• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep - and that simplified tax code would have lower marginal rates in order to generate the same amount of revenue. ;)
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but don't count on the whiners of fairness to give in to the premise that I should be able to keep more of what I earn.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not nearly as much more than a straight forward and simplified tax code that lacks "loopholes" (deductions, credits and exclusions) would to make the taxation of income from all sources a basic, much harder to avoid, reality. The reason that our current, massively complex, tax code has these "loopholes" is to allow our congress critters to trade them for campaign cash. We have an entire industry built around playing the "loophole" game to help (mostly rich?) folks hide their income.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that as well. Solyndra is a household name because of (as I recall) about $500 million in direct subsidies. Internal Revenue Code doles out about $1.1 TRILLION annually in subsidies. They're just indirect, so no one pays any attention to them.

The biggest loophole is the preferential tax treatment for capital gains. If we eliminate that, we put thousands of lawyers and accountants out of business whose job is to convert 'ordinary' income like our wages to capital gains taxed at far lower rates. It's been estimated half the complexity in the current Code is to deal with just that one issue - what is a "capital gain?"
 
j-mac said:
No, I don't have the time this morning to re hash, and re post ALL of the evidence of this that has been discussed on this forum since the day I joined and before...I am sure they are all in the archives, go look them up, that is if you are truly interested in objective analysis...I don't that that is the case, but if you are then you will use the search function on this forum to educate yourself before further partisan talking point blather.
Click to expand...

OK, maybe someone else will show me the evidence that has been hidden from even conservative economists who support tax cuts, and smaller government, but don't believe that tax cuts are self financing.
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely, but don't count on the whiners of fairness to give in to the premise that I should be able to keep more of what I earn.
Click to expand...

They are not the problem since taxation does not even cover spending now; the major resistance to tax simplification is from those taking advantage of the loopholes; those now getting a reduced tax bill, those paid to find the loopholes and those getting campaign cash to create/protect the loopholes.
 
JasperL said:
I agree with most of that as well. Solyndra is a household name because of (as I recall) about $500 million in direct subsidies. Internal Revenue Code doles out about $1.1 TRILLION annually in subsidies. They're just indirect, so no one pays any attention to them.

The biggest loophole is the preferential tax treatment for capital gains. If we eliminate that, we put thousands of lawyers and accountants out of business whose job is to convert 'ordinary' income like our wages to capital gains taxed at far lower rates. It's been estimated half the complexity in the current Code is to deal with just that one issue - what is a "capital gain?"
Click to expand...

Many "capital gains" are not gains at all. merely the change (mostly due to inflation) in the fair market value of an asset. If I buy an asset (at fair market price) for say $100K and later sell that same asset (at fair market price) for say $110K I still have only enough money to buy that same asset (at fair market price) not enough to buy it and have $10K left as "income". The fact that an asset's fair market value has changed (between the buying and selling times) should not be seen as income at all. I will agree, however, that taxation of interest and dividend income should be at the same rate as "earned" income.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many "capital gains" are not gains at all. merely the change (mostly due to inflation) in the fair market value of an asset. If I buy an asset (at fair market price) for say $100K and later sell that same asset (at fair market price) for say $110K I still have only enough money to buy that same asset (at fair market price) not enough to buy it and have $10K left as "income". The fact that an asset's fair market value has changed (between the buying and selling times) should not be seen as income at all. I will agree, however, that taxation of interest and dividend income should be at the same rate as "earned" income.
Click to expand...

That's true, but not sufficient for the kind of break capital gains get. It might be an argument for reducing capital gains by some measure of inflation per year held. Currently, that would reduce your gain from 10k to maybe 8k if you held for one year, and then tax that at ordinary rates.

But interest income is payments for inflation, plus a risk premium, but interest income is ALL taxed as ordinary income. A business owner with profits can pay dividends, taxed at ordinary rates for most of history, or retain profits and increase the value of his company. Same with a business owner and salary. That increase in selling price due to retained profits (not paid as dividends or salary) is taxed at lower capital gains rates. Rents increase due to inflation, but we don't get a tax break on rental income. Etc.
 
JasperL said:
I've used it, cited all kinds of data, to support my basic embrace of math and evidence, which tells us tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

And Cheney agreed with you about tax cuts not needing to be paid for. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms, this [more tax cuts] is our due."
Click to expand...

Absolutely amazing, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty. Please tell me what accounting teacher ever told you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to any entity? You claim to be an expert on taxes? Wow, this is stunning.

As for Cheney, since when did you ever listen or believe anything he says or said? Deficits don't matter as long as you get something for those deficits, Reagan got 17 million jobs, doubling of GDP, 60% growth in FIT, and a peace dividend. Not bad for 1.7 trillion dollars!!!

Obama has added over 7 TRILLION and what have we gotten for it?
 
j-mac said:
No, I don't have the time this morning to re hash, and re post ALL of the evidence of this that has been discussed on this forum since the day I joined and before...I am sure they are all in the archives, go look them up, that is if you are truly interested in objective analysis...I don't that that is the case, but if you are then you will use the search function on this forum to educate yourself before further partisan talking point blather.
Click to expand...

No he isn't interested in objective analysis because it is easier to buy what you are told rather than do the research. What most liberals don't understand is that Income taxes have only been cut three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and every time the Treasury reports more revenue to the Treasury in that important category. Many don't understand the concept of economic activity and how it boosts govt. revenue including Income tax revenue. The numbers are there for all to see, I just get tired of posting them only to be ignored.
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely amazing, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty. Please tell me what accounting teacher ever told you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to any entity? You claim to be an expert on taxes? Wow, this is stunning.
Click to expand...

It's not an expense, it's a drop in revenue, which my accounting teachers and common sense tells me must be offset with spending cuts for most entities, else they run deficits/losses. And as it happens, whether we debit expenses (increasing expenses) or debit revenues (which is a decrease in revenues) the effect on the profit or loss is identical. Reduces profits, increases deficits, however you want to say it.

But that's not the issue - my point is tax cuts, based on math and evidence, don't increase revenues.

As for Cheney, since when did you ever listen or believe anything he says or said? Deficits don't matter as long as you get something for those deficits, Reagan got 17 million jobs, doubling of GDP, 60% growth in FIT, and a peace dividend. Not bad for 1.7 trillion dollars!!!

Obama has added over 7 TRILLION and what have we gotten for it?
Click to expand...

OK, so sometimes you agree with deficits, sometimes you don't. What does that have to do with the notion that tax cuts do or don't pay for themselves?
 
Conservative said:
No he isn't interested in objective analysis because it is easier to buy what you are told rather than do the research. What most liberals don't understand is that Income taxes have only been cut three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and every time the Treasury reports more revenue to the Treasury in that important category. Many don't understand the concept of economic activity and how it boosts govt. revenue including Income tax revenue. The numbers are there for all to see, I just get tired of posting them only to be ignored.
Click to expand...

OK, if tax cuts boost revenue, then tax increases must cause a drop in revenue. Based on your objective analysis, why did tax revenues increase two and a half times faster under Clinton, after tax rate increases, than under Reagan?

More jobs were created in the Clinton era than the Reagan era.
GDP grew about 33% in both 8 year periods.
Under Reagan, real tax revenues increased by 20%, or less than GDP growth.
Under Clinton, real tax revenues increased by 47%, or well in excess of GDP growth.
Based on that, it would surprise no one that Reagan cut tax rates, and Clinton raised rates.

And to pay for the ACA, should Congress have just passed another couple rounds of TAX CUTS?

Finally, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is rejected by conservative economists - men who worked for Reagan, W. and others, who want lower taxes and smaller government. You should let them know about the evidence they are missing.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
It's not an expense, it's a drop in revenue, which my accounting teachers and common sense tells me must be offset with spending cuts for most entities, else they run deficits/losses. And as it happens, whether we debit expenses (increasing expenses) or debit revenues (which is a decrease in revenues) the effect on the profit or loss is identical. Reduces profits, increases deficits, however you want to say it.

But that's not the issue - my point is tax cuts, based on math and evidence, don't increase revenues.



OK, so sometimes you agree with deficits, sometimes you don't. What does that have to do with the notion that tax cuts do or don't pay for themselves?
Click to expand...

How do you explain Reagan cutting Federal Income taxes and increasing Federal Income tax revenue by 60%? How do you explain Bush cutting income taxes in 2003 and generating over 500 billion more in Federal Income Tax revenue? You simply have no concept of how our economy operates and grows due to people like you keeping more of what they earn. These numbers are available that the U.S. Treasury website. You need to actually do some research as to what the leftwing is telling you

I agree with deficits only when they generate results like Reagan had, Obama has done nothing to grow govt. revenue or the economy and the 7 trillion in debt he has amassed now takes the debt over 100% of GDP. Name for me one modern day President with that record? Please stop claiming that you keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) have to be paid for but the reality is the JFK, Reagan, and Bush INCOME tax cuts were paid for by strong economic growth and job creation that grew Federal Income tax revenue
 
I went to vote and my voters registration card was not enough so I had to produce a photo ID. I thought a VRC was good enough but apparently not. While I am for the photo ID law they need to stop paying out for printing VRCs if they are no good anymore.
 
Conservative said:
How do you explain Reagan cutting Federal Income taxes and increasing Federal Income tax revenue by 60%? How do you explain Bush cutting income taxes in 2003 and generating over 500 billion more in Federal Income Tax revenue? You simply have no concept of how our economy operates and grows due to people like you keeping more of what they earn. These numbers are available that the U.S. Treasury website. You need to actually do some research as to what the leftwing is telling you.
Click to expand...

I've been through most of it before. Revenue increases with inflation, increases in the population, and due to economic growth that happens with or without the tax cuts. The total revenue figures for Reagan include payroll taxes not affected in any way by the income tax changes, in fact Reagan increased payroll tax rates, which caused, as predicted, large increases in payroll tax revenues. Also, too, corporate income taxes increased and are included in that total, but aren't affected by individual income tax rates. The Reagan miracle story assumes all that happened good in the economy was the result of tax rate changes, and so all economic growth is attributed to tax rates, when in fact research shows taxes have a small overall effect on national economic growth - real but small.

Point is you're taking two numbers - total tax revenues in 1982 I assume, and total tax revenues in 1989 - and then saying that ALL of the changes in those numbers is due to the change in the top tax rate. It's a bogus analysis, and ignores inflation, pop growth, increases in payroll tax rates, etc.

Furthermore, to emphasize, if tax cuts increase revenue, then tax increases MUST reduce revenue. But somehow, after Clinton raised rates, revenue increased two and a half times greater than under Reagan. You can't explain that and work those results into your theory.

Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.
 
JasperL said:
Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.
Click to expand...
Actually it takes greater political courage to cut spending and balance a budget. All politicians love to spend the public's money without any regard for the long term consequences.
 
JasperL;1063914799]I've been through most of it before. Revenue increases with inflation, increases in the population, and due to economic growth that happens with or without the tax cuts. The total revenue figures for Reagan include payroll taxes not affected in any way by the income tax changes, in fact Reagan increased payroll tax rates, which caused, as predicted, large increases in payroll tax revenues. Also, too, corporate income taxes increased and are included in that total, but aren't affected by individual income tax rates. The Reagan miracle story assumes all that happened good in the economy was the result of tax rate changes, and so all economic growth is attributed to tax rates, when in fact research shows taxes have a small overall effect on national economic growth - real but small.
Click to expand...

