• 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
obvious Child said:
You know, saying the same thing over and over again and refusing to address rebutals doesn't make your argument right.
Click to expand...


your argument which is nothing more than an opinion gains no validity merely because you post it over and over

and you cannot prove that tax cuts are costs because there is a difference between paying for something and having less money to pay for something else.
 
TurtleDude said:
so the stuff that the money buys is not a like trade?
Click to expand...

In order for it to be a like trade, the U.S. would have to sell to China as much as the U.S. buys from China. For quite some time now, the U.S. has been selling to China much less than the U.S. has been buying from China. This is why the U.S. has a trade deficit with China and why it is so disconcerting.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Bron is a tapeworm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

The government doesn't need all that money.
 
tax cuts often lead to increased government deficit which will only lead to increased taxation in the future, so in a sense no they are not free. You'll be paying for it sometime later.
 
TurtleDude said:
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"
Click to expand...

You said the tax cuts dont cost anything. Now you are changing that. Lets again go back to the gas station analogy I used. If you are saying they can cut costs then their sale on fuel wont cost them anything. OK......

Logically, when a company reduces overhead they will bring in more profit. And you are saying that if THAT happens the company will reduce THEIR prices.

Why your logic is flawed, there is no competition for our goverment. Also BOTH sides of the aisle will take any surplus and put in MORE pork spending for their reelections. Like-wise a company with not lower prices unless competition is very stiff. Instead they will pocket the profit!! If they have stock that profit will raise the price of their stock.

Bottom line is I strongly feel your logic on this topic is highly flawed. This temporary "sale" / reduction on taxes IS costing this Country a LOT.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
You said the tax cuts dont cost anything. Now you are changing that. Lets again go back to the gas station analogy I used. If you are saying they can cut costs then their sale on fuel wont cost them anything. OK......

Logically, when a company reduces overhead they will bring in more profit. And you are saying that if THAT happens the company will reduce THEIR prices.

Why your logic is flawed, there is no competition for our goverment. Also BOTH sides of the aisle will take any surplus and put in MORE pork spending for their reelections. Like-wise a company with not lower prices unless competition is very stiff. Instead they will pocket the profit!! If they have stock that profit will raise the price of their stock.

Bottom line is I strongly feel your logic on this topic is highly flawed. This temporary "sale" / reduction on taxes IS costing this Country a LOT.
Click to expand...

having less money is different than a cost

I think you confuse the two and claim anything that causes the government to have less money is a cost.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
You said the tax cuts dont cost anything. Now you are changing that. Lets again go back to the gas station analogy I used. If you are saying they can cut costs then their sale on fuel wont cost them anything. OK......

Logically, when a company reduces overhead they will bring in more profit. And you are saying that if THAT happens the company will reduce THEIR prices.

Why your logic is flawed, there is no competition for our goverment. Also BOTH sides of the aisle will take any surplus and put in MORE pork spending for their reelections. Like-wise a company with not lower prices unless competition is very stiff. Instead they will pocket the profit!! If they have stock that profit will raise the price of their stock.

Bottom line is I strongly feel your logic on this topic is highly flawed. This temporary "sale" / reduction on taxes IS costing this Country a LOT.
Click to expand...

So what's your position, allow the government to take as much money as it wants, always, because it's going to spend as much as it wants, always?

There are little blue pills available to treat that disorder.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So what's your position, allow the government to take as much money as it wants, always, because it's going to spend as much as it wants, always?

There are little blue pills available to treat that disorder.
Click to expand...

its certainly an interesting variation of the libertarian philosophy isn't it?
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint for you:

It's none of YOUR concern what a private person does with his money, nor is it any of your business what a privately owned business does with it's money.

If the fascists want government revenues from domestic businesses, it needs to support policies that encourage people and businesses to freely do business in the United States. That process is best done with tax cuts and regulatory relaxation.
 
TurtleDude said:
its certainly an interesting variation of the libertarian philosophy isn't it?
Click to expand...

No person advocating higher taxes, especially expanded tax bracketing or other "progressive" nonsense, has a clue what libertarianism is.
 
I shudder when I find myself actually agreeing with Obvious Child, LOL, but in this instance I must. Economics 101 teaches us that EVERY financial decision (including a reduction in tax revenue) involves COST. Whether it is a COST in regards to the Government providing less public services or in regards to Government "greasing the palms" of blue chip corporations, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will pay the COST. Every economic decision provides some sort of trade-off; it's simply the Law of Scarcity. There are only X number of dollars to go around whether they're in the hands of the Government or the private sector is irrelevent. The real question is in the cost-benefit analysis of tax cuts. Do the COSTS outweigh the BENEFITS or vice versa? Therein lies the true debate.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I shudder when I find myself actually agreeing with Obvious Child, LOL, but in this instance I must. Economics 101 teaches us that EVERY financial decision (including a reduction in tax revenue) involves COST. Whether it is a COST in regards to the Government providing less public services or in regards to Government "greasing the palms" of blue chip corporations, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will pay the COST. Every economic decision provides some sort of trade-off; it's simply the Law of Scarcity. There are only X number of dollars to go around whether they're in the hands of the Government or the private sector is irrelevent. The real question is in the cost-benefit analysis of tax cuts. Do the COSTS outweigh the BENEFITS or vice versa? Therein lies the true debate.
Click to expand...

your definition of cost is not the same as many others'

as I noted it was a semantic argument ie a conflict of opinions.
 
TurtleDude said:
your definition of cost is not the same as many others'

as I noted it was a semantic argument ie a conflict of opinions.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you in that many posters lack real understanding when an ambiguous term such as "cost" enters the debate. I also understand your position and agree to some extent.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I do agree with you in that many posters lack real understanding when an ambiguous term such as "cost" enters the debate. I also understand your position and agree to some extent.
Click to expand...

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. However, if I quit my job my revenue will clearly decrease but If taxes are cut, it is not a given revenues will decrease for the government just as it is true that a tax hike might not result in more revenue.

what is certain is that government spending costs the government money
 
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. However, if I quit my job my revenue will clearly decrease but If taxes are cut, it is not a given revenues will decrease for the government just as it is true that a tax hike might not result in more revenue.

what is certain is that government spending costs the government money
Click to expand...
However, a tax cut would indeed mean that the Government has less money to spend/redistribute. Let us think hypothetically for a moment. Let's assume that a tax cut will equate to the government not being able to fund a particular project - repaving a highway for instance. The monetary COST in this scenario could be that the private paving contractors would lose the contract. It could equate to less money in the pocket of the company owners or a temporary layoff for the workers. WHile this obviously does not equate to a monetary loss for you or I, SOMEONE will "pay" the cost. Another way of looking at it could be that local drivers would not receive the potential benefits of a newly paved highway - one pothole and a blow-out could equal a monetary cost for that particular driver. My point was, simply, EVERY economic decsion produces tradeoffs to some extent and often, neither you nor I can fully understand the extent to which these decisions will COST someone else.
 
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that tax cuts will not equate to a direct monetary cost for you.
 
FluffyNinja said:
However, a tax cut would indeed mean that the Government has less money to spend/redistribute. Let us think hypothetically for a moment. Let's assume that a tax cut will equate to the government not being able to fund a particular project - repaving a highway for instance. The monetary COST in this scenario could be that the private paving contractors would lose the contract. It could equate to less money in the pocket of the company owners or a temporary layoff for the workers. WHile this obviously does not equate to a monetary loss for you or I, SOMEONE will "pay" the cost. Another way of looking at it could be that local drivers would not receive the potential benefits of a newly paved highway - one pothole and a blow-out could equal a monetary cost for that particular driver. My point was, simply, EVERY economic decsion produces tradeoffs to some extent and often, neither you nor I can fully understand the extent to which these decisions will COST someone else.
Click to expand...

none of that undercuts my point that what I consider to be costing money is undertaking a project or program that requires expenditures.

tradeoffs yes

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.

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

If I decide-because of the government tax hikes, that I cannot buy an expensive dinner at the 5 star eating establishment you could note that my decision costs the proprietor Business and that is one definition of costs. in the context of my points-that objective people understand-it is dishonest to claim that taking less revenue is the same as actively spending money on something.

it also is dishonest to say a tax cut is a handout the same as welfare payments.
 
Yes, Obvious Child is, well, quite obvious in his attempts to bait you, LOL. And I ABSOLUTELY DO agree with your last line here:
it also is dishonest to say a tax cut is a handout the same as welfare payments.
Click to expand...
Just a note FWIW, I AM infavor of cutting taxes across the board. :mrgreen: I DO believe that in the COST-BENEFIT analysis, under our current economic situation, the benefits will definitely outweigh the "costs."
 
FluffyNinja said:
Yes, Obvious Child is, well, quite obvious in his attempts to bait you, LOL. And I ABSOLUTELY DO agree with your last line here:

Just a note FWIW, I AM infavor of cutting taxes across the board. :mrgreen: I DO believe that in the COST-BENEFIT analysis, under our current economic situation, the benefits will definitely outweigh the "costs."
Click to expand...

sounds like this discussion has come to an intelligent end

thanks
 
TurtleDude said:
nope= not at all
Click to expand...
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
 
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...

nope-on one side I have costs (mortgage, gas and electric, insurance, ammunition etc ) and on the other side I have revenue. Less revenue is not in the cost column any more than refinancing my house and saving on payments goes into the revenue side of my ledger
 
TurtleDude said:
nope-on one side I have costs (mortgage, gas and electric, insurance, ammunition etc ) and on the other side I have revenue. Less revenue is not in the cost column any more than refinancing my house and saving on payments goes into the revenue side of my ledger
Click to expand...
So, your definition of cost is what you actually pay for with money. Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure i was on the same page. Interesting discussion, even if the OP was only intended to bait. :mrgreen:
 
FluffyNinja said:
So, your definition of cost is what you actually pay for with money. Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure i was on the same page. Interesting discussion, even if the OP was only intended to bait. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom