• 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 An Expense To The Federal Government

Then we better do something about the "moocher" people in the red states.

food-stamp-graphic-500x466.jpg

thank direct taxes for that which many people support and your chart gives reference to !

direct taxes are nothing more but a way of the federal government collecting tax money out of states and then redistributing to the states based on what they federal government wants and them also using it as leverage[carrot and stick] against the states ...ie... sanctuary cities.


So for those people who are complaining that CA pays more taxes that go to other states who pay less........WELL think direct taxes for that like Income and Corporate for doing it.


get rid of direct taxes and go back to commerce taxes and solve the problem
 
Last edited:
When, exactly does lower rates mean more revenue for the government?

While running for president in 1980, George H. W. Bush called the claim that cutting taxes on rich people will create enough economic activity that revenues will actually rise, “voodoo economic policy.” Under Reagan, he cut taxes and revenue slumped -- so much that he had to raise taxes (I mean introduce "revenue enhancers.")

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Republicans predicted disaster, but instead the economy boomed, creating more jobs than under Reagan and much more revenue. GW Bush slashed taxes and revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth, never attained 2000 levels and economic and job growth was under-par. Yet, conservatives clench the discredited theory with both hands.

interesting historical revisionism but clinton benefitted from two things

belt tightening fortune 500 companies and others did under Bush that resulted in more efficiencies and profit margins a few years later

dot com bubble. Clinton benefitted from good timing that prevented his tax hikes from depressing the economy.

you also labor under the delusion that the government having more money to waste is a good thing.
 
that is less objectionable but capital gains should be very lightly taxed. But then again, I oppose the concept of income taxes to start with

I disagree.

It is ridiculous that capital gains are taxed less than income.

And I am an investor - so almost all of my income comes from capital gains.

You know full well that the truly wealthy make almost all of their income through capital gains. It is just not right that they can pay no tax (if they work it right) on astounding amounts of capital income.

Everyone above the poverty line should pay their fair share - no matter how they make it. And tax revenues should be much smaller (fat chance of that).


For the record...I am also strongly for eliminating corporate tax completely...it is - in essence - just a double tax as the costs are just passed on by the corporations.

And - I would be fine with dropping the rates from my previous 0%/15%/20% to 0%/10%/20%.

Hell...drop 'em lower if it will go through and the budget can be balanced.
 
Last edited:
interesting historical revisionism but clinton benefitted from two things

belt tightening fortune 500 companies and others did under Bush that resulted in more efficiencies and profit margins a few years later

dot com bubble. Clinton benefitted from good timing that prevented his tax hikes from depressing the economy.

you also labor under the delusion that the government having more money to waste is a good thing.
You still didn't answer the quest about when did lowering tax rates causally result in more revenue?
 
I find that hard to believe. Didn't Trump brag about exploiting loopholes, that made him "smart", on national television, inside of a year ago?

Exploiting loopholes already in place is not the same as agreeing with those loopholes.

If you make toilet seats and the government wants to buy $600 toilet seats, while you may think that said seats are way too costly and way too over engineered, you'd be a fool to not provide those seats.

Same with eminent domain and taxes. No one pays more taxes than required, even if you think the child or mortgage deduction should not happen, you'd be a fool to do otherwise.
 
You still didn't answer the quest about when did lowering tax rates causally result in more revenue?

check out the Kennedy and Reagan administrations
 
I disagree.

It is ridiculous that capital gains are taxed less than income.

And I am an investor - so almost all of my income comes from capital gains.

You know full well that the truly wealthy make almost all of their income through capital gains. It is just not right that they can pay no tax (if they work it right) on astounding amounts of capital income.

Everyone above the poverty line should pay their fair share - no matter how they make it. And tax revenues should be much smaller (fat chance of that).


For the record...I am also strongly for eliminating corporate tax completely...it is - in essence - just a double tax as the costs are just passed on by the corporations.

the rich are way overtaxed.

even if capital gains were taxed at 5%, the really rich would still pay far far far more than their fair share no matter how that term is OBJECTIVELY defined
 
check out the Kennedy and Reagan administrations
Already addressed Reagan. He lowered taxes -- revenue fell and stayed down with the economy. Then, in 1983, the Fed lowered interest rates and everything revived. That was causal. The tax-cuts were not.

Kennedy lowered rates from 91% (over the rate that economists believe is a disincentive) down to 70%. Are you advocating going back to a 70% top rate? Let's do it!
 
not true. sometimes a lower rate means more revenue for the government. you pretend that tax raises or decreases have no other impact on the economy. Thus you are wrong

It's my view that any burst in consumption at the lower end, is offset by missed revenue on high income earners. This chart shows that people taking home high incomes, do not spend extra money, or reinvest it in the economy, like we are led to believe. If people continue to lie to the American public, by telling them that tax cuts on high incomes are spent or reinvested in the economy, it won't be long before people stop believing them.

netsavingsbyincome2012.jpg

After Reagan's '81 tax bill, he then raised taxes, when revenue did not match expectations. If tax cuts generated revenue, then Reagan wouldn't have needed to raise taxes to capture any revenue at all. But, tax cuts do not increase revenue, they have the common sense effect. Lower the tax rate, lower the revenue.
 
