Nor is the fact I explained what it all means, and then showed further analysis by the heritage foundation, mean anything to dickweed.

Therefore, the Government should confiscate all income and build a really, really big NBN. it would help Equity!.

Grey is a congenitally brain damaged fuckwit.

Tel proposed this for you

May I propose a rule whereby abusive language is allowed but repeats are frowned upon? I’d like to encourage greater depth of colour in the put-downs.

JC proposed I “go buy a bottle of gin” and “stay out of it” (JCs meanness to Davef last night).

Then JC you ask me “you do drink gin in the morning dont you?”

Listen if anyone should feel pissed off its me. You and some of your mates have me drinking
“gin, creme de menthe, sherry, fruity lexia, whiskey and god knows what else.”

I dont like any of those and I dont like spirits and I hate ALL reds and I hate beer and cider and cocktails and most of it tastes like garbage but I reckon you had had something last night because you are dreaming about yours and Dots monumental victory over Braggs.

Dutch courage JC?

re your comment

I dont drink anything in the mornings, at midday, in the afternoons and when and what I drink is none of your damn business either.

Got that? (and you can tell it to your mates).

Dickweed. Yet you refer to a table, which doesn’t correlate to the graph in any way. Net effects, anything. Bupkiss.

A. I didn’t refer to a table
B. Table two – which I didn’t refer to – actually correlates to Figure 4

15 words and you managed to be spectacularly wrong twice.

Oh wonderful, have you located the bar on the graph for the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 yet?

The bar on the graph of figure 4. The figure and may I quote your very words:

Figure four shows that Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue.

Shut up you clown.

Seriously, why not just admit you made a mistake?

The effect of most tax bills on GDP is uncertain, but probably generally small

Yes, because they cut the rates by generally small amounts.

Treasury doesn’t believe in voodoo economics either.

Which is why they believe cutting tax rates from 50% to 28% and cutting loopholes is productivity enhancing.

You were the one that specifically pointed out the graph.

Dickweed. Yet you refer to a table, which doesn’t correlate to the graph in any way. Net effects, anything. Bupkiss.

BTW if you read the text:

The effect of most tax bills on GDP is uncertain, but probably generally small

Treasury doesn’t believe in voodoo economics either. Hardly surprising, they of all people are going to know that tax receipts drop when you cut taxes (amazing, but true).

Excellent find.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2004/bg1765/figure9.ashx

Dickweed is banging on about initial forecast revenue losses.

Krugman is right about the wage/salary earner but as far as anyone else they will just invest in a lower tax rate country and not pay tax until repatriated.

That’s precisely the point, Kelly.

Reagan grew GDP, cut unemployment, increased labour force participation, real wages grew and inflation fell. Dividends and asset appreciation grew.

Yes, all of which was a boon for the state governments, and I think real-estate taxes picked up as well (based on asset prices or something). Best of all, the states didn’t need to sacrifice much in exchange for that, because Regan did it for them.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

If you scroll down to “A Look at the Regan Tax Cut” you see it makes a big difference to the revenue picture when State and Local government is included… and he turned stagflation into growth.

Mind you, anyone can feel rich with a credit card. The Dubbya government was the worst when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, but I won’t blame that on Regan.