Really? so 17 million new taxpayers didn't have an effect? Interesting logic on your part. If you are married ask your spouse what happens when you have more money in your pay check. Further stop with the payroll tax increase as it has absolutely nothing to do with Federal income tax revenue. You can easily get the income tax revenue from the Treasury website but apparently you are too buried in liberal rhetoric to do that which makes you a waste of time

Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and a consumer driven GDP is affected by that revenue. You just don't get it and never will

Point is you're taking two numbers - total tax revenues in 1982 I assume, and total tax revenues in 1989 - and then saying that ALL of the changes in those numbers is due to the change in the top tax rate. It's a bogus analysis, and ignores inflation, pop growth, increases in payroll tax rates, etc.
Click to expand...

Wrong, I am talking only about FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Furthermore, to emphasize, if tax cuts increase revenue, then tax increases MUST reduce revenue. But somehow, after Clinton raised rates, revenue increased two and a half times greater than under Reagan. You can't explain that and work those results into your theory.
Click to expand...

Without economic activity growth yes, but Reagan's tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, and JFK tax cuts created more taxpayers, a concept that you will never understand

Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world does the govt. need the money more than the people. Ever figure out why that is?
 
Grant said:
Actually it takes greater political courage to cut spending and balance a budget. All politicians love to spend the public's money without any regard for the long term consequences.
Click to expand...

Of course, I agree.

If you want to cut taxes, it takes political courage to offset those tax cuts with spending cuts - those who are affected object.
If you want to increase spending, it also takes political courage to raise taxes to pay for the increases in spending. No one likes to pay higher taxes.

But what takes no courage at all is spending more money, and then pretending that you can pay for that spending by cutting taxes. Life is never that easy. But that is the myth Republicans push to justify tax cuts as a solution to any problem.
 
JasperL said:
What's your point? Bush cut tax rates and had a GOP House and Senate. Deficits increased.

Clinton also raised marginal rates, and raised payroll taxes. Are you saying the 47% real increase in tax revenues during the Clinton years was due to tax cuts on capital gains? Or that the capital gains tax cut is what fueled the tech boom and the millions of jobs created?

We can all make random statements all day long, but I'm missing the principle you're trying to get across. There is or is not a Tax Santa Clause (i.e. tax rate cuts pay for themselves). I don't believe in a Tax Santa Clause - tax rate cuts decrease revenues, as math tells us they will.
Click to expand...


It's not random.

Clinton " balanced the budget " with a Republican House.

Who allocates money in our Government ?

And Bush was handed a Democrats House in 2006.
 
Conservative said:
Really? so 17 million new taxpayers didn't have an effect? Interesting logic on your part. If you are married ask your spouse what happens when you have more money in your pay check. Further stop with the payroll tax increase as it has absolutely nothing to do with Federal income tax revenue. You can easily get the income tax revenue from the Treasury website but apparently you are too buried in liberal rhetoric to do that which makes you a waste of time
Click to expand...

Of course they make a difference. But two points - the new jobs aren't all attributable to changes in tax rates, and 2) what changes are the result of the tax cuts aren't large enough to pay for the tax cuts. I said it, you ignored me.

Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and a consumer driven GDP is affected by that revenue. You just don't get it and never will
Click to expand...

I accept that entirely. But all that means is $1 in nominal tax cuts will reduce tax revenue by some amount less than $1. The estimates are broad based tax cuts "cost" only about 80cents to 99cents if the tax cut is offset with spending cuts - i.e. not financed by higher deficits. If deficit financed, the $1 in tax cuts might cost MORE than $1.

But for tax cuts to pay for themselves, a $1 in nominal tax cut costs less than ZERO. It allegedly RAISES revenue.

Wrong, I am talking only about FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

No you're not, which I knew because I've looked at the numbers. Total nominal revenues, including individual income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate income taxes went up by 60.4%. Individual income taxes increased by 49.7%. And to put more perspective on it, payroll taxes increased by 177 billion over those 8 years, individual income taxes by only 160 billion. Payroll taxes were fully 45% of increased revenues during the Reagan years.

