Big Oil Claims About Tax Subsidies Don't Hold Water

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem always has been the spending.

Revenues did increase during Bush's years, that's a misconception.

Nope.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Zero Sum 305]

Unfortunately for you and Big Dog, you understand nothing about controllable and uncontrollable when it comes to monetary policies.

You can raise taxes and lower taxes all you want, but there's a X factor you have to take into consideration. You can raise taxes to 99.9% and still not make one more dime. That's the factor that you do not account for. Just as you can lower taxes and make a lot more as well. It all depends on that X factor. That factor is the source in which your revenue comes from. If that source in the case of income taxes isn't making money, then you don't make money, no matter what the tax rate is.

Controllable and uncontrollable...

Yeah... I guess you're not really paying attention to the simple equation. Deficit = Income - Spending.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Paul is a real life, Walter Mitty, only instead of dreaming that he's a knight, he dreams that he's a scholar and intellectual know-it-all.

Edited May 12, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Controllable and uncontrollable...

Yeah... I guess you're not really paying attention to the simple equation. Deficit = Income - Spending.

The equation is simple, yes.

The point is though, "Income" is not a controllable source of revenue.

The only way you can have a for sure revenue stream is if you say, "OK, All Americans must pay $2,000 in taxes every year." and then enforce that. THEN you'll know what your revenue stream is and you can set spending accordingly.

The only way to guarantee a reduction of a defecit is to significantly cut spending. You can not guarantee in any way that attempting to adjust the revenue stream will reduce a defecit. All you're doing at that point is 'guessing.'

[Zero Sum 305]

The equation is simple, yes.

The point is though, "Income" is not a controllable source of revenue.

The only way you can have a for sure revenue stream is if you say, "OK, All Americans must pay $2,000 in taxes every year." and then enforce that. THEN you'll know what your revenue stream is and you can set spending accordingly.

The only way to guarantee a reduction of a defecit is to significantly cut spending. You can not guarantee in any way that attempting to adjust the revenue stream will reduce a defecit. All you're doing at that point is 'guessing.'

Personal Income tax is one thing. This is not the unique method for income accrual for the Federal Government.

Your speculation on deficit reduction is too set in wishful thinking in a world that is too bipolar for reality.

You're trying to make points based on what you think the points should be. Big difference in logic which you confuse repetitively as fact.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Personal Income tax is one thing. This is not the unique method for income accrual for the Federal Government.

Your speculation on deficit reduction is too set in wishful thinking in a world that is too bipolar for reality.

You're trying to make points based on what you think the points should be. Big difference in logic which you confuse repetitively as fact.

Have you ever tried to make money in life? Seriously? This isn't hard to understand at all.

If people don't work, the government makes no money.

If people don't invest/cash out - the government makes no money.

If people buy products subject government taxes - the government makes no money.

This is uncontrollable revenue. Every last dime the government makes is uncontrollable by our current tax code.

You can try and make cute remarks all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that government's income is directly effected by factors that have nothing to do with overall tax rates, etc.

If you cannot guarantee you will have X-Dollars by the end of the year, then the only thing you can do to reduce a defecit/not have a defecit at all, is to try and spend a certain percentage below the income you think you are going to have.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Nope.

dude, why do you post charts that prove what i said and then say "nope."

The government MADE more money as shown by the charts. We are talking about "% of GDP here." We're talking dollars and cents, which at the end of the day is what matters.

[Zero Sum 305]

Have you ever tried to make money in life? Seriously? This isn't hard to understand at all.

If people don't work, the government makes no money.

If people don't invest/cash out - the government makes no money.

If people buy products subject government taxes - the government makes no money.

This is uncontrollable revenue. Every last dime the government makes is uncontrollable by our current tax code.

You can try and make cute remarks all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that government's income is directly effected by factors that have nothing to do with overall tax rates, etc.

If you cannot guarantee you will have X-Dollars by the end of the year, then the only thing you can do to reduce a defecit/not have a defecit at all, is to try and spend a certain percentage below the income you think you are going to have.

Life is uncontrollable. US Individual Federal Income Tax is what it is. Trying to make it 'controllable' by flattening the input margin, is fine in concept of opinion- but again... something you're not getting (and I'm not arguing with you on this- it might be time for that St John's Wort for you) is that revenues rise and fall not as a single and unique result of guaranteed tax payments. Things are a little more complicated, which really throws into question your simplistic opinions- not that its much of a surprise on nearly every topic you try to shoulder your way into.

I bet you didn't think too much about mandating a tax payment in a bad economy either right?

What was that about government taking liberty away?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Zero Sum

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unfortunately for you and Big Dog, you understand nothing about controllable and uncontrollable when it comes to monetary policies.

You can raise taxes and lower taxes all you want, but there's a X factor you have to take into consideration. You can raise taxes to 99.9% and still not make one more dime. That's the factor that you do not account for. Just as you can lower taxes and make a lot more as well. It all depends on that X factor. That factor is the source in which your revenue comes from. If that source in the case of income taxes isn't making money, then you don't make money, no matter what the tax rate is.

Unfortunately for you, Paul, you seem to be suffering from an attention deficit disorder of some sort. Now that your case has been taken apart, you want to shift the debate to the obvious fact that a large percentage of something small might be less than a small percentage of something large. We may as well talk about the wetness of water...

Edited May 12, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

dude, why do you post charts that prove what i said and then say "nope."

Dude, it's pretty clear from the charts that federal revenues relative to GDP never reached the 2000 levels again. Looking at income taxes - the major revenue source aside from payroll taxes - it is clear that in nominal amounts the revenues may have increased after initially falling but when you adjust for inflation, you'd have to collect about 1.2 trillion dollars in 2008 to effectively cut even with the 1 trillion dollars of 2000. So, there's no revenue increase any way you slice it. If absolute dollar collar collections irrespective of GDP and irrespective of inflation are the measure then you can make that argument. But that doesn't really mean much of anything. It's like your employer abolishing cost-of-living salary adjustments telling you that you still make good money ten years down the road while you actually experience a decrease in your purchasing power year after year.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Nope.

booyah, is that you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

booyah, is that you?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Unfortunately for you, Paul, you seem to be suffering from an attention deficit disorder of some sort. Now that your case has been taken apart, you want to shift the debate to the obvious fact that a large percentage of something small might be less than a small percentage of something large. We may as well talk about the wetness of water...

I'm not shifting anything.

We're talking about ways to reduce the deficit.

I am saying that the only way to FOR SURE do that is to cut spending.

You have no guarantees when you adjust tax levels, etc. as you never know what you are going to get in the way of actual income.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not shifting anything.

We're talking about ways to reduce the deficit.

I am saying that the only way to FOR SURE do that is to cut spending.

You have no guarantees when you adjust tax levels, etc. as you never know what you are going to get in the way of actual income.

You're just not getting it. There aren't a trillion and a half dollars a year that can actually be cut from the budget. Hell, we're having trouble to get this Congress to agree on a $2 billion cut. We'd need about 700 such cuts to make the math work. These cuts aren't there. Plain and simple. Revenue needs to come back into the 19% of GDP range or there will be deficits until the country collapses.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're just not getting it. There aren't a trillion and a half dollars a year that can actually be cut from the budget. Hell, we're having trouble to get this Congress to agree on a $2 billion cut. We'd need about 700 such cuts to make the math work. These cuts aren't there. Plain and simple. Revenue needs to come back into the 19% of GDP range or there will be deficits until the country collapses.

There is. Just no one is willing to do what needs to be done.