• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?


  • Total voters
    55
Tax cuts never cause deficits. Spending causes deficits

A tax cut is a decrease in revenue. Therefore, if you have enough tax cuts, with spending remaining constant, you encounter a deficit.
 
A tax cut is a decrease in revenue. Therefore, if you have enough tax cuts, with spending remaining constant, you encounter a deficit.

I don't see how it could clearer.
 
Just about any fair-minded observation of history and economics would reach this conclusion. And the nonpartisan CBO also agrees, with a few caveats.

This something-for-nothing mentality, that you can cut taxes AND have higher revenue, may be true under rare exceptions (such as unusually high tax rates)...but in general it has caused high deficits for 30 years.

Tax cuts actually increase revenues........They did with JFK, Reagan and Bush and they stimulated the economy in all 3 cases...
 
Tax cuts actually increase revenues........They did with JFK, Reagan and Bush and they stimulated the economy in all 3 cases...

Look at the graph I posted above. That's only true for the JFK tax cuts; it is NOT true of the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. And the top marginal tax rate when JFK was president was over 90%, which I think almost everyone agrees is too high.

Tax cuts only result in higher revenue in extreme circumstances like that. Under normal circumstances, they decrease revenue.
 
A deficit is defined as the difference between spending and tax revenue. So they both cause deficits.

nope spending causes deficits not tax cuts

tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves


only those who believe the government owns all wealth say that

and there are many good reasons for tax cuts that go beyond revenue generation


one involves castrating congressional power that has expanded far beyond waht the founders intended

a progressive tax system allows congress to buy the votes of the many by jacking up taxes on the minority that currently pay most of the income taxes.

once that starts there is no incentive to stop until the damage is irreversible.
 
Look at the graph I posted above. That's only true for the JFK tax cuts; it is NOT true of the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. And the top marginal tax rate when JFK was president was over 90%, which I think almost everyone agrees is too high.

Tax cuts only result in higher revenue in extreme circumstances like that. Under normal circumstances, they decrease revenue.

you might look around and see we are in extreme circumstances right now

remind me what the jobless rate is
 
nope spending causes deficits not tax cuts

No. This is not a matter of opinion; you are factually incorrect. Deficits, by definition, are total outlays minus total revenues. Therefore an increase in outlays OR a decrease in revenues can cause them. This is simple math here.

TurtleDude said:
tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves

That's a separate argument. You made the dishonest claim that they DO pay for themselves.

TurtleDude said:
you might look around and see we are in extreme circumstances right now

remind me what the jobless rate is

What does that have to do with whether or not tax cuts will pay for themselves? Look, I'm against raising taxes until the unemployment rate goes down a bit. But it's simply not true that revenue is higher with lower tax rates.

Do you understand that it's possible to favor lower taxes and/or smaller government WITHOUT making dishonest claims? A novel concept, I know.
 
Last edited:
Tax cuts actually increase revenues........They did with JFK, Reagan and Bush and they stimulated the economy in all 3 cases...

From 1950 until Reagan, our debt as a percentage of GDP never increased, and that was with a tax rate of 70% for the top tax bracket for most of the period.

When Reagan slashed the tax rates in half for the top tax rate while increasing military spending, he tripled our debt.
 
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)

given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream
 
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)

given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream

As I have shown, the wealthy pay only a fraction of what the payed through most of our county's history. And I've shown we had less debt as a percentage of GDP when the taxes for the top tax bracket was higher.

If you wish to discuss spending, we need to start with where our biggest waste is, in our bloated military budget that is as much as the rest of the world combined, and our unfunded wars.
 
As I have shown, the wealthy pay only a fraction of what the payed through most of our county's history. And I've shown we had less debt as a percentage of GDP when the taxes for the top tax bracket was higher.

If you wish to discuss spending, we need to start with where our biggest waste is, in our bloated military budget that is as much as the rest of the world combined, and our unfunded wars.

you are being dishonest. until less than 100 years ago the wealthy paid no income tax and until FDR came along, it was less than 5% of their income

the military isn't our biggest bloated budget item-again you are dishonest

its all the unconstitutional (if the constitution was properly interpreted) income redistribution nonsense and entitlement spending

so please stop lying--I know history way too well to believe the garbage that the wealthy are paying less now than the majority of US history
 
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)

given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream

That prediction about the poor constantly increasing taxes for everyone is clearly false.

In Europe, where income taxes are even more progressive, the parties and their supporters understand that there is a limit to the amount of progressive taxation, and their political culture overall is even more inclined for progressive taxation then Americans are.

therefore, just because we have progressive taxation that doesn't mean that spending will go up indefinately.
 
That prediction about the poor constantly increasing taxes for everyone is clearly false.

