View Poll Results: Tax cuts cost nothing and are free

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • No way.

    47 40.87%
  • Yes, they are free

    68 59.13%
Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 246

Thread: Tax cuts are free

  1. #111
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Well, first off, there's the fact that tax cuts routinely generate more revenue than would have been generated without them.

    Then there's the fact that I don't particularly care if a car salesman can't sell a particular car because the would be buyer was prevented from stealing the money to pay for it.

    Generally speaking, it's really easy to "pay" for tax cuts.

    Stop spending someone else's money.
    So , the fact that "you don't care" means that someone, somewhere does not has less because of this economic decision? Hmmm, interesting.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #112
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I wouldn't say that. The problem with the argument that tax cuts generated more revenue then they cost is that no one has ever run the necessary statistical models to prove it. Every time we see sizable tax cuts for prolonged periods, there are also sizable expansions of government funding on average. We know for a fact that government spending increases activity. The defense industry is an iron clad example of that. And such increase in activity generates taxable income. The issue is to what extent did the tax cuts generate the growth in revenue verse other economic impacts such as government spending, increased trade, technological advancements, and a whole host of other things. Something as simple as a decline in fuel costs could result in increased spending and when we apply spending/saving multipliers, the effects can be large. This is hardly a simple issue and hence why we never see hacks actually prove their claims. I don't doubt that moving from 90% to 50% was we did in the past generated more taxable revenue. The question is whether or not moving from 35% to 38% will reduce revenue. The Laffer curve itself is nothing more then a Pareto Efficiency Frontier. And the truly ignorant think that it's a good solid economic policy. They clearly do not understand just what a Pareto Efficiency Frontier is.



    While that is a true statement, America would be screwed regardless of any additional spending by Bush and Obama. Unfunded liabilities prior to Bush's election in 2000 were staggering, well above $30 trillion. Bush and Obama's additional debt is small potatoes comparatively.



    That would be difficult to prove. Did they likely reduce revenues? Probably, especially considering the actual effective marginal at those rates. But did they not increase the tax base? I'm not sure about that way.
    People with incomes over 250k arenít necessarily owners of huge companies with lots of employees and expanding corporations. Some are actually small businesses. To assume that this particular tiny group of small businesses expanded their employee base simply because they paid a few percentile less in income tax is ridiculous.. further if it did the effect on the over all economy would be near zero. While the effect on deficit spending is substantial over time lending to a greater debt and costing.

    If there was a positive effect it was found in the middle income class tax break and lower incomes. These would have had some positive effect on the economy allowing these groups to consume more. While the highest income brackets would hardly notice the effect.. accept in increased revenues from slightly higher consumption from lower incomes. The tax cuts for the higher income small business bracket did not increase the tax base. The issue at hand is the tax cuts for the wealthiest and I don't deny the positive effect it would have on middle income or lower incomes on the economy. The money they save from the tax breaks gets injected directly back into the market. While the rich can sit on it.. which is exactly what they are doing.

    I don't see why creating tax incentives for increased spending in the private sector are not on the table.. IE: If you expand your employment base in your business then you get X % in tax breaks. Ether way the employer is going to be out the money so why not invest it in their assets?

    I once heard an economist explain that tax cuts do have a one time positive effect then after that has passed they donít really have any benefit. After they are initially absorbed they have little economic stimulus value overall was the suggestion. I canít find the source and would like to for the rational. But the suggestion was, if I remember correctly, that the economy normalises in following years and all you have as a result is less tax revenue. This would explain to some degree how economies with much higher taxation can still be very robust.

    I see a huge albatross hanging on the US government deficit spending in military spending. The increase in spending on the military is quite nearly viewable as the equivalent of being one big social spending project. Cutting this apparatus will hurt but it has to be done. I see this as a terrible waste of public funds on the wrong sort of social spending. Imagine if all the extra spending had been invested in de-privatising healthcare or investment in education for expanding new economic viability for the US. The effect would have been much much more valuable to the American economy and people. Instead what you have is a dead end.. cutting spending on this will just hurt with little to no social benefits derived at all. The US government is spending the same sorts of resources if not more in some cases as a socialist nation but without the positive social benefits.(gdp costs of healthcare is a primary example) Military spending should be cut and cut hard.

