Why do people still fall for the idea that lower taxes is a catalyst of economic growth and higher salaries when no...

If your premise is true, why not pay 100% of your income and wealth in tax?

try again without a straw argument.

Because people like to buy shit that the government doesnt provide services for like clothes games cars entertainment systems books etc. Youve made the largest fucking jump in human history asking that question and since no data supports lower tax rates youve been forced to make such a reach.

if you expect any logic or intelligence in economic policy or politics in general, you'll be disappointed

what is done is in reality is for the benefit of "some people" and their twisted agendas,
then you get the propaganda army to make things look like they are for people's benefit somehow

bumping again because there's an e-celeb thread in the catalog.

Its no use mate. People dont care about policy anymore, left or right. All that dictates conversation is race sexuality and whether or not you like trump. Its sad really cause this is the mindless shitshow that corporations love. People are too obsessed with themselves and too self-righteous to talk about the issues and facts. As a result theyre blinded to the true sources of their pain and suffering or are either to apethetic to do something about it.

Attached: 65FA70EF-B14E-46FC-BEC0-4349C80C4D1B.png (655x509, 25K)

Low taxes by themselves are not a catalyst for economic growth, a combination of low taxes and reduced government spending is the catalyst for growth. The low taxes reflect the decrease in spending.

You're obviously uninformed or making a red herring argument.

Also, the GDP is not "the economy"

Why is it that Reaganites praise him for economic growth in the 80s after he lowered taxes yet at the same time went of a spending spree that doubled the national debt? Bush turned a budget surplus to an even greater debt after lower taxes and said the economy would pay for it. Yet once again he increased spending as a result of it. If Republicans are gonna make this arguement they should at least be consistent with their own claims.

>The low taxes reflect the decrease in spending

fucking omega kek

Attached: 73F2CE0A-DAEA-4E99-8D3A-A68F53BA6BA4.png (658x662, 59K)

(((data))) as in some chart you provided with no link, you prolly made that thing in your backyard.

faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons

google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

google.com/amp/www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/07/13/Corporate-Tax-Cuts-Don-t-Boost-Incomes-Majority-Americans-Study?amp

crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

Links contain original chart and more data that contradicts the idea that lower taxes benefit the common persons wages or the economy

High tax rates and low tax rates look the same because you can't control for other factors and isolate what you're trying to measure, and rising and falling rates are just politics bullshit and don't actually address evasion.

That's why that graph tells you nothing. Also the top tax rate is only one section of tax revenue that scrooge mcducks don't pay anyway.

Also, what do you believe? That economic growth increases with higher tax rates or stays the same? That's some magic shit. Uncle Sam is horribly inefficient compared to the market, unless it's horribly overrun by cronyism anyway.

Also yeah, if someone claims salaries go up with lower taxes, they're full of shit. Supply side economics predicts lower prices and higher purchasing power.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

haha, moron.

If we didn’t have a fiat currency loaned into existence on the promise of enslaving unborn goyim via the income tax then we’d see a real economy with no income tax. IE what existed in America for most of its history

Most of the board is full of low iq white nationalist incels.

you're not going to see them come in here and have a substantive debate on the effects of tax policy.

The government sucks. It will always be worse at spending people's money then they will.

The idea is to keep lowering taxes until it has the minimal amount of the peoples money.

>Because people like to buy shit that the government doesnt provide services for like clothes games cars entertainment systems books etc.

Why shouldn't the government provide these things?

Lower taxes equals more money available in the private sector where it belongs, boomer. How do taxes help economic growth?

This.

Your premise requires that the converse be true, that higher tax rates stimulate economic growth. Therefore 100% tax rates maximize growth. What is your support for this position? I can support my position that 0% tax rates maximize growth. You however, cannot support yours. Therefore your premise is false. No logical fallacies here - rock solid Ps and Qs.

Because the government doesnt have the time to figure out whether you would prefer to buy PES or Fifa for Christmas. Can you imagine how inefficient that be? I cant believe this autistic argument actually resonates with people.

Lower taxes cause the government to borrow more money causing lower economic growth in the future. Couple that with the fact ever administration since reagan has also spent so much money that we are trillions in debt and lowering taxes becomes immeasurablely infeasible.

What do you want dipshit? Taxes are most families #1 expense. For me, it is 2x more than any other. And your chart only shows a fraction of the data. People who say shit like this do not pay taxes.

0% taxes means the government cannot provide any services cause it has no money. Therefore that results in the collapse of civil society. Are you really advocating for complete anarchy because youre that desperate to defend a position that is so obviously wrong?

"This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking." -Taxfoundation.org
Also just to be clear, OP conflated an argument in the text with a graph having nothing to do with the argument, while implying that they were related. There's more than just a "top income tax rate". In fact, there's more than one type of tax out there.

Attached: 1527736980765.jpg (800x1160, 195K)

Why do leftist retards assume that taxing more for shitty programs they love = " progress" when it isn't? Really makes you think...

As I have stated before tax cuts on the poor make sense as they give the average person more money to spend and invest. Tax cuts on the rich do none of this as if you give a company tax cuts they arent going to pay the people they employ more money.

Lol PES used to be bomb back in ‘08 when FIFA game play was glitchy as shit. But the lack of licensing killed PES for me ultimately...TFW no Ronaldo

>cause it has no money.
The ONLY way the government "has money" is via taxation, since it provides neither a product nor service that is of direct income-generating benefit to anyone.

Basically, professional pocket picking because of retarded politicians and their shitty gibs programs that never seem to get cut, but oh, how each new one requires another 1000+ public employees to manage it at high salaries with full benefits and no way of ever being fired. Funny how that all works!

Some people prefer the gameplay and say it makes up for it. I never got that but its their choice.

Right. Because government and theft are the only way to do things and have them paid for. It is called being ethical which requires universality. Theft is theft no matter who is doing the thieving. Muh roads? Muh school? Right. Because who would voluntarily pay for those? You are a freeloader. Cop to it. You are a bum crashing on someone's couch.

It taxes people to give them services. This is basic stuff mate come on now.

It’s providing a quite a few services, one of them being to prevent foreign invasion and enslavement.. wether or not our government is currently doing an effective job at providing it is moot...it has in the past and will again but the necessity of an organization to exist to protect us from harm will always be there..

Should there not be a body making sure that people who provide services be kept in check? What are you advocating for a state in which their are no regulations and every person that provides services is independently from one another? That’s terriblely inefficienct and allows for literally anyone to start a business with no oversight.

Taxes only redirect monetary flow from industry building to consumer spending. We could have had a space elevator, instead we have more Walmarts.

Because there’s tons of data to support it

>I cant believe this autistic argument actually resonates with people.
It's not an argument, it's a rhetorical question. I ask it because I always get an arbitrary line based on the triviality of the good or service instead of real reasons why some sections of the economy should be afford to the state and the rest not.

>Can you imagine how inefficient that be?
Which is exactly my point. The government is less efficient in anything where competition is possible and externalities can be controlled.

Says the retard who hasn’t presented any facts

So the problem you're describing is too much government spending. We agree this is a problem.

Can you show this data?

Lower taxes have consistently proven to increase tax revenue. This was the case under Wilson, jfk, Reagan and w. Bush

The problem I am describing is the fact that lower taxes cause the government to borrow more money that makes the national debt even worse.

There’s no reason for them to borrow more money. Just stop spending money on nigger programmes

Tax cuts on the rich have proven to increase tax revenues

Thomas sowell speaks on this quite a lot and has written quite extensively on the subject. If you’re genuinely interested in it then go look it up, I’m sure a couple of simple google searches will yield some interesting results

So then advocate for lower taxes and less nigger programmes

You seem to be ignoring my point. Lower taxes cause the government to borrow more money which makes the national debt worse and damages long term economic growth. Under higher taxes initial growth may be less but is superior in the long wrong and even if it causes the economy to be more stagnant it at least doesnt make the national debt even worse.

The NSDAP promoted lower taxes as a stimulus to the economy. Get rid of your meme flag you LARPing imposter kike.

>implying that the highest marginal tax rate is directly responsible for growth.

It's a factor, one of many. Graphs like this are made to manipulate.

>For instance, if we had a top tax rate of 99% on earning over $100 billion, it would be irrelevant, since nobody would pay it.

except Bezos

People who pay the highest marginal tax rate are those who pay the majority of the tax that the government collects so yes its fair to say that its the most important factor compared to the meager 10% of total collected tax people outside the richest americans.

Try starting a business with high taxes.... If you can muster that and be profitable then try hiring one employee. High taxes are a fucking nightmare. And if you put together how much you get taxed on every level you will see how ridiculous taxes are.

>in the long wrong
loser

Taxes for small business should be lowered. Those for large corporations should be higher. Business are different from one another how hard is that to comprehend.

You better post a better graph next time faggot!
Sage

thats not a straw man

Not really, even if federal income tax was cut to 0% you'd still have state income and consumption tax.

I think they also included non-federal tax in that 100% tax rates statement correct me if Im wrong

I doubt it because states have varying income taxes or none at all. That graph you've posted is most certainly the federal income tax top rate.

Attached: state_income_taxes.png (1354x1169, 206K)

Here's sales tax too

Attached: sales_tax.png (1100x1100, 138K)

Chink commie insectoid who lives in a shoe box detected.

Yeah the graph is 100% federal income tax I just thought when he came up with his rhetorical he meant all taxes. Also thx for the graphs, its fun to compare states to one another.

Attached: 154f19ceaf72f4c8d85891746bbd9eac6c851568c9c0153bbeada1cd0a1649c9.jpg (484x1524, 142K)

Even the founders struggled over a solution.
Their solution was tariffs.
Why do you think the Sixteenth amendment needed to be passed? Because income tax was an unconstitutional form of taxation.

Attached: Federal_taxes_by_type.pdf.jpg (2760x690, 214K)