• 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
Lowering available revenue is not a cost.

Actually I would call it an opportunity cost.

...opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.
 
Actually I would call it an opportunity cost.
Well, if you want to use the word in a way it was not originally intended just to try to defend a point, that's up to you.
Of course, one might also argue that it is an opportunity gained, so...
 
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!

This is true.....to an extent.

When a gas station or any other type of store has a sale they do not lower it beyond what they paid for it. Most companies will have a sale of at most 50% (normally...there are exceptions of course). But when they sell an item at regular price they do so having already marked the item up by around 100%-500% depending on what it is they are selling. So if they paid $2 for an item and mark it up 100% to $4 then have a sale of 50% off then they are back down to $2. So the item that is on sale hasn't ultimately cost them anything but the people that bought the item has saved money. But while they bought that item that was for sale they also more than likely bought other things also...which makes the company recieve a profit.

But what if instead of marking up the price by 100% they have instead marked it up 200% and then have the 50% off sale? So the same item that cost them $2 being marked up 200% is now $6. At 50% off that only brings the price down to $3 per item. So they are still making a $1 profit..ontop of the additional items that are bought due to the attraction that a sale brings.

Now here's the thing about sales. When a company has a sale they attract more people to their place of business. Which means that more items are being sold. Which means even more profit.

Now I can't remember where I read this or even how long ago. But from what I remember statistically speaking when a person goes to a gas station or grocery store or what ever more often than not that person usually buys at least one more item than what they planned to get when they first came for the sale.

Now I will grant you that had they kept the regular price they would have made more...if the customer base stayed the same. But it doesn't. A sale will often attract more customers than normal. More often than not they will either make the same amount as they would have if the price had been the regular price or they will have made even more. Again this is of course totally dependent on the item being sold. If an item that is being sold is not that popular they may not make as much as they would have had not had the sale. In the short term. Sales also have a tendency to make a person feel better about a place. Which means they more than likely will go back to that same place at a later date when there is no sale. So in the long term the profit margin may actually increase due to a rise in people frequenting that establishment.

So sorry but your analogy doesn't quite work. A company has an item to sell. A government does not. They only spend.

A government that recieves taxes and then gives a tax cut does have a reduction in revenue. If the spending stays the same then the government runs into a deficit. (I know this is what you're argueing but please bear with me) But if a government also reduces spending to match the tax cut they are not really loosing anything. Much like the buisness that has a sale and is only marking the item up 100% like I explained above. So depending on how you look at it the tax cut could in effect be "free". But only if they cut the spending to match. (which we all know never happens).

Anyways...hope that this all made sense. :D Just my little 2 cent contribution to this thread. :)
 
Well, if you want to use the word in a way it was not originally intended just to try to defend a point, that's up to you.
Of course, one might also argue that it is an opportunity gained, so...

Sure an oppotunity could be gained, but there is also a cost. The government would lose revenue.

I am using the economic definition of cost. You are saying there is no accounting cost. Kind of like if I play hooke and don't go to work. There is no accounting cost, it did not cost me money, but I just lost a days worth of wages and maybe my job. So a days worth of wages and my job is the cost of skipping a day of work.

If we lower taxes we are losing revenue, which is the economic cost of lowering taxes. So to be accurate, you should say there is no accounting cost of lowering taxes. Which means the government does not spend money to lower taxes. To which I would say, "No ****?"
 
Last edited:
The problem is the only things republicans cut taxes on is big business and their own special interests.

why do you post stuff that is an obvious lie?
 
Sure an oppotunity could be gained, but there is also a cost. The government would lose revenue.
Revenue that is spent represents a cost.
Revenue that is not generated is not.
Conceptually, the two are very different. This should be plain on its face.
 
So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?
Yes of course. It's government spending that isn't "free" - that should be obvious, obvious Child.
 
Revenue that is spent represents a cost.
Revenue that is not generated is not.
Conceptually, the two are very different. This should be plain on its face.

you would have to define cost.

Definition of COST
1a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : price b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object
2: loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something
3plural : expenses incurred in litigation; especially : those given by the law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party
— cost·less\-ləs\ adjective
— cost·less·ly adverb
— at all costs
: regardless of the cost or consequences <was determined to win at all costs>
— at cost
: for the price of production <buys clothes at cost directly from the manufacturer>

loss of tax revenue CAN be considered a cost of cutting taxes.
 
you would have to define cost.
I notice how you didnt use defintion 1a/b.
If you have to hunt for a definition of a word you want to use in order to mae a point, it should tell you something.
 
If you give tax cuts and later have to borrow money from China and other countries that certainly is a cost. Bush gave welfare to the millionaires and billionaires and paid for it with loans.
 
I notice how you didnt use defintion 1a/b.
If you have to hunt for a definition of a word you want to use in order to mae a point, it should tell you something.

i notice how you can't refute what i posted.
 
i notice how you can't refute what i posted.
I did. You had to dig for a definition and you bypassed those that are most common.

Anyone that cannot discern between expenditure and income not generated really should not be posting here.
 
I did. You had to dig for a definition and you bypassed those that are most common.

Anyone that cannot discern between expenditure and income not generated really should not be posting here.

how silly....i'm a financial analyst, and btw, that would be anyone WHO cannot discern, in case you missed english 101. see, two can play at that game.

how do YOU not understand that lost revenue is a cost? it's not an income statement "cost", but it is an income statement reduction in revenue, which has the same effect as a "cost".
 
how silly....i'm a financial analyst, and btw, that would be anyone WHO cannot discern, in case you missed english 101. see, two can play at that game.
Ah. Your panties are in a bunch. That explains it.
:roll:
 
once again, no refutation. thanks for being so reliable.
None was necessary, as your response did not counter my previous criticism.
 
your criticism was invalid, as well as insulting. that's the way you roll, evidently.

So he calls you out on being the self appointed grammar police with the "WHO" vs. "THAT" and the criticism is invalid. Uh huh. You apparently roll the same way.
 
your criticism was invalid...
No... it wasnt. The only way for your point to stand was for you to stretch the definition of the term beyind its common meaning. That criticism is completely valid; nothing you have said since chnages that in any way.

So, to have any chance of making your point stick, you have to resort to the dishonestly obscure and self-servingly insipid. Evidently, that's the way you roll.
 
So he calls you out on being the self appointed grammar police with the "WHO" vs. "THAT" and the criticism is invalid. Uh huh. You apparently roll the same way.

i guess you missed the part where he insulted my intelligence first.

Anyone that cannot discern between expenditure and income not generated really should not be posting here.

anyway, who the hell asked you?

you and goobie evidently DON'T know that many words have more than one definition. and that reduced revenue has the same freaking effect as increased cost. instead, you want to argue semantics. typical when your stance makes no sense.
 
i guess you missed the part where he insulted my intelligence first.
I didnt do that first -- did that after explaining why your position is unsupportable, something you apparently still fail to grasp. The truth may hurt, but it is still the truth.

anyway, who the hell asked you?
What the matter? Dont like free speech?
Then dont comment on a public board.

You and goobie evidently DON'T know that many words have more than one definition.
And YOU evidently don't know that when you have to dig and dig and dig for a defintion that suits you, it speaks volumes about the soundness (that is, th elack thereof) of your position.

and that reduced revenue has the same freaking effect as increased cost.
Ahh... moving the goalposts.
The issue isnt if tax cuts have the 'same effect' as direct expenditures, the question is if they are a cost. Since tax cuts do not come from an outlay of revenue, the answer is, unquestionably, no.

We understand that you and your ilk need to find a way to demonize the very concept of cutting taxes so that, hopefully, no one will ever accept the legitimacy of the idea; the desperate measures you have to take to do so are blatantly transparent to anyone with half a brain.
But, that's how you roll.
 
Back
Top Bottom