• 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:
Uh, all currency is property of the government. Way to fail. Hence why defacing currency is a crime.



This is just for the Lolz.

If you think that tax cuts are free, you must think that not selling doesn't cost you either. By not selling product, you don't bring in revenue. You no longer have that revenue to cover fixed costs. So your total profit declines as revenue has declined. That has effectively cost you. Drinking the Kool-aid doesn't change this basic accounting.



It is a form of government spending. A tax brings in revenue, by effectively returning that revenue the government has spent that money.



It takes no such thing. Only an understanding of the flow of money.
Click to expand...

OC, since the government is an extension of the people, are you prepared to make the argument that I have spent more money by putting less into the collective pot? I'm all ears (or in this case, eyes)...
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

You just invalidated economics as we know it. "Economic costs are not real." -Goobieman

why?

"Because its the second definition of cost in the dictionary."
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
You just invalidated economics as we know it. "Economic costs are not real." -Goobieman
why?
"Because its the second definition of cost in the dictionary."
Click to expand...
Let me type slowly...
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.
 
Goobieman said:
Let me type slowly...
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.
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of an accounting cost, you are correct. If we are speaking of economic costs, you are incorrect. Which cost do you think is more useful when analyzing the tax cut? Personally, I think the accounting cost of $0 is useless.

You win though...
Lowering taxes is not an outlay.

Will you admit now that taxes have economic costs, meaning foregone revenue?
 
drz-400 said:
If you are speaking of an accounting cost, you are correct. If we are speaking of economic costs, you are incorrect. Which cost do you think is more useful when analyzing the tax cut? Personally, I think the accounting cost of $0 is useless.

You win though...
Lowering taxes is not an outlay.

Will you admit now that taxes have economic costs, meaning foregone revenue?
Click to expand...

What is interesting is that this thread was started as an attack on my position which you basically agree with. I was correct in noting that tax cuts cost nothing since they are not an expenditure but come from the other side of the ledger. As everyone noted, an expenditure is different than less revenue. Those who unsuccessfully tried to riducle me by using an expansive definition of cost failed. And the main purpose of this was to try to further the wealth-stealers' claim that tax cuts are no different than handouts to people who don't pay taxes. This of course is complete and utter bull poop but that is the mindset of the wealth stealers
 
TurtleDude said:
What is interesting is that this thread was started as an attack on my position which you basically agree with. I was correct in noting that tax cuts cost nothing since they are not an expenditure but come from the other side of the ledger. As everyone noted, an expenditure is different than less revenue. Those who unsuccessfully tried to riducle me by using an expansive definition of cost failed. And the main purpose of this was to try to further the wealth-stealers' claim that tax cuts are no different than handouts to people who don't pay taxes. This of course is complete and utter bull poop but that is the mindset of the wealth stealers
Click to expand...

I think people are attacking your position because you use the fact that a tax cut is not an expenditure, and thus has no accounting cost to argue that we should not worry about the budgetary impacts of tax cuts. It would be like arguing that loosing a job does not cost money so I should not worry about its affect on my personal budget. You have to look at the economic cost to know the effect a tax cut will have on the government budget. So congradulations, you won the debate no one really cares about, because it tells us absolutely nothing about the budgetary impacts of a tax cut.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Yes of course. It's government spending that isn't "free" - that should be obvious, obvious Child.
Click to expand...

By that measure, all tax credits and expenditures are free. Turtledude has run away from that constantly. Maybe you have the courage to take that up? I sincerely doubt it though.
 
drz-400 said:
If you are speaking of an accounting cost, you are correct.
Click to expand...
I know. Thank you.

If we are speaking of economic costs, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily so - in letting people keep their money rather than giving it to the government, there is the probability of an economic benefit that exceeds the any 'economic cost' from depriving the government of revenue.
 
Last edited:
I do know this. History shows that the government will out spend revenues no matter what the tax rate. (for the past 100 years except a short stint in the 30s and a couple years in the 50s) During that time frame tax rates have been astronomical. If tax rates were the problem we would have seen more years with decreasing debt. However spending causes the deficit. Until we are able to get spending below revenues a deficit will always exist.
 
obvious Child said:
By that measure, all tax credits and expenditures are free. Turtledude has run away from that constantly. Maybe you have the courage to take that up? I sincerely doubt it though.
Click to expand...

I realize you cannot help talking about my points but I never ran away. Because I refuse to accept your definition you pretend that your perspective is the only one that matters even though numerous other posters have agreed that a lack of revenue (if that is the case and that is in doubt) from tax cuts is not the same as actually expenditures.
 
Phoenix said:
I do know this. History shows that the government will out spend revenues no matter what the tax rate. (for the past 100 years except a short stint in the 30s and a couple years in the 50s) During that time frame tax rates have been astronomical. If tax rates were the problem we would have seen more years with decreasing debt. However spending causes the deficit. Until we are able to get spending below revenues a deficit will always exist.
Click to expand...
liberals gain most of their power through the redistribution of income that is used to buy the votes of many of their supporters. Cutting spending would be cutting their ability to win elections so they won't do that. Rather than upsetting their many supporters they propose more and more taxes on the small percentage of Americans who already pay most of the bills. Its a good strategy for winning elections but it is both unfair and ultimately doomed to collapse.
 
TurtleDude said:
I realize you cannot help talking about my points but I never ran away.
Click to expand...

Actually you run away from everything you can't deal with. Hence why you are constantly fleeing from Lord T's posts.

Because I refuse to accept your definition you pretend that your perspective is the only one that matters even though numerous other posters have agreed that a lack of revenue (if that is the case and that is in doubt) from tax cuts is not the same as actually expenditures.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Fluffy's posts as to why, you are as usual, wrong.
 
obvious Child said:
Actually you run away from everything you can't deal with. Hence why you are constantly fleeing from Lord T's posts.



Maybe you should read Fluffy's posts as to why, you are as usual, wrong.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual. You confuse costs with revenue
 
Costs are spending period

The government supports its spending through taxes. Nearly all government revenue has to be raised through taxes. Simple enough concept

A government that run a deficiet is spending more then it currently raises in tax revenue, Deficiets are debt, unless a institution defaults it has to pay back its debts

Therefore a tax cut that results in a government deficit has a direct cost on the taxpayer as the taxpayer will have to pay down government deficits along with ongoing government spending. Which means in the most simplistic terms that even the most dense moron who does not know how to wipe his or her but

A tax cut without corresponding spending cuts to ensure a balanced budget will have direct costs on the taxpayer. They will be delayed but the cost is still there. In additioin to the future taxes that will have to be paid is the interest on the debt ( an added cost) which will increase the amount of taxes to be paid in the future. Which means of course TAX CUTS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING SPENDING CUTS TO RESULT IN A BALANCED BUDGET OR SURPLUS DOES CAUSE A DIRECT COST TO THE TAXPAYER, IN FUTURE TAXES AND IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT RESULTING FROM THE TAX CUT

A tax cut may result in opportunity costs which are more indirect then the situation above.

If you do not understand the situation above I suggest giving me all your money as you are too stupid to be trusted to control your retirement funds
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Costs are spending period

The government supports its spending through taxes. Nearly all government revenue has to be raised through taxes. Simple enough concept

A government that run a deficiet is spending more then it currently raises in tax revenue, Deficiets are debt, unless a institution defaults it has to pay back its debts

Therefore a tax cut that results in a government deficit has a direct cost on the taxpayer as the taxpayer will have to pay down government deficits along with ongoing government spending. Which means in the most simplistic terms that even the most dense moron who does not know how to wipe his or her but

A tax cut without corresponding spending cuts to ensure a balanced budget will have direct costs on the taxpayer. They will be delayed but the cost is still there. In additioin to the future taxes that will have to be paid is the interest on the debt ( an added cost) which will increase the amount of taxes to be paid in the future. Which means of course TAX CUTS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING SPENDING CUTS TO RESULT IN A BALANCED BUDGET OR SURPLUS DOES CAUSE A DIRECT COST TO THE TAXPAYER, IN FUTURE TAXES AND IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT RESULTING FROM THE TAX CUT

A tax cut may result in opportunity costs which are more indirect then the situation above.

If you do not understand the situation above I suggest giving me all your money as you are too stupid to be trusted to control your retirement funds
Click to expand...

Did you think about this even a little bit while you were typing? I'm picturing a mental gearshift, brain sitting in neutral revving the engine, making a lot of noise and not going anywhere...

Deficeits and debt are not the same. That's like saying speed and distance are the same.

If a tax cut causes a direct cost to the tax payer, would you describe an increased income tax as an increase in the tax payer's income?

Opportunity costs? I'm very interested to know what opportunity costs are incurred as a result of a tax cut...would you care to expand on that one?
 
FederalRepublic said:
Did you think about this even a little bit while you were typing? I'm picturing a mental gearshift, brain sitting in neutral revving the engine, making a lot of noise and not going anywhere...

Deficeits and debt are not the same. That's like saying speed and distance are the same.

If a tax cut causes a direct cost to the tax payer, would you describe an increased income tax as an increase in the tax payer's income?

Opportunity costs? I'm very interested to know what opportunity costs are incurred as a result of a tax cut...would you care to expand on that one?
Click to expand...

the tax hike advocates are stuck on this BS that costs are spending. They have to make this idiotic claim in order to justify treating handouts to non-producerss as being the same as taking LESS from those who pay most of the taxes.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Costs are spending period

The government supports its spending through taxes. Nearly all government revenue has to be raised through taxes. Simple enough concept

A government that run a deficiet is spending more then it currently raises in tax revenue, Deficiets are debt, unless a institution defaults it has to pay back its debts

Therefore a tax cut that results in a government deficit has a direct cost on the taxpayer as the taxpayer will have to pay down government deficits along with ongoing government spending. Which means in the most simplistic terms that even the most dense moron who does not know how to wipe his or her but

A tax cut without corresponding spending cuts to ensure a balanced budget will have direct costs on the taxpayer. They will be delayed but the cost is still there. In additioin to the future taxes that will have to be paid is the interest on the debt ( an added cost) which will increase the amount of taxes to be paid in the future. Which means of course TAX CUTS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING SPENDING CUTS TO RESULT IN A BALANCED BUDGET OR SURPLUS DOES CAUSE A DIRECT COST TO THE TAXPAYER, IN FUTURE TAXES AND IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT RESULTING FROM THE TAX CUT

A tax cut may result in opportunity costs which are more indirect then the situation above.

If you do not understand the situation above I suggest giving me all your money as you are too stupid to be trusted to control your retirement funds
Click to expand...

I always laugh at the suggestion that those of us who don't want tax hikes, don't need more nanny government and are in a position to be soaked even more by the government are somehow stupid because we tire of being told by others we have to pay more taxes.

If you are such a fan of more taxes you need to step up and not only pay the same rate I pay but pay the same amount. Until then, I don't have any use for your "advice"

I know when I pay more taxes or have money taken for the ponzi scheme known as social security that is a COST to me.
 
TurtleDude said:
I always laugh at the suggestion that those of us who don't want tax hikes, don't need more nanny government and are in a position to be soaked even more by the government are somehow stupid because we tire of being told by others we have to pay more taxes.

If you are such a fan of more taxes you need to step up and not only pay the same rate I pay but pay the same amount. Until then, I don't have any use for your "advice"

I know when I pay more taxes or have money taken for the ponzi scheme known as social security that is a COST to me.
Click to expand...

Where did I say you need to pay more taxes in my post?

I said and I will put it in bold for the challenged

A tax cut without a corresponding spending cut is not free It generally leads to a deficit which adds to the debt. Government debt has to be paid back by tax payers. A tax cut that results in a deficit is just DELAYED/POSTPONED taxes.


Now please focus on the SPENDING cut portion of the post, it may be difficult to understand but I am sure you will get it eventually
 
FederalRepublic said:
Did you think about this even a little bit while you were typing? I'm picturing a mental gearshift, brain sitting in neutral revving the engine, making a lot of noise and not going anywhere...

Deficeits and debt are not the same. That's like saying speed and distance are the same.
Click to expand...
Really I would never have know, please great one tell me the difference between a deficit and debt, when does a deficit turn into debt?.


The costs are in the government spending, if the government is spending more then it is getting in revenues, it is just delaying taxes to a future date. Those taxes will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Which means that a tax cut that results in a deficit which increases the debt has a direct cost, it is not free. The tax payer will have to pay taxes in order to pay for the debt the government incurred. Not a hard concept if one has any financial sense.
If a tax cut causes a direct cost to the tax payer, would you describe an increased income tax as an increase in the tax payer's income?
Click to expand...
No it might be neutral in terms of cost to the taxpayer overall. If the tax increase is used exclusively to eliminate the deficit and lower debt, it is not increasing the cost to the taxpayer. If it is used to fund new government programs then it is an increased cost to the taxpayer[/quote]

Opportunity costs? I'm very interested to know what opportunity costs are incurred as a result of a tax cut...would you care to expand on that one?[/QUOTE]

Lets use some simple concepts to ensure you can understand them

Publically funded education. It helps to ensure a fairly well educated populace that will generally increase the economic potential of the population as a whole. A well educated workforce generally is more productive and generally helps the economy expand and grow especially compared to countries with poorly educated workforces. If a tax cut resulted in severe cuts to publically funded education, the number of people receiving a quality education will drop, reducing their economic potential and generally causing the economy to be smaller then it otherwise would be.

A smaller economy, will generally result in less wealth being generated for the majority of people, ie an indirect opporutunity cost

Another example would be freeways that might not be built or expanded resulting in people spending more times stuck in traffic, rather then doing productive activities
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Therefore a tax cut that results in a government deficit...
Click to expand...
In the most simplistic terms that even the most dense moron who does not know how to wipe his or her butt should be able to understamd, no tax cut can do this, as to run a deficit, there must also be a decision to spend more revenue than is taken in.
So... as no tax cut falls under your argument, tax cuts are not a cost.
 
Goobieman said:
In the most simplistic terms that even the most dense moron who does not know how to wipe his or her butt should be able to understamd, no tax cut can do this, as to run a deficit, there must also be a decision to spend more revenue than is taken in.
So... as no tax cut falls under your argument, tax cuts are not a cost.
Click to expand...

Yes which is why I specifically said a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts is a cost, as in DELAYED taxes.

Any deficit that is the result of a tax cut is a cost as the deficit/debt will have to be paid back by taxes.

Government spending is not free, it has to be paid for through taxes, postponing paying taxes for immediate tax cuts will result in higher taxes later


Lets use this as an analogy

Your childern have a credit card and you provide them with an allowance everyweek. You have to pay what ever they charge on the credit card although you can do it in the future. You decide to cut the allowance by 25%, but do not limit what they charge to the credit card, which they use to support the spending habits they had before. After two years, they have a credit card debt of $2000 dollars, plus interest. Which is the amount you "saved" by cutting their allowance over that time. Was the allowance cut "free" or did you just postpone the paying of it untill later.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes which is why I specifically said a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts is a cost, as in DELAYED taxes.
Click to expand...
So, as I said, the tax cut, alone, cannot cause the deficit. That means the tax cut, alone, cannot create a cost.
If the question is "is there a cost to tax cuts", you cannot answer "yes".
 
Goobieman said:
So, as I said, the tax cut, alone, cannot cause the deficit. That means the tax cut, alone, cannot create a cost.
If the question is "is there a cost to tax cuts", you cannot answer "yes".
Click to expand...

True I can not say that all tax cuts have a cost, only those that result in a deficit and increase government debt will have a cost.


So if the government is running a surplus, and taxes are cut, resulting in a balanced or slight surplus that tax cut does not have a cost. But very few governments are in that situation
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
True I can not say that all tax cuts have a cost, only those that result in a deficit and increase government debt will have a cost.
Click to expand...
Right - which cannot happen solely as a function of the tax cut, as there must be a conscious decision to spend in excess of revenue.
So, NO tax cut -necessarily- results in a deficit, and so NO tax cut -necessarily- results in a cost.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Where did I say you need to pay more taxes in my post?

I said and I will put it in bold for the challenged

A tax cut without a corresponding spending cut is not free It generally leads to a deficit which adds to the debt. Government debt has to be paid back by tax payers. A tax cut that results in a deficit is just DELAYED/POSTPONED taxes.


Now please focus on the SPENDING cut portion of the post, it may be difficult to understand but I am sure you will get it eventually
Click to expand...

its funny-if we raise taxes the dems will say that justifies more spending. Dems have to keep spending our money to buy power. They have no interest in cutting spending because that cuts their ability to buy votes and the wealth and power that comes from winning elections. They want to jack up taxes on the rich to convince the slow-witted that they are actually trying to do something about the deficit without pissing off too many voters.

Its a charade. And no, cutting taxes is not an expenditure no matter how many times you say it and not a cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom