Posted: 10/3/2012 6:50:52 PM EDT
|
All politics and facts leave at door.
Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=-3 |
|
Quoted:
All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=3 Negative 3. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=3 Negative 3. Good catch. Thanks. |
|
Tax cuts do not mean decreased revenue. Laffer Curve. If you tax 100%, production drops so total revenue drops. If you tax at 0%, you will get no revenue. So linear thinking doesn't work looking at the limits. Somewhere on the graph of revenue as a function of tax percentage, you get a maxima. We are on the high side and revenue suffers.  http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/02/the-laffer-curve-of-slavery/ |
|
ask here.....
http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_1/164_Math_And_Science.html 
|
|
Quoted: All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=-3 Proposed $5T cut? And a $2BILLION increase? Ignore the $2B increase, as it is negligible when dealing with $5000B. (I know it matters... just pointing out that the units are different by a scale of 1000). |
|
Quoted:
Tax cuts do not mean decreased revenue. Laffer Curve. If you tax 100%, production drops so total revenue drops. If you tax at 0%, you will get no revenue. So linear thinking doesn't work looking at the limits. Somewhere on the graph of revenue as a function of tax percentage, you get a maxima. We are on the high side and revenue suffers. http://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/LafferCurve.jpg http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/02/the-laffer-curve-of-slavery/ To be fair, many studies indicate we are actually on the low side of this curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Empirical_data Of course, whether "optimal" actually means "government collects more revenue" is itself debatable. |
|
Quoted:
Tax cuts do not mean decreased revenue. Laffer Curve. If you tax 100%, production drops so total revenue drops. If you tax at 0%, you will get no revenue. So linear thinking doesn't work looking at the limits. Somewhere on the graph of revenue as a function of tax percentage, you get a maxima. We are on the high side and revenue suffers. http://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/LafferCurve.jpg http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/02/the-laffer-curve-of-slavery/ My only quibble with that graph is that Art Laffer takes some great pains to emphasize that he does not necessarily advocate adjusting tax rates so as to reach maximal tax revenue (i.e. the point labeled "Best Tax Rate" on that graph). He points out that rates should not be adjusted solely to derive maximum income for the government but that other issues such as liberty and the desired size of the government should be taken into account as well. He only advocates the Laffer Curve as a tool to understand the dynamic interplay between tax rates and revenues. Otherwise, spot on. You can indeed cut tax rates and realize an increase in tax revenue. Of course, the exact shape of the Laffer curve is unknown but Laffer and others have done a good deal of work looking at historical rates and revenues and certainly have a well educated guess as to what it looks like. |
|
Quoted:
All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=-3 I assumed he meant a $5T loss of revenue + $2T expenditure for a $7T cost. |
|
Quoted:
All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=-3 Math Is Racist! |
|
Quoted:
All politics and facts leave at door. Tonight's debate, 0 argued against Romney's proposed tax plan. Which includes a $5 trillion dollar cut in taxes, and a $2 billion dollar increase in military/defense spending. He came up with a $7 trillion dollar cut. my math makes that -5trillion+2trillion=3trillion -5+2=-3 Your comment assumes that Obama was accurate in his statement. One way to tell if he was not being accurate is: Was his mouth moving? If so, he was not being honest or accurate. |