Already addressed Reagan. He lowered taxes -- revenue fell and stayed down with the economy. Then, in 1983, the Fed lowered interest rates and everything revived. That was causal. The tax-cuts were not.

Kennedy lowered rates from 91% (over the rate that economists believe is a disincentive) down to 70%. Are you advocating going back to a 70% top rate? Let's do it!

you are being dishonest now. Kennedy proved my point and you change the goal posts. we get the fact that you want to punish the wealthy and that you want to grow the government. I do not. And I really don't care if tax cuts "cost" the government money. The government is far far bloated beyond its borders and needs to be starved rather severely. Those who have become addicted to sucking from the public tits need to go on a diet. Your existence is not a just claim on the wealth, work or enterprise of others.
 
Its isnt. Its about 20-30% depending on who you consider RICH.


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f.../49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes-2.pdf

page 9

Interesting...but that ratio has got to be mostly for people I consider 'comfortable', not 'rich'.

To me, rich is you never have to work again and just on the interest you live on, you still lead a wealthy lifestyle...probably about $20-$25 million net worth minimum (at least a $1,000,000 per year AFTER taxes/fees/inflation).
 
Last edited:
Then we better do something about the "moocher" people in the red states.

food-stamp-graphic-500x466.jpg

Don't forget the south was a democrat strong hold until recently. The poor always bear the brunt of low economic growth and high levels of unskilled immigration.
 
It's unacceptable to wish to starve the government of revenue, while telling the American people, that your policy generates revenue. I understand believing in smaller government. But, tax cuts must be accompanied with dramatic cuts to the DoD or, you lose all crediblity. I do not wish to starve the government of revenue, because I believe in our government and I love this country. I'd like to see how far we can go into the future, not how far we can retreat into the Articles of Confederation.
 
the rich are way overtaxed.

even if capital gains were taxed at 5%, the really rich would still pay far far far more than their fair share no matter how that term is OBJECTIVELY defined

Fair share has nothing to do with the total amount. It has to do with the percentage of their income they pay. Everyone - who is not poor - should pay (ideally) EXACTLY the same tax rate. It is not possible to get more 'fair' than that (above the poverty line).
There is NOTHING truly 'fair' about a billionaire paying at a 5% tax rate while a middle class, worker has to pay about 20%.
Anyone who thinks that is fair, needs to have their head examined - no offense.

But, I sense you are set in your thought pattern on this...as I probably am (more or less).

So....good day.
 
It's my view that any burst in consumption at the lower end, is offset by missed revenue on high income earners. This chart shows that people taking home high incomes, do not spend extra money, or reinvest it in the economy, like we are led to believe. If people continue to lie to the American public, by telling them that tax cuts on high incomes are spent or reinvested in the economy, it won't be long before people stop believing them.

View attachment 67216723

After Reagan's '81 tax bill, he then raised taxes, when revenue did not match expectations. If tax cuts generated revenue, then Reagan wouldn't have needed to raise taxes to capture any revenue at all. But, tax cuts do not increase revenue, they have the common sense effect. Lower the tax rate, lower the revenue.

So would you propose the Feds follow the example of California and continually raise taxes on the rich to cover spending?

In 2015, @ 5,600 people in California provided @ 30% of the tax revenue generated. That's among a working population of roughly 17 million.
 
So would you propose the Feds follow the example of California and continually raise taxes on the rich to cover spending?

In 2015, @ 5,600 people in California provided @ 30% of the tax revenue generated. That's among a working population of roughly 17 million.

I would propose cuts to defense, hikes in capital gains, raising the cap on taxable income, single-payer, state-paid tuition, and ending the war on drugs.
 
I would propose cuts to defense, hikes in capital gains, raising the cap on taxable income, single-payer, state-paid tuition, and ending the war on drugs.

Well, I guess paying for all that is for someone else to figure out.
 
Well, I guess paying for all that is for someone else to figure out.

Revenue is our money. Choosing what we do with it, is a group effort. If we choose as a society to invest in education and healthcare, it will payout dividends.

If you want to play that card.. Who pays for the bomb we drop on the Middle East? Just like you disdain paying for someone else's healthcare, I disdain paying for someone else's war.
 
To add to that, taking less from someone isn't giving them anything.

To add to that, those arguments presume that all money belongs to the government, and therefore all personal income exists because of the government's benevolence. That argument is exactly backwards. Government produces nothing and has no source of income other than what it can extract from it's constituents.
 
Revenue is our money. Choosing what we do with it, is a group effort. If we choose as a society to invest in education and healthcare, it will payout dividