• 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!

Tax cuts are free

Tax cuts cost nothing and are free


  • Total voters
    45
Why are you using free when I said tax cuts are not a cost.

No, you said tax cuts don't cost anything. If something doesn't cost anything, it's free. Seriously. Learn English.

if all the government spending was actually paid for would we have a deficit

Come again? if all government spending was paid for, we would have a balanced budget. Do you not know what a deficit is?

do you have any expertise in this subject? do you understand that expertise might mean an opinion is valid and it may not?

See above.
 
If you want your stolen money back then just go steal from a library or unpave a road.:roll:

Why don't we all steal the teacher's BMW's, since the Constitution forbids federal expenditures on education?

How about if we raid the Smithsonian, since the Constitution makes no allowance for the federal government to steal money from us to buy art?

There's lots and lots of things that are funded with stolen money, namely everything the federal government does thats in violation of the Constitution.

Socialist Security.
Welfare.
Medicare.
MessiahCare.
National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
Foreign Aid.
Political campaigns.
Education.
etc.
 
And you are failing to prove that it was tax cuts. Ever heard of a concept called "linear regression?" Try it.



And end up like many of the IMF countries? Hell No.



Since when did the Executive Branch control the purse strings?

what's a veto-do you think the dems could override a veto of a spending bill?
 
No, you said tax cuts don't cost anything. If something doesn't cost anything, it's free. Seriously. Learn English.



Come again? if all government spending was paid for, we would have a balanced budget. Do you not know what a deficit is?



See above.

tell me-when tax cuts were issued by the Bush administration, what was cut back to "pay for them"

when the tax cuts continued what was used to "pay for them"
 
No, you said tax cuts don't cost anything. If something doesn't cost anything, it's free. Seriously. Learn English.

Since tax cuts reliably result in revenue increases (since we're on the totalitarian side of the Laffer Curve), it's safe to say that tax cuts are self-financing.

If something pays for itself, it's free, right?
 
Why don't we all steal the teacher's BMW's, since the Constitution forbids federal expenditures on education?

How about if we raid the Smithsonian, since the Constitution makes no allowance for the federal government to steal money from us to buy art?

There's lots and lots of things that are funded with stolen money, namely everything the federal government does thats in violation of the Constitution.

Socialist Security.
Welfare.
Medicare.
MessiahCare.
National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
Foreign Aid.
Political campaigns.
Education.
etc.

So you would rather have no public education system at all?
 
So you would rather have no public education system at all?

that is a false choice

public education is a state matter not a federal matter. most of the crap that he listed is a clear violation of the tenth amendment ignored by the FDR lapdog jurists. we had fine education in this country-the best in the world-before the US government started meddling in it.
 
Taxes were REDUCED for a temporary period. Just like a sale at the gas station. Say gas = taxes. The price is reduced for lets say a weekend. The gas station will make less money during that time in hopes to gain profit in other areas. THing is, the ultra rich will not be spending more or even investing more because of the sale at the fuel pump. Not from anything Ive seen. Maybe someone can provide factual information on that topic.

Anyhow, temporary tax reduction of COURSE costs the goverment. You are reducing the amount taken in!!! Duuuhhh!
 
Taxes were REDUCED for a temporary period. Just like a sale at the gas station. Say gas = taxes. The price is reduced for lets say a weekend. The gas station will make less money during that time in hopes to gain profit in other areas. THing is, the ultra rich will not be spending more or even investing more because of the sale at the fuel pump. Not from anything Ive seen. Maybe someone can provide factual information on that topic.

Anyhow, temporary tax reduction of COURSE costs the goverment. You are reducing the amount taken in!!! Duuuhhh!

but you are also reducing what is taken from US

tax cuts don't have to be paid for. spending does. if a government operates on a balanced budget if there are less taxes there has to be less spending so you can argue that a tax cut (assuming that means less revenue to the government) would mean the government could not spend as much on other stuff. is that a "cost"
 
So you would rather have no public education system at all?

Read my lips.

The CONSTITUTION (and that's the legal document governing the spending of the United States government, among other things) does not allow the government to spend taxpayer dollars on education.

Did I type slow enough for you?

Do you have any clue what the above statement implies, given the other clauses and amendments in the Constitution?

Do your betters always have to draw you a map?
 
fine.

State your history correctly.

Taxes were reduced on EVERYONE "temporarily".

That means they should be raised on everyone, or no one, to be fair.

a most interesting libertarian position he has though
 
Your assumption the tax cuts reduce federal revenue is invalidated by history. Even that boob JFK realized that.
JFK lowered the top marginal rate down to 70%, that would be perfect today. Actually, what JFK did was to make the rates fairer, but the legislation signed by LBJ closed many loopholes to keep the revenue stream going.
 
Tax cut can be compared to working less. Would you say it is free to work less. Don't thinks so.
 
JFK lowered the top marginal rate down to 70%, that would be perfect today. Actually, what JFK did was to make the rates fairer, but the legislation signed by LBJ closed many loopholes to keep the revenue stream going.

A very high income tax can reduce revenue, because it give people an incentive to work in the black market or find other forms of revenue that doesn't tax that much. In the long run it will also hurt the economy, which also reduce revenue.

The high-income countries with the highest governmental spending are in this order
Sweden, France, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Italy
Is Italy, Belgium and France known for their good welfare services. No, because even though they have high tax levels, they have a very inefficient economy.

But in this topic, I assume we are talking about more reasonble tax levels.
 
Last edited:
what's a veto-do you think the dems could override a veto of a spending bill?

Yes.

tell me-when tax cuts were issued by the Bush administration, what was cut back to "pay for them"

Nothing. They were debt financed.

I see no response by you to post #22.
 
Since tax cuts reliably result in revenue increases

Uh, good luck proving that, especially at current rates.

since we're on the totalitarian side of the Laffer Curve), it's safe to say that tax cuts are self-financing.

This is your assumption, which the CBO does not agree with. Furthermore, the Laffer Curve is nothing more then conjecture once you move to reasonable levels.

I see you, like Conservative, do not want to use linear regression to prove your claims.

If something pays for itself, it's free, right?

Except you have to prove that it paid for itself. Tell me, why is that NO reputable economist, including Bush and Reagan's belief that tax cuts pay for themselves?
 
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?

Seeing how taxes are not the government's, so it does cost nothing for a tax cut. It's the government that chooses to spend like a gold digging twit married to a millionaire,not the tax payer.
 
Last edited:
The work less is a false anatomy based on a perverse concept of "cost". Costs are what you have to pay. If you work less and get less income, your costs have not gone up. Merely your ability to pay for costs has. Same with the government. THus I noted offsets. OC and the other statists think that a cost means spending less on social welfare programs. That is not a cost but an offset. the ability to pay for something decreases with less revenue but your costs do not change. That is why the claim that tax cuts cost something is complete bs. Its a decrease (sometimes) in revenue which is different than a cost.
 
Last edited:
Tax cut can be compared to working less. Would you say it is free to work less. Don't thinks so.

wrong-if you work less your ability to pay for costs has gone down ASSUMING working less means less revenue. THus your ability to PAY for real costs (bills, debts) has decreased. But your costs have not gone up.
 
but you are also reducing what is taken from US

tax cuts don't have to be paid for. spending does. if a government operates on a balanced budget if there are less taxes there has to be less spending so you can argue that a tax cut (assuming that means less revenue to the government) would mean the government could not spend as much on other stuff. is that a "cost"
Yes trading a tax cut for other spending is a cost. If you cut back spending to avoid losing revenue that does not make tax cuts free.
 
It isn't just turtledude that is complete denial of all this. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Cutting off a source of revenue costs money. The tiny percentage of employers in that top percentile who will pay more taxes have zero effect on the tax base. The tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Further the assumption is that while this minuscule group will not try and expand or employ more people because they pay a small portion of their wealth in taxes is poor logic at best.

I can see value in continuation of middleclass tax cuts somewhat. Obviously a couple thousand dollars in working class peoples pockets makes a difference in their ability to consume. I don't believe tax cuts are an appropriate way to go about stimulus personally but letting the Bush Tax cuts expire on the middle class in a time of recession isn't a good idea. Sometime in the future after the economy recovers taxation will have to come back. Deficit spending can be dealt with in good times .. not in bad times.

Arguments with turtledude usually end up in some variety of elitist insinuation where by all the unfortunate people deserve what they get and all the wealthy are victims of the parasitic state. What he does not acknowledge is the parasitic nature of the wealthy on society. Clearly if there is a "tapeworm" on American society you can find it on wall street financials and the banking industry.. not main street.
 
Last edited:
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?

it depends on the particular cut, and it depends upon your horizon.

for example if you were to slash income taxes from 35% to 15%, it is unlikely that within the next two years income in the US would rise by an order enough to make up the difference; but if you were to offer a one-year capital gains tax cut of (say) from 20 to 15%, then it is possible that enough people would seek to make good on that cut by realizing their gains that you would see an increase in total revenues. However, if you are willing to cut spending in order to match your 35 to 15% income tax decrease, and wait it out, then it is highly likely that over time the increase in growth will more than make up for the temporary revenue loss. so in the first two years, perhaps not so much; in the first 50, almost definitely.

i would offer that the vast majority of tax cuts tend to be almost immediately mitigated; some heavily, some not, by an increase in the taxed activity.

Anywho, while I voted "no" because the typical horizon as i have seen it discussed is 10 years, for some, obviously, the answer would be yes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom