read my second to my last paragraph, I have no desire to repeat myself over and over
Did I say that my conclusion was 100%
No.
Is it possible that my conclusion is right.
Yes.
Offer up a better reason than less people cheating on their taxes and I would continue the discussion.
Otherwise, what is your point?
Do you have to be contradictory to everything stated?
Like I said, more than once. You have predictions. The outcomes were very similar to the predictions. It is not 100% but it is possible to come to the conclusion that the closely matched predictions may have been right.
If you actually paid attention to my post you would know that:
a) I pull from the entire article. What is your point about gleaning info from one paragraph. You say this but it isn't even remotely accurate. Does it make the argument easier for you if you cheapen the debate?
b) You talk about income going up and nobody knows why. How did you add to the debate by making this statement? Other than looking for an argument, what is your point? Let me see, "I don't know why this happened but since I disagree I am just going to say that you are wrong and say that I have demonstrated this. I wouldn't want to cloud this discussion with any meaningfull information. No, I think I don't know why is the best answer."
c)
Quote:
|
boosted both by the tax cuts enacted last year
|
Quote:
|
CBO believes that the loss of revenue resulting from the 2003 tax cuts was offset, in part, by a number of factors, which may include the following: income was greater than expected in 2003; the effective tax rates on that income were higher than anticipated; and more of the taxes on that income were paid in 2004 than was projected.
|
OMG, this information and other information came from a different paragraph. Now that I am thinking about you early comment. Why post something so blatently false? Why make a silly comment like that when it is easy to prove that not only is the comment out of line but it is a useless way to denegrate the argument?
d) I dunno. I will have to do some research on your "cheating" theory. It sure sounds a lot better and more informative than mine.
and...
by merely stating, at the end of your post, that nothing was demonstrated, you prove nothing, absolutley nothing.
Especially when you start you argument with false comments and assertions and end your comment with the brilliantly quoted theorem: Less cheating is the answer to increased tax revenue after tax cust have been implemented.
I will send word to Laffer, Wanniski and Mundell right away.....