6.4% growth
2015 - $19.2 trillion - 5.5% growth

or an average of 5.2% growth.

These are the laughable estimates that the CBO is using to forecast our deficits and debt . How in the hell are we going to hit those targets. For comparison, lets look at the often cited Clinton years:

1993 - $6.6 trillion
1994 - $7.0 trillion - 6.1% growth
1995 - $7.3 trillion - 4.3% growth
1996 - $7.7 trillion - 5.5% growth
1997 - $8.2 trillion - 6.5% growth
1998 - $8.6 trillion - 4.9% growth
1999 - $9.2 trillion - 7.0% growth
2000 - $9.8 trillion - 6.5% growth

an average of 5.8% growth.

Just for kicks, lets look at the Bush years:

2001 - $10.2 trillion
2002 - $10.5 trillion - 2.9%
2003 - $11.0 trillion - 4.8%
2004 - $11.7 trillion - 6.4%
2005 - $12.4 trillion - 6.0%
2006 - $13.2 trillion - 6.5%
2007 - $13.9 trillion - 5.3%
2008 - $14.4 trillion - 3.6%

or 5.1%

So the OMB and CBO are estimating that the next 5 years will see growth that exceeds the average of the last 8 years, and is close to that of the Clinton years. Does anybody believe that? They are using this for budget purposes. Methinks the economy will come up short (but remember we are spending money based on these forecasts). Good grief.

While I'm at it, lets look at those Reagan years that were so terrible:

1981 - $3.0
1982 - $3.2 - 6.7%
1983 - $3.4 - 6.3%
1984 - $3.8 - 11.8%
1985 - $4.1 - 7.9%
1986 - $4.4 - 7.3%
1987 - $4.6 - 4.6%
1988 - $5.0 - 8.7%

or 7.6% average. Golly gee, I don't write economic articles for Harvard, but my simple peanut brain thinks those are some good numbers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200 Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

LA, you and I have discussed surpluses/deficits on another thread, but I wanted to let you know the link you provided shows 4 years of surplus under the Clinton years. 1998-2001. So... do you use this tax reference when it suits your interest here, but then use another tax reference when it suits your interest in other areas? My simple peanut brain thinks I already know the answer.

Golly gee, I don't write economic articles for Harvard, but my simple peanut brain thinks those are some good numbers. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

...of course you do.

Stimulating the economy is easy; drop taxes to zero dollars. But what about Reagan tripling the national debt? You left that out. Yep, you just left out $2.8 trillion dollars. With interest. Poof!

...the real problem was in the fact that congress cannot control its spending. The right amount of tax cuts coupled with spending cuts result in surpluses to the treasury. While it is true to the point that if you cut taxes too low revenues will decrease. But it is shown that high taxes will definitely decrease revenue. Originally Posted by nsafun05

I'll give you a 'C' because you got it half right. Spending is out of control.

The rest is pure Two Santa Claus Theory right out of 1976. And wrong.

What needs to be done is spending cuts and increased revenue. You don't get increased revenue from tax cuts. I know you want to believe it, just like you want to believe that there really is a Santa Claus. But it just isn't so.

Somehow, the abandoned myth that tax cuts pay for themselves keeps on living like some kind of zombie. I wish you guys would wise up before you kill the United States.

I guess I should tell y'all that you should stop and think next time a Republican running for office spouts the "lower taxes, increase the treasury" line. Two Santa Claus Theory is a successful political ploy, but it is not sound policy. It's just an appealing lie.

Interesting that, after WWII, the US Deficit was 6% (of GDP) or less.

Until we get to the 2009 Obama Budget:

Year & deficit
2009 = 9.9%
2010 =10.6%
2011 = 8.3% (estimated)

Thank you, Democrats ... Originally Posted by BiggestBest

Yeah, forget about those ongoing land wars in Asia that weren't on the books. And forget about the wealthy not being asked to pay their share like they were during WWII. Instead of being asked to pay for their defense, the rich were given tax cuts. They took that money and gambled with it. And lost. And we were asked to pay for it. Let's just forget all of those facts and blame it all on Obaman. Jeesh!

Economists on both sides would tell you that you're supposed to ramp up tax rates during a bull market so you can spend money during a recession. Instead, under Bush, Republicans CUT TAXES during a bull market and left Obama with a hot mess. Politically, that's brilliant. Great for the Republican Party and horrible for the United States. Instead of spending money in a stimulus package, Republicans would offer to spend money in the form of tax cuts. Voters like lower taxes and will readily believe the lie that lower tax rates pay for themselves and that all of their tax money is being wasted on welfare mothers, etc.

That's good to get some Republicans back in Congress in 2010, but not good policy.

Until we get to the 2009 Obama Budget:

Year & deficit
2009 = 9.9%
2010 =10.6%
2011 = 8.3% (estimated) Originally Posted by BiggestBest

I can't imagine why you left off the rest of the estimated rates (5.1, 4.2, 3.9, 3.9).

"Yeah, forget about those ongoing land wars in Asia that weren't on the books"

Bush had to pay for the same wars, not like they only started costing money when Obama took office.