|
Author
|
Topic: Does Lowering Taxes Really Create Higher Revenues?
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 19, 2016 08:57 AM
  
Yes, it does. In 1986, when taxes were lowered substantially, revenues were at $769 billion. In 1990, revenues were up 34% at $1.03 trillion. Source: Office of Budget and ManagementTrump would boost the economy and revenues even further by repatriation of offshore money, new business investing, energy, and through the elimination of many of the regulations Obama created that choke the life out of business. Obama created 90,000 new pages of regulations at a cost of $700 billion to busineses! That's a new regulation every 2 hours and 35 minutes! IP: Logged |
mirage29
Knowflake Posts: 6722
From: us
Registered: May 2012
|
posted December 19, 2016 07:45 PM
I wonder if they will take some of those higher revenues, and take their 'own' responsibility to invest in innovating some pollution-control devices, on factory emissions, for example. Or take self-responsibility to make sure that raw sewage isn't getting into the rivers and waters?Maybe the Dems were worried about polluting? Do you think that Trump and his administrators will get around to (after he gets people in stable employment) making sure people don't get sick from the pollutants and toxins they will restart off-loading into the environment again? I realize that sometimes to make progress in things, you have to take a few steps backwards first? But, what do you think? How will the new President handle matters of pollution and their consequences on Health for our bodies, and our environment in America? I'd love to hear what you think, or what Jwhop would add to that? or anyone else too?! I think people try to put restrictions on companies that are not doing their part to protect people from dangerous conditions, for example? .... IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 19, 2016 08:00 PM
The question is if all these regulations really protect the air and water? Flint happened under an Obama EPA. And the power plant regulations to limit carbon emissions would cost billions, raise energy costs on the poor, and only lower temps by 1/100th of 1 degree, according to the current head of the EPA, who was quoted as saying it was only "symbolic." Clean air and water is the Republican goal, but without the oppressive control Obama exerted.
IP: Logged |
mirage29
Knowflake Posts: 6722
From: us
Registered: May 2012
|
posted December 19, 2016 09:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Clean air and water is the Republican goal...
This was my concern... I haven't heard them talking about this yet? If that IS a goal, maybe they need to bring more emphasis to this? I think this could help calm the fears of many many Americans. (I wasn't thinking of the climate change--) IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 19, 2016 10:24 PM
The goals of the EPA should only be to set minimum standards, provide resources, and enforce sanctions for violations. The EPA has been overreaching. Clean air and clean water will be the top priority, not making carbon a pollutant. When your main focus is on carbon, you get catastrophes like Flint. Trump has mentioned it many times on his thank you tour. We all want clean air and clean water.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 20, 2016 01:07 PM
Talking about clean water: There are thousands of communities with 2 to 4 times more lead than Flint. That's the failed EPA under Obama.IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 21, 2016 03:36 AM
No, it's failed infrastructure in general, and poor management of chemical "sanitizers" under governors like Snyder who just stopped the research into Flint. Let them drink lead!
The EPA under Republican cuts and stonewalling legislators haven't helped much eitherFracking is everyone's bad. But have you never been to a coal town Randall? Do you know what slag is? Do you know London peasoupers ended when coal smoke was banned there? Heard of black lung? Carbon is a pollutant. IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 21, 2016 03:38 AM
Clean air and water without regulations. Right. I can hear Steven Tyler right now..Oh and those figures from the Reagan Era? A little glossed over... IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 21, 2016 07:30 AM
CO2 is plant food. It's not a pollutant. Trump has been compared to Reagan. Lowering taxes increases revenues. It's not theory. We have proof that it works. And it will work again. All those Obama regulations, and thousands of communities have poisoned children from dirty water.IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 23, 2016 01:41 PM
CARBON is a pollutant. CO2 is not carbon...Slag is a byproduct of coal extraction. Seen pics of China where coal is used to power everything? I have a friend making her fortune on filtration masks..China being her best market 😅 Randall do you recall what happened in 1987? Or that taxes went down, up, down, in St Reagan's troubled Presidency? 86 was a much less drastic drop from the increase that was needed after his first splash in the tax pond. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 73642
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 23, 2016 04:05 PM
According to an EPA run amok and a grossly misinformed Supreme Court, CO2 is a pollutant. In a Trump administration, that SCOTUS opinion will be revisited.IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 23, 2016 04:26 PM
You assume a lot considering the many times he has contradicted himself 😉IP: Logged |
mirage29
Knowflake Posts: 6722
From: us
Registered: May 2012
|
posted December 23, 2016 05:51 PM
Catalina  Thank you for that information on CARBON (vs CO2, which is NOT Carbon!). I didn't realize that 'slag' is a byproduct of that. Yes, Black Lung disease is something that the government has to foot the bill for. I remember those questions on government health forms. You can't close your eyes and make that go away. It really happened. And if the factories are re-started WITHOUT safeguards for Health in place, then, we are going to be an even more Unhealthy nation. ... TIME will go bye, and Humans too. Families will suffer the most, missing their breadwinner's earnings through bad health and Death. POLLUTION can be Deadly!  ....
*~FIX IT!, Mr Trump!?*
btw... Merry Holidays, Merry Christmas!  LOL
(music) You're a mean one, Mr Grinch  (Original 1966 Version) [3:19] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t71X4TfudpE IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 27, 2016 12:45 PM
Well if our new billionaire aristocrats are really into BUSINESS they may come round when they see the figures.. if they're not collectively too old to change. But the oilers are desperately trying to wring every last penny our of the industry before it dies so I'm not holding my breath. Of course most of those cabinet Picks haven't been vetted, half are actual crooks and hopefully Congress can put the chill on their takeover. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 3563
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted December 27, 2016 01:30 PM
Methinks the only higher revenues from lowering taxes are in one particular bracket of the economy, and it's not the govt.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-proble m-george-monbiot?CMP=fb_gu
IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
