Tax cuts are free

obvious Child said:

lol. Nice going there turtledude. Logging out of the system and voting repetitively as a guest. Actual real users who voted "free" are at the moment 3. The rest are guest voters. Honesty is clearly not a trait you hold.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

STOP. Refrain from personal attacks.

TurtleDude said:

I never denied that a tax cut might mean the government has less revenue but I deny that the term "cost" is applicable anymore than if I retire tomorrow I don't have my salary coming in. Costs are what I have to pay for.

Click to expand...

Hence why your argument has repetitively failed. You ignore the cycle of inflows and outflows and only examine costs as a direct outflow. You have repetitively ignored my analogy showing how inflows and outflows can define costs in actual, real ways.

TurtleDude said:

but those who claim tax cuts "cost" money are using that to try to make it sound like the rich are getting government spending the same as special interests who get pet projects FUNDED by the EXPENDITURES of government funds.

Click to expand...

Come again? Where did anyone do that? Or are you, as usual, making **** up?

OC was making more out of it in an attempt to try to prove something

Click to expand...

Actually the point was to prove you are, as usual, wrong.

it also is dishonest to say a tax cut is a handout the same as welfare payments.

Click to expand...

And who said that? Making **** up again eh?

the more important point was the one I made earlier--trying to bash tax cuts as being handouts is dishonest and that is clearly the intent of those who claim that tax cuts are a cost to the government equivalent to say spending millions to research sexual practices of armadillos or sending some questionable regime a couple dozen of our most advanced air-superiority fighters

Click to expand...

Uh, the only person arguing that was you. No one argued that tax cuts are handouts. In fact, I have repetitively argued that the recent tax cuts are nothing more then loans. Lord T pointed this out today and you ran away from his post.

The argument is that you are wrong on the notion that tax cuts are free. If tax cuts were free, we should have no taxes. See how simple that was?

FluffyNinja said:

Then explain how a tax cut WOULD NOT mean that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (either government or private sector) would have less money? Doesn't less money than you normally have = cost Where I come from, ANYONE who is giving up money, is paying a COST. LOL

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

your definition of cost is faulty. If you have no money that doesn't mean you have costs. Its only if you spend do you have costs

Click to expand...

No you can only see this from one perspective and that inability is your fault. It is a cost the fact that the Bush tax cuts raised your debt substantially because of the assumption that they would pay for themselves.. when they clearly have not. The whole argument is it would increase revenues when it didn't.. so the fact it predicted to increase revenues and completely failed at it makes it a cost.. its added debt.

EDIT: "Voodoo Economics" indeed.

obvious Child said:

Turtledude has repetitively argued that tax cuts cost nothing, aka they are free.

So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?

Click to expand...

Only on planet right wing delusion.

PeteEU said:

Only on planet right wing delusion.

Click to expand...

eurosocialist nonsense notwithstanding my definition of a cost versus revenue source is as sound as yours and you and OC's attempt to ridicule my definition because you don't like the fact that I reject the assumption that cutting taxes (perhaps a decrease in revenue) is the same as increasing spending is without merit.

look up the definition of cost there are many and mine is as valid as yours

The total money, time and resources associated with a purchase or activity

Gabriel said:

No you can only see this from one perspective and that inability is your fault. It is a cost the fact that the Bush tax cuts raised your debt substantially because of the assumption that they would pay for themselves.. when they clearly have not. The whole argument is it would increase revenues when it didn't.. so the fact it predicted to increase revenues and completely failed at it makes it a cost.. its added debt.

EDIT: "Voodoo Economics" indeed.

Click to expand...

wrong government spending did not tax cuts. and revenue went up with those cuts

you utterly fail-again

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Well, first off, there's the fact that tax cuts routinely generate more revenue than would have been generated without them.

Click to expand...

Which no one has ever proven. And to which I asked you to prove and you entirely ignored.

obvious Child said:

Which no one has ever proven. And to which I asked you to prove and you entirely ignored.

Click to expand...

He can't. There is no evidence it did at all. The fact is now currently the debt is worse then it was before the bush admin took over by far and away. The bush tax cuts only watered down revenues. They did not increase the tax base it's clear that theory is a complete pile of ****.

The debt is larger after the bush admin and his tax cuts were in place the whole time. The tax base has been reduced and so have revenues.

Gabriel said:

He can't. There is no evidence it did at all.

Click to expand...

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.

The fact is now currently the debt is worse then it was before the bush admin took over by far and away.

Click to expand...

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.

The bush tax cuts only watered down revenues. They did not increase the tax base it's clear that theory is a complete pile of ****.

Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

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.

Click to expand...

So , the fact that "you don't care" means that someone, somewhere does not has less because of this economic decision? Hmmm, interesting.

obvious Child said:

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.

Click to expand...

People with incomes over 250k aren’t 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 don’t really have any benefit. After they are initially absorbed they have little economic stimulus value overall was the suggestion. I can’t 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.

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.

Phoenix said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gabriel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Phoenix said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gabriel said:

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.

Click to expand...

not relevant but the bottom line is-spending costs money. and TAX HIKES CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY COST MONEY

Phoenix said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Teh Internets said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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.

Click to expand...

My point still stands that tax cuts have a cost. You didn't really try to refute the major point of my post.

Teh Internets said:

My point still stands that tax cuts have a cost. You didn't really try to refute the major point of my post.

Click to expand...

no they don't using my definition. and I don't buy into yours

One thing is absolutely true

TAX HIKES HAVE DIRECT AND OBVIOUS COSTS to citizens.

Why do people like you want to impose more and more costs on your fellow citizens.

TurtleDude said:

One thing is absolutely true

TAX HIKES HAVE DIRECT AND OBVIOUS COSTS to citizens.

Why do people like you want to impose more and more costs on your fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

Because people like you have run up our national debt so high because of the decreases in taxes while waging four wars at one time and allowed so much of our nations' wealth to be outsourced to China and India and profiting on it while wage earners have had their wealth decrease.