• 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
Of course they are not "free".
If our taxes, right now, are fair and equitable, and nothing is done to change anything, then this non-action is free.
Where I disagree with the conservatives is the concept of using tax cuts to stimulate our economy. This may work in the short term, but not in the long term.
What we should do are the things necessary for full employment.
 
it depends on the particular cut, and it depends upon your horizon.

Fair enough. I'm sure we could find some particular tax cut that effectively over a reasonable period of time was free. But that isn't income tax rates at reasonable levels.

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.

Maybe. The problem with that argument is that people would likely front load all of their gain taking into one year at low rates rather then spread out regular gain taking. It's hard to say that it would actually increase revenues. Say if people took $50 billion in gains in the 15% rather then take $50 billion over time at 20%, that's less. Much depends on the market at the time rather then the tax rate.
 
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.
 
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.

wrong again-you assume that other spending necessary. If you continue to spend on that its that activity that costs money, not the lack of revenue to pay for it
 
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.

Prove it or apologize. I have been away from my house from 8.30 this morning to 10 minutes ago. YOu make accusations you cannot possibly prove
 
Of course they are not "free".
If our taxes, right now, are fair and equitable, and nothing is done to change anything, then this non-action is free.
Where I disagree with the conservatives is the concept of using tax cuts to stimulate our economy. This may work in the short term, but not in the long term.
What we should do are the things necessary for full employment.

fair and equitable? an opinion of someone who doesn't pay much taxes

those of us who do say the tax structure is blatantly unfair to those who shoulder too much of the load
 
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.

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
 
Prove it or apologize. I have been away from my house from 8.30 this morning to 10 minutes ago. YOu make accusations you cannot possibly prove

Prove it. Tell me, why is that virtually ALL of the "Free" votes are guest votes while most of the "no way" votes are actual, registered users?

17 out of 22 "no" votes are registered users.
2 out of 24 "free" votes are registered users.

So really counting actual users, Not Free is 89% and Free is 11%.
 
Last edited:
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

No, that would be your definition. You have constantly avoided my analogy proving that the forgone revenue results in a cost. Pretending peoples' posts who refute you don't exist does not show that your argument is strong.
 
Prove it. Tell me, why is that virtually ALL of the "Free" votes are guest votes while most of the "no way" votes are actual, registered users?

I tire of your lies about me. Stop your silly accusations that you cannot prove. Your moronic poll is just that and I didn't vote in it. I am sure that the mods here have the ability to trace the IP addresses of those who voted and I am sure If I were lying one of them would be more than happy to point it out.
 
No, that would be your definition. You have constantly avoided my analogy proving that the forgone revenue results in a cost. Pretending peoples' posts who refute you don't exist does not show that your argument is strong.

I avoid your nonsense often because I have other things to do and your yapping at me gets tiresome.
 
I avoid your nonsense often because I have other things to do and your yapping at me gets tiresome.

Correction. You can't refute my arguments. Nor anyone elses' for that matter.

But what can I expect from someone who posts two links that don't discuss the topic as proof his view on the topic is correct?
 
Thanks to this poll, I was curious as to how much, if anything, tax cuts really do cost the nation. Back in 2006, the Bush Administration claimed that tax cuts "pay for themselves", pointing to the increase in revenues from 2005 and the then projected revenues from that current year; however, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the evidence tells a very different story. The tax cuts have not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over the course of that period were not particularly strong. Revenues grew much more quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. The Center points out that, even taking into account the stronger revenue growth that was projected at the time for the fiscal year of 2006, real per-capita revenues had simply returned to the level they reached more than five years previous, when the current business cycle began in March 2001. In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown an average of about 10 percent over the five and a half years following the previous business-cycle peak. By this stage in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues had increased by 11 percent (Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Fact Check weighed in a few years ago, too. With the possible exception of corporate income taxes, the supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. "But", the article goes on to say, "most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don't say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost." (FactCheck.org: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?)

I would, however, love to read economists opposing the view that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, as I am no economist myself. Getting both sides of the story is important, imho, and i'm sure there is plenty of differing opinions armed with adequate evidence on the actual cost of tax cuts.
 
Good they are free! And we need a tax system that is made from consumption. I say start there heck we can change it if that dont work. But change we must. Say no to convention and two party rule.
 
Free for who? I voted that they are. When it comes to individuals, tax cuts are free. When it comes to the government, it costs nothing to implement a tax cut. However, it may result in a loss of revenue. In the end, it's all free because the dollars are still there. They are either with the government or with individuals. It's a relocation of wealth.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why Turtle thanked Digsbe's post. Especially when Disgbe reiterated that the loss of revenue was tied to the tax cut. And that the dollars are government's. Two things that Turtle has repetitively rejected.

Why would he thank a post that doesn't support his argument and contains two arguments that were repetitively used against him before by others?

Maybe he just saw the word "free" and made up the rest?
 
I'm not sure why Turtle thanked Digsbe's post. Especially when Disgbe reiterated that the loss of revenue was tied to the tax cut. And that the dollars are government's. Two things that Turtle has repetitively rejected.

Why would he thank a post that doesn't support his argument and contains two arguments that were repetitively used against him before by others?

Maybe he just saw the word "free" and made up the rest?

I don't always agree with posts that I find useful. You see I am not a hack
 
His post made sense. It might mean less revenue to the government. But a tax cut costs nothing. Less revenue is not the same as a cost. A cost requires money going out. A tax cut means that less revenue MIGHT NOT COME IN. That is obvious to everyone
 
His post made sense. It might mean less revenue to the government.

Which is the same thing everyone who said you are wrong said as well. It does appear you saw the word "Free" and assumed the rest.

But a tax cut costs nothing.

Only if you keep pretending that. I see you are still running away from my analogy showing you are as usual, wrong.

Less revenue is not the same as a cost.

Uh, a lost sale costs you revenue. Hello? Mcfly?

A cost requires money going out.

Which a tax cut often does. Especially debt financed tax cuts which as Lord T pointed out and you ran away from, is nothing more then a loan. Your whole argument ignores the cycle of inflows and outflows. Probably why you are deliberately pretending my analogy doesn't exist.

Well, you thanking a post that doesn't support your argument is in line with posting articles which don't address your point.
 
Which is the same thing everyone who said you are wrong said as well. It does appear you saw the word "Free" and assumed the rest.



Only if you keep pretending that. I see you are still running away from my analogy showing you are as usual, wrong.



Uh, a lost sale costs you revenue. Hello? Mcfly?



Which a tax cut often does. Especially debt financed tax cuts which as Lord T pointed out and you ran away from, is nothing more then a loan. Your whole argument ignores the cycle of inflows and outflows. Probably why you are deliberately pretending my analogy doesn't exist.

Well, you thanking a post that doesn't support your argument is in line with posting articles which don't address your point.

Yawn-more nonsense.
 
His post made sense. It might mean less revenue to the government. But a tax cut costs nothing. Less revenue is not the same as a cost. A cost requires money going out. A tax cut means that less revenue MIGHT NOT COME IN. That is obvious to everyone

When that money in the hands of private entities, especially corporations, outsource those dollars to China for cheap products or India for cheap work forces and those companies sell more to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S., then yes, those revenues are lost.
 
When that money in the hands of private entities, especially corporations, outsource those dollars to China for cheap products or India for cheap work forces and those companies sell more to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S., then yes, those revenues are lost.

so the stuff that the money buys is not a like trade?
 
Don't like it? Can't deal with it? Don't have a response?

Call it nonsense and make no attempt to appear intelligent.

Yawn-more nonsense. Someone needs to take this board and himself a little less seriously

Tax cuts are not costs. They may have to be offset by other cuts but they don't cost anything since they are not an expenditure
 
Back
Top Bottom