In Europe, where income taxes are even more progressive, the parties and their supporters understand that there is a limit to the amount of progressive taxation, and their political culture overall is even more inclined for progressive taxation then Americans are.

therefore, just because we have progressive taxation that doesn't mean that spending will go up indefinately.

is there any limit to what the top 1% should have to pay in your mind. MOre than a quarter is confiscatory in my mind and right now lots of people pay close to half their income in taxes once you figure in state, local, and federal taxes. If you leave more than a million than you end paying even more

I don't trust dem politicians to stop at a certain point if they think they can buy the votes of the minions

the income tax and the death tax never would have even received 15% support if the current numbers were contemplated when those taxes were passed.
 
you are being dishonest. until less than 100 years ago the wealthy paid no income tax and until FDR came along, it was less than 5% of their income

You are pretty cocky for someone that wasn't even aware that our top tax rate used to be 90%. Please review again the income tax history provided earlier by mbig ~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/65402-should-2001-2003-gwb-cuts-extended-24.html#post1058560070

Notice the date income taxes began - 1913 and what the rates were. FDR's first term began in 1933.

the military isn't our biggest bloated budget item-again you are dishonest

I didn't say it was the biggest, I said it was the most wasteful.

its all the unconstitutional (if the constitution was properly interpreted) income redistribution nonsense and entitlement spending.

Not according to the rule of law.

so please stop lying--I know history way too well to believe the garbage that the wealthy are paying less now than the majority of US history.

Again, you need to review our tax history. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
 
You are pretty cocky for someone that wasn't even aware that our top tax rate used to be 90%. Please review again the income tax history provided earlier by mbig ~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/65402-should-2001-2003-gwb-cuts-extended-24.html#post1058560070

Notice the date income taxes began - 1913 and what the rates were. FDR's first term began in 1933.



I didn't say it was the biggest, I said it was the most wasteful.



Not according to the rule of law.



Again, you need to review our tax history. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."



I tire of your lies and your dishonesty

I certainly knew that dems jacked the top rate to 90% though some will argue that the effective rates will be higher under Bambi if they go up to the 46% some want

I also was correct that for most of our country's history there was no income tax.

and a top marginal rate of 7% doesn't mean people paid a total rate of 7% either
 
Last edited:
I tire of your lies and your dishonesty

Well, let's examine those insults:

I certainly knew that dems jacked the top rate to 90% though some will argue that the effective rates will be higher under Bambi if they go up to the 46% some want

First of all, I doubt we've ever had 70% on top income brackets, hell, even Canada stops at 50%.

I also was correct that for most of our country's history there was no income tax. and a top marginal rate of 7% doesn't mean people paid a total rate of 7% either

And I never said it did.

So where are the lies and dishonesty, except in your accusations against me?
 
Last edited:
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)

It doesn't "starve the beast." When have tax cuts EVER resulted in lower spending? They just run up the deficit and (if left unchecked for long enough) eventually bankrupt the nation. Now I'm not one of those people who believes that the United States is anywhere close to the verge of bankruptcy, but it's fiscally irresponsible to habitually run high deficits year after year, even when the economy is booming.

TurtleDude said:
given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream

If you accept the reality that overall spending cuts are unlikely, why would you want low taxes? :confused:
 
Last edited:
If you accept the reality that overall spending cuts are unlikely....
This isnt a reality, this is a false premise designed to justify continually making excuses for deficits and for raising taxes.

This sort of thinking only leads to fiscal, economic and social collapse. As these collapses will wipe out liberalism as we know it, I applaud your efforts to continue to spread your word.
 
Well, let's examine those insults:







And I never said it did.

So where are the lies and dishonesty, except in your accusations against me?

I don't recall ever mentioning canada so where did that come from?
 
This isnt a reality, this is a false premise designed to justify continually making excuses for deficits and for raising taxes.

If you had bothered to read the post to which I replied instead of randomly interjecting yourself in the middle of a conversation as is your wont, you would see that I was replying to TurtleDude's post where *he* acknowledges that spending cuts are unlikely.

If the political will does not exist to cut spending (and I agree with TurtleDude that it does not, based on the fact that it has NEVER been cut in 40 years), then the only logical solution is to pay for our expenditures instead of passing them on to future generations. I don't mind short-term deficit spending to get us through the tough economic times we're currently facing, but in the long term it's irresponsible to habitually run deficits.
 
we cannot continue to keep expanding the government. the wealthy will leave or hide their assets as they did in Sweden. The only solution is to get judges who actually start enforcing the tenth amendment.

Like it or not, the Dems started a program designed to create millions of people addicted to government entitlements and that malignancy has only spread
 
we cannot continue to keep expanding the government. the wealthy will leave or hide their assets as they did in Sweden. The only solution is to get judges who actually start enforcing the tenth amendment.

Like it or not, the Dems started a program designed to create millions of people addicted to government entitlements and that malignancy has only spread

You are addressing 2 different subjects in your post, government spending, whether to have a progressive vs a regressive tax system.

Government spending is not a function of the type of tax system we have.

This can be easily demonstrated by our history when we had much higher taxes and much lower debt.

Spending is determined on priorities of the electorate (we the people) and their representatives they vote into office.
 
Back
Top Bottom