Utahns, how excited are you about Mitt Romney

[BoiseBYU]

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.

Forbes article -
"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."




"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton ... e690144bf2

If the best you can do is cut and paste from someone else (I saw this same chart from some dude named kidboy2 from last year), well I guess it is the best you can do. But to address the chart:
As you can see, it only uses two points of data. This graph shows only the top tax bracket and federal receipts. Where are the other tax brackets and revenue streams, and how much did they contribute? Where is the budget expenditures line, and more importantly the deficit spending (credit card) line in relation to taxes and revenues? You can't analyze tax cuts and tax revenues by looking at only two data points. You have to have all the data together. And we DO have real world data. Kansas is the most recent to engage in this tax cut and hope for more government revenues effort and it has not worked out well for the State.At.All.

[BroncoBot]

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.

Forbes article -
"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."




"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton ... e690144bf2

If the best you can do is cut and paste from someone else (I saw this same chart from some dude named kidboy2 from last year), well I guess it is the best you can do. But to address the chart:
As you can see, it only uses two points of data. This graph shows only the top tax bracket and federal receipts. Where are the other tax brackets and revenue streams, and how much did they contribute? Where is the budget expenditures line, and more importantly the deficit spending (credit card) line in relation to taxes and revenues? You can't analyze tax cuts and tax revenues by looking at only two data points. You have to have all the data together. And we DO have real world data. Kansas is the most recent to engage in this tax cut and hope for more government revenues effort and it has not worked out well for the State.At.All.

Did Kansas attempt to cut any spending? You're now using one state and one tax cut (very small sample size) as your evidence? Are you sure you have all the "data together" for Kansas? Why did they struggle, are you sure it was only because they cut taxes?

"But looking at objective government figures, the results are far more positive. According to Census Bureau data, Kansas’ total tax revenues actually rose in 2012, the year the tax cut took effect, to $7.4 billion – a 9 percent increase from $6.8 billion in 2011. Revenues grew further to $7.6 billion in 2013.

How can reality be so different from rhetoric? Well, it’s true that Kansas’ total tax revenue dipped to $7.3 billion in 2014, largely due to the commodity price crash and fiscal cliff federal tax hikes that reduced revenues in several states.

But Kansas tax revenues quickly bounced back to $7.9 billion in 2015 and $8.1 billion in 2016. This tax revenue growth between 2011 and 2016 exceeded average revenue growth in neighboring Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s over the same period. "

"This isn’t to say that Kansas’ income tax cut could not have been designed better. Rather than eliminating the small-business tax rate entirely, policymakers should have simply cut it deeply, so it could still capture revenue from ensuing economic growth. Similarly, eliminating deductions, credits, and loopholes – part of Brownback’s original plan – would have broadened the tax base to make the tax code fairer and more efficient."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... s.amp.html

[BoiseBYU]

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.

Forbes article -
"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."




"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton ... e690144bf2

If the best you can do is cut and paste from someone else (I saw this same chart from some dude named kidboy2 from last year), well I guess it is the best you can do. But to address the chart:
As you can see, it only uses two points of data. This graph shows only the top tax bracket and federal receipts. Where are the other tax brackets and revenue streams, and how much did they contribute? Where is the budget expenditures line, and more importantly the deficit spending (credit card) line in relation to taxes and revenues? You can't analyze tax cuts and tax revenues by looking at only two data points. You have to have all the data together. And we DO have real world data. Kansas is the most recent to engage in this tax cut and hope for more government revenues effort and it has not worked out well for the State.At.All.

Did Kansas attempt to cut any spending? You're now using one state and one tax cut (very small sample size) as your evidence? Are you sure you have all the "data together" for Kansas? Why did they struggle, are you sure it was only because they cut taxes?

"But looking at objective government figures, the results are far more positive. According to Census Bureau data, Kansas’ total tax revenues actually rose in 2012, the year the tax cut took effect, to $7.4 billion – a 9 percent increase from $6.8 billion in 2011. Revenues grew further to $7.6 billion in 2013.

How can reality be so different from rhetoric? Well, it’s true that Kansas’ total tax revenue dipped to $7.3 billion in 2014, largely due to the commodity price crash and fiscal cliff federal tax hikes that reduced revenues in several states.

But Kansas tax revenues quickly bounced back to $7.9 billion in 2015 and $8.1 billion in 2016. This tax revenue growth between 2011 and 2016 exceeded average revenue growth in neighboring Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s over the same period. "

"This isn’t to say that Kansas’ income tax cut could not have been designed better. Rather than eliminating the small-business tax rate entirely, policymakers should have simply cut it deeply, so it could still capture revenue from ensuing economic growth. Similarly, eliminating deductions, credits, and loopholes – part of Brownback’s original plan – would have broadened the tax base to make the tax code fairer and more efficient."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... s.amp.html

Thanks. Interesting stuff. My point was more humble and it is that I am not aware that a tax cut produces more tax revenue from increased business activity than the revenue lost from the cut. Kansas is the most recent example. And from what I’m aware the revenue lost from the cut was not made up revenue coming in at the lower tax cut rates but with the hope that increased business activity would make up the difference. I’m not saying KS is proof because like you said it is one example. It is just the most recent I am aware of. I know there are economists on both sides who debate this (what a shock!) at least at the theoretical level.

[BroncoBot]

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.

Forbes article -
"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."




"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton ... e690144bf2

If the best you can do is cut and paste from someone else (I saw this same chart from some dude named kidboy2 from last year), well I guess it is the best you can do. But to address the chart:
As you can see, it only uses two points of data. This graph shows only the top tax bracket and federal receipts. Where are the other tax brackets and revenue streams, and how much did they contribute? Where is the budget expenditures line, and more importantly the deficit spending (credit card) line in relation to taxes and revenues? You can't analyze tax cuts and tax revenues by looking at only two data points. You have to have all the data together. And we DO have real world data. Kansas is the most recent to engage in this tax cut and hope for more government revenues effort and it has not worked out well for the State.At.All.

Did Kansas attempt to cut any spending? You're now using one state and one tax cut (very small sample size) as your evidence? Are you sure you have all the "data together" for Kansas? Why did they struggle, are you sure it was only because they cut taxes?

"But looking at objective government figures, the results are far more positive. According to Census Bureau data, Kansas’ total tax revenues actually rose in 2012, the year the tax cut took effect, to $7.4 billion – a 9 percent increase from $6.8 billion in 2011. Revenues grew further to $7.6 billion in 2013.

How can reality be so different from rhetoric? Well, it’s true that Kansas’ total tax revenue dipped to $7.3 billion in 2014, largely due to the commodity price crash and fiscal cliff federal tax hikes that reduced revenues in several states.

But Kansas tax revenues quickly bounced back to $7.9 billion in 2015 and $8.1 billion in 2016. This tax revenue growth between 2011 and 2016 exceeded average revenue growth in neighboring Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s over the same period. "

"This isn’t to say that Kansas’ income tax cut could not have been designed better. Rather than eliminating the small-business tax rate entirely, policymakers should have simply cut it deeply, so it could still capture revenue from ensuing economic growth. Similarly, eliminating deductions, credits, and loopholes – part of Brownback’s original plan – would have broadened the tax base to make the tax code fairer and more efficient."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... s.amp.html

Thanks. Interesting stuff. My point was more humble and it is that I am not aware that a tax cut produces more tax revenue from increased business activity than the revenue lost from the cut. Kansas is the most recent example. And from what I’m aware the revenue lost from the cut was not made up revenue coming in at the lower tax cut rates but with the hope that increased business activity would make up the difference. I’m not saying KS is proof because like you said it is one example. It is just the most recent I am aware of. I know there are economists on both sides who debate this (what a shock!) at least at the theoretical level.

I'll poke holes in my own argument. Article came from fox news (bias) and there are a number of articles that come from more liberal leanings denouncing the tax cuts. Another argument is that state revenue would be higher, but over time it seems there is a trend that Kansas is doing well. It's interesting that there are several similar findings - tax cuts when done right stimulate the economy enough to offset the cuts. I personally find this much more attractive to heavy taxes and a propped up economic growth via subsidies.

I like to see states keeping money in the hands of businesses and those who are the most productive. In theory it should produce a robust natural economy that thrives off of production while at the same time motivates the population to improve/hire/be competitive in regard to benefits to attract good employees, this has been born out in part by the federal tax cut this year.

[BoiseBYU]

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.

Forbes article -
"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."




"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton ... e690144bf2

If the best you can do is cut and paste from someone else (I saw this same chart from some dude named kidboy2 from last year), well I guess it is the best you can do. But to address the chart:
As you can see, it only uses two points of data. This graph shows only the top tax bracket and federal receipts. Where are the other tax brackets and revenue streams, and how much did they contribute? Where is the budget expenditures line, and more importantly the deficit spending (credit card) line in relation to taxes and revenues? You can't analyze tax cuts and tax revenues by looking at only two data points. You have to have all the data together. And we DO have real world data. Kansas is the most recent to engage in this tax cut and hope for more government revenues effort and it has not worked out well for the State.At.All.

Did Kansas attempt to cut any spending? You're now using one state and one tax cut (very small sample size) as your evidence? Are you sure you have all the "data together" for Kansas? Why did they struggle, are you sure it was only because they cut taxes?

"But looking at objective government figures, the results are far more positive. According to Census Bureau data, Kansas’ total tax revenues actually rose in 2012, the year the tax cut took effect, to $7.4 billion – a 9 percent increase from $6.8 billion in 2011. Revenues grew further to $7.6 billion in 2013.

How can reality be so different from rhetoric? Well, it’s true that Kansas’ total tax revenue dipped to $7.3 billion in 2014, largely due to the commodity price crash and fiscal cliff federal tax hikes that reduced revenues in several states.

But Kansas tax revenues quickly bounced back to $7.9 billion in 2015 and $8.1 billion in 2016. This tax revenue growth between 2011 and 2016 exceeded average revenue growth in neighboring Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s over the same period. "

"This isn’t to say that Kansas’ income tax cut could not have been designed better. Rather than eliminating the small-business tax rate entirely, policymakers should have simply cut it deeply, so it could still capture revenue from ensuing economic growth. Similarly, eliminating deductions, credits, and loopholes – part of Brownback’s original plan – would have broadened the tax base to make the tax code fairer and more efficient."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... s.amp.html

Thanks. Interesting stuff. My point was more humble and it is that I am not aware that a tax cut produces more tax revenue from increased business activity than the revenue lost from the cut. Kansas is the most recent example. And from what I’m aware the revenue lost from the cut was not made up revenue coming in at the lower tax cut rates but with the hope that increased business activity would make up the difference. I’m not saying KS is proof because like you said it is one example. It is just the most recent I am aware of. I know there are economists on both sides who debate this (what a shock!) at least at the theoretical level.

I'll poke holes in my own argument. Article came from fox news (bias) and there are a number of articles that come from more liberal leanings denouncing the tax cuts. Another argument is that state revenue would be higher, but over time it seems there is a trend that Kansas is doing well. It's interesting that there are several similar findings - tax cuts when done right stimulate the economy enough to offset the cuts. I personally find this much more attractive to heavy taxes and a propped up economic growth via subsidies.

I like to see states keeping money in the hands of businesses and those who are the most productive. In theory it should produce a robust natural economy that thrives off of production while at the same time motivates the population to improve/hire/be competitive in regard to benefits to attract good employees, this has been born out in part by the federal tax cut this year.

I got no problem citing to Fox News. Whether tax cuts are good or bad policy is just that—a policy decision. All I was trying to say is I am not aware that tax cuts pay for themselves in commensurate revenue increases. Unless you are the federal govt and can engage in deficit spending, a tax cut will mean cutting budgets as a result. For some that is just fine. For others depending on the cuts—education health care etc it is not. Reasonable minds can disagree on that I think.

[Mars]

I'm curious about "lowering taxes" being the prime thing mentioned here, and not actual numbers. So if in one state, taxes go from 7% to 7.1% to 7.2% to 7.3%, and in another state taxes go from 7% to 20% to 19.9% to 19.8%, will spending be higher in state #2, because in 2 of 3 years taxes were cut?

[Ddawg]

I'm curious about "lowering taxes" being the prime thing mentioned here, and not actual numbers. So if in one state, taxes go from 7% to 7.1% to 7.2% to 7.3%, and in another state taxes go from 7% to 20% to 19.9% to 19.8%, will spending be higher in state #2, because in 2 of 3 years taxes were cut?

I could use your logic and propose this -
You have $100. I take $80 from you 1x.
I give you back $5 - 1 time, then I give you $5 a 2nd time, then give you $5 a 3rd time.
Haven't I given you back 3x when I only took 1x? Therefore, I gave more to you than I took.
Goofy huh?

[Mars]

So what provides the stimulus, a "low" tax rate, or any rate being lowered?

[Ddawg]

Here ya go, a chance to invest in your eduction. A good basic economic read, by Thomas Sowell.
Basic Economics, hardcover, new, $27. You can finis it used for around $5. Both new and used available on Amazon.

[Mars]

But does he mention the Invisible Hand? I always thought that would be a cool gang name.