Nominal Individual income taxes increased by 83.1% during the Clinton years. Clinton added more jobs, but payroll taxes only accounted for 32% of total increases in revenues.

See Table 2.1 Historical Tables | The White House

Without economic activity growth yes, but Reagan's tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, and JFK tax cuts created more taxpayers, a concept that you will never understand
Click to expand...

There's nothing difficult to understand. If the tax rate cuts of Reagan had so large an effect on the economy that they RAISED revenues, then income tax increases should harm the economy and LOSE revenue, but that didn't happen. Clinton raised rates and the economy created more jobs in those 8 years than during the Reagan years. Bottom line is income tax rates have a significant but minor effect on economic growth, and that's why they do not pay for themselves.

Only in the liberal world does the govt. need the money more than the people. Ever figure out why that is?
Click to expand...

Not the point. Either we can or cannot pay for spending with more tax cuts. People in the reality based world know spending increases require tax increases, such as occurred with ACA.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
There's always a good excuse for GOPers to spend more money, while cutting taxes. But if you look at the record, the GOP and Bush II expanded non-defense domestic spending more than any POTUS since LBJ.
Click to expand...

Just as there's always a good excuse for Dems to argue for retreat and defeat. See? Two can play that game. The spending bills in question enjoyed broad Dem support.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I believe it's the same entity that is currently allocating some 600B or so more than they're taking in in revenues.
Click to expand...

So now no celebrating Obama's deficit reduction initiatives ?
 
Jack Hays said:
Just as there's always a good excuse for Dems to argue for retreat and defeat. See? Two can play that game. The spending bills in question enjoyed broad Dem support.
Click to expand...

If I made a claim that democrats were fiscally conservative and tried like heck to cut spending and were foiled by the dastardly republicans, then me and those apologizing for GOP fiscal results by shifting blame to democrats would be making equivalent arguments.

Bottom line is I just get tired of the same old stuff. REAGAN cut taxes, but it was passed with a majority democrat House. But the same DEMOCRATS who get no credit for the "Reagan" tax cuts are the sole reason for big spending. Same story different verse for every era. For some reason, republicans just aren't to blame for anything bad (e.g. spending), but get credit for everything good (e.g. tax cuts). Clinton balanced the budget - REPUBLICAN HOUSE!!! Etc.

Frankly over the last 34 years, it seems to me the democrats have a more fiscally responsible approach, which is why to the extent I identify with a party, it's with the Democratic party. But obviously both parties like to spend and are hesitant to tax, but only one has pledged to their maker and Grover Norquist to NEVER raise taxes, even after they increase spending.
 
JasperL said:
If I made a claim that democrats were fiscally conservative and tried like heck to cut spending and were foiled by the dastardly republicans, then me and those apologizing for GOP fiscal results by shifting blame to democrats would be making equivalent arguments.

Bottom line is I just get tired of the same old stuff. REAGAN cut taxes, but it was passed with a majority democrat House. But the same DEMOCRATS who get no credit for the "Reagan" tax cuts are the sole reason for big spending. Same story different verse for every era. For some reason, republicans just aren't to blame for anything bad (e.g. spending), but get credit for everything good (e.g. tax cuts). Clinton balanced the budget - REPUBLICAN HOUSE!!! Etc.

Frankly over the last 34 years, it seems to me the democrats have a more fiscally responsible approach, which is why to the extent I identify with a party, it's with the Democratic party. But obviously both parties like to spend and are hesitant to tax, but only one has pledged to their maker and Grover Norquist to NEVER raise taxes, even after they increase spending.
Click to expand...

RWR's relationship with Congress was complex and I don't feel like unwrapping that this evening. I'll just say that RWR's stature does not depend on tax cuts, but on the combination of Cold War victory and the foundation for a generation of prosperity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom