Utahns, how excited are you about Mitt Romney

Ddawg wrote:

... 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."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"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/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

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.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

... 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."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"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/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

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.com/opinion/2017/10/29/dont-let-way-kansas-handled-tax-cuts-be-used-as-excuse-to-block-federal-cuts.amp.html

BroncoBot wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

... 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."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"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/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

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.com/opinion/2017/10/29/dont-let-way-kansas-handled-tax-cuts-be-used-as-excuse-to-block-federal-cuts.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.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

... 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."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"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/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

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.com/opinion/2017/10/29/dont-let-way-kansas-handled-tax-cuts-be-used-as-excuse-to-block-federal-cuts.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.

BroncoBot wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

... 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."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"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/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

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.com/opinion/2017/10/29/dont-let-way-kansas-handled-tax-cuts-be-used-as-excuse-to-block-federal-cuts.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.

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?

Mars wrote:

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?

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

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.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41MDRqLIVoL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

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

Ddawg wrote:

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.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41MDRqLIVoL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Excellent book.

Traveling through the back country of Idaho I was able to get KSL. I don't remember who it was or the show, but it was reported that a European country, Sweden I think, had increased the revenue from their tobacco taxes by lowering the tax. Reducing the taxes turned people from buying from the black market back to buying from businesses and therefor paying taxes.

nuk13 wrote:

Traveling through the back country of Idaho I was able to get KSL. I don't remember who it was or the show, but it was reported that a European country, Sweden I think, had increased the revenue from their tobacco taxes by lowering the tax. Reducing the taxes turned people from buying from the black market back to buying from businesses and therefor paying taxes.

I have read studies that where the marginal tax rate, whether it be income or a commodity like tobacco, is high enough, lowering that rate will bring some revenue back into the fold--buyers will stop using the black market or rich people will shy away from shady tax havens etc. The margin has to be fairly high, but it can happen as was the case in Sweeden.

Someone like Romney is exactly what the country needs right now in the Senate.

Alright. We have a contender.

Larry Meyers from St. George.

Good luck to him, from what I've seen on his twitter account, I'd vote for him over romney in a heartbeat.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Meyers can make it a horse race. I suspect not. Just based on the overwhelming name recognition Mitt Romney enjoys, and the war chest difference. It will be interested in seeing the angle of attack ads Mr. Meyers uses.

Found it. Here ya go - basically 100 days to go.



"Help Larry Beat Massachusetts Mitt–DONATE NOW"

"Don’t Restock the DC Swamp!"



https://meyersforsenate.com

Ddawg wrote:

Found it. Here ya go - basically 100 days to go.



"Help Larry Beat Massachusetts Mitt–DONATE NOW"

"Don’t Restock the DC Swamp!"



https://meyersforsenate.com

Here's the problem with any challenger to Mitt--they've got 44 days to the nominating convention to build a brand and secure a win there from the caucus delegate.



However, that's not enough--Mitt is also gathering signatures to ensure a primary even if he loses at convention, so a challenger can't just defeat Mitt at the convention and expect to win the primary as well--the primary is open to all registered voters, and name recognition has much MUCH greater impact in a statewide primary than a nominating convention with the die-hards. A challenger has to drub Mitt at convention so soundly that Mitt is forced to withdraw from the primary with his tail between his legs, and that's a very high hurdle.



A guy I didn't know existed until yesterday just has too much ground to make up. It'll take a real ringer to cross that threshold.

snoscythe wrote:

A guy I didn't know existed until yesterday just has too much ground to make up.

Whaaaaaaaa? No way. ;)



I suspect Mr. Larry Meyer just has an itch he wants to scratch. It's a pretty tall order to upset Mitt Romney in Utah. Not going to happen. Let's be honest. Not even Hillary and her vaunted organization and massive war chest could upset Mitt Romney in Utah in a political race in Utah.



I hope Mr. Meyers enjoys the ride. It will be short and hopefully sweet for him. One of life's experiences he can tell stories about.

Ddawg wrote:

A guy I didn't know existed until yesterday just has too much ground to make up.

Whaaaaaaaa? No way. ;)



I suspect Mr. Larry Meyer just has an itch he wants to scratch. It's a pretty tall order to upset Mitt Romney in Utah. Not going to happen. Let's be honest. Not even Hillary and her vaunted organization and massive war chest could upset Mitt Romney in Utah in a political race in Utah.



I hope Mr. Meyers enjoys the ride. It will be short and hopefully sweet for him. One of life's experiences he can tell stories about.

To be fair, Utah does have a history of darkhorse candidates unseating or coming close to unseating powerful and popular incumbents.



- Mike Lee took out Bob Bennet in 2010.

- Dan Liljenquist came within 50 votes of topping Orrin Hatch at the 2012 convention (but it was close enough to force a pimary and Liljenquist lost 64%-33% in the primary, illustration how much "safer" your primary voters are than convention delegates)

- Jonathan Johnson (who should have thrown his hat in the ring this year for Hatch's seat, but has waited too long) beat sitting Governor Gary Herbert at convention in 2016 by 11 points, but Herbert was the first to use the new alternate path to the primary, gathered signatures, and beat Johnson 73%-26% with primary voters.



It used to be plausible for upstarts to upstage the establishment in Utah, but with the new alternate path to a statewide primary (supported by out-of-state establishment dollars), it's now a herculean task to unseat an incumbent, name-recognition, or well-funded establishment candidate.