"Tax cuts will increase federal revenues"

[Redleg]

I heard a GOP Congressman utter these words this morning in regard to the GOP's "plans." I had to change channels to something less fucking offensive. This is just part of the zombie supply-side econ b.s. that just won't die and it won't go away.

[Irish_Dem]

1. Of course they have to lie to cover the theft of our tax money.

Stealing our money to pay the billionaires more money.

[gab13by13]

2. Magats are claiming the tax cuts to billionaires

will increase our GDP 1%, that is laughable.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Who cares?

Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. - Liz Cheney’s dad.

[Ocelot II]

4. And the lack of food will make people well-nourished and healthy.

A drought will make crops grow and flourish.
Dire poverty makes people affluent.
Raw sewage will make your home smell like roses and jasmine.

[C_U_L8R]

5. We already know they're buffoons.

But do they have to keep proving it over and over? Geez.

[chicoescuela]

6. How many times are the idiots on the right going to buy this line?

Reagan, Bush II, tsf i and now tsf ii.

[Redleg]

7. I remember my econometrics professor in grad school

rejoicing on what he saw as the death of supply-side economics in the mid 90s. It seems the news of death was premature. Paul Krugman discusses these fallacies as zombie lies. I think he is correct.

[gab13by13]

8. It goes back to 1926, Coolidge I think,

Back then it was called the Horse and Sparrow economic plan. Feed the horse more oats and the sparrows will have plenty to eat. That economic plan was the lead up to the Great Depression. Reagan changed the name to trickle down, but it's the same plan.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Lately, also known as "tinkle down". nt

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Based on something called the Laffer curve. "Laffer" is a term in Hollywood trade pubs for "comedy".

A little reflection on human nature, and the expected response of people to incremental increases or decreases in the tax rate, suggests the Conservative interpretation of the Laffer Curve is thoroughly wrong, and that peak revenue will come when tax rates are on the high side of 50%, possibly very high. This is NOT justification for hiking tax rates, just a strong counterargument to the conservative/rightwing/GOP li(n)e that decreasing tax rates from their already low values (particularly for corporations and upper tax brackets, thanks to numerous loopholes) could paradoxically increase revenue. Common sense says otherwise, and for more complex reasons, common sense is probably right.

One implication of the Laffer curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. Particularly in the United States, conservatives have used the Laffer curve to argue that lower taxes may increase tax revenue. However, the hypothetical maximum revenue point of the Laffer curve for any given market cannot be observed directly and can only be estimated—such estimates are often controversial. According to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, estimates of revenue-maximizing income tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.[4] The shape of the Laffer curve may also differ between different global economies.[5]

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

[Redleg]

11. Indeed, the top tax rates would have to be much higher than they are now

The funny story about the Laffer curve is that Laffer drew it on a cocktail napkin. Seems fitting somehow.