    Libertarians/republicans are coming off like corporate apologists in all this business of across the board tax cuts. But further they want to implement a flat tax under the notion of it being more fair which is a terrible suggestion. Clearly a flat tax would increase the percentage of tax paid on the lower income brackets and put a damper on consumption.

    Sorry for the rant there maybe went off topic a bit. The argument that tax cuts for the wealthy have increased revenues and the tax base is most certainly confounded by the positive economic data where the middle class also received a tax break simultaneously. If you could strip away the data to see just how much small private business expanded their enterprises as a direct result of tax breaks for incomes over 250k I do not think you will see much economic benefit or expansion of tax base if any at all comparatively speaking.

  3. #113
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Start at zero. Can we make a deficit by cutting taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by raising taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by raising tax revenue and then cutting taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by spending less than we take in revenue? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by spending more than we take in in revenue? YES.
    Spending makes deficits. Not Taxes in anyway. reducing tax revenue without an associated decrease in SPENDING will create a deficit, however it's still the spending that creates it NOT the TAX REVENUE.
    From the ashes.

  4. #114
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Start at zero. Can we make a deficit by cutting taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by raising taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by raising tax revenue and then cutting taxes? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by spending less than we take in revenue? NO.
    Can we make a deficit by spending more than we take in in revenue? YES.
    Spending makes deficits. Not Taxes in anyway. reducing tax revenue without an associated decrease in SPENDING will create a deficit, however it's still the spending that creates it NOT the TAX REVENUE.
    Right.. starting at zero is clearly a hypothetical that is unattainable. Zero government? Libertarians are way off base by even suggesting it. We don't talk about zero because we can't and further none wants zero except for anarchists.
    Last edited by Gabriel; 09-21-10 at 12:24 PM.

  5. #115
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Right.. starting at zero is clearly a hypothetical that is unattainable. Zero government? Libertarians are way off base by even suggesting it. We don't talk about zero because we can't and further none wants zero except for anarchists.
    Not Zero government but just ZERO. You can't make a deficit from ZERO by raising or not raising revenue. You can only make a deficit by SPENDING.
    From the ashes.

  6. #116
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Not Zero government but just ZERO. You can't make a deficit from ZERO by raising or not raising revenue. You can only make a deficit by SPENDING.
    Well you are right on that because the fed is actually a private establishment as soon as you borrow you have to pay interest on the loan which is more then you borrowed. So the result is a never ending process if increased debt. It is impossible to pay all the debt off. But no one is interested in no government. That truly is idiocy and anarchism in its purity.

  7. #117
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Right.. starting at zero is clearly a hypothetical that is unattainable. Zero government? Libertarians are way off base by even suggesting it. We don't talk about zero because we can't and further none wants zero except for anarchists.
    not relevant but the bottom line is-spending costs money. and TAX HIKES CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY COST MONEY



  8. #118
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Not Zero government but just ZERO. You can't make a deficit from ZERO by raising or not raising revenue. You can only make a deficit by SPENDING.
    right which is why all the hysterical caterwauling that tax cuts cost money is moronic. There is a spending side and a revenue side. A decrease in revenue is not an increase in costs.



  9. #119
    Advisor Teh Internets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    351

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    right which is why all the hysterical caterwauling that tax cuts cost money is moronic. There is a spending side and a revenue side. A decrease in revenue is not an increase in costs.
    It doesn't matter because it yeilds the same result. If you spend more money you need to increase revenue, the money spent needs to be compensated in some way. The money doesn't just come out of nowhere and pay for the tax cut. That is not how math works.

  10. #120
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: Tax cuts are free

    Quote Originally Posted by Teh Internets View Post
    It doesn't matter because it yeilds the same result. If you spend more money you need to increase revenue, the money spent needs to be compensated in some way. The money doesn't just come out of nowhere and pay for the tax cut. That is not how math works.
    the bottom line is dems don't want to decrease spending so they want a minority of voters to pay more and more taxes.

    but that doesn't necessarily incease revenues. But one thing is true-tax hikes cost US money. Tax Decreases DO NOT ALWAYS cost the government money even using that expansive definition of costs that the OP used.

    The dems are not serious about cutting the deficit but they want to tell their minions they are so they jack up taxes on "the rich" as a facade while spending trillions to keep their minions suckling on the public teat. Its like dems passing gun control to appear to be doing "Something about crime" while in reality punishing those who generally don't vote for them (gun owners) and actually promoting more depence on the government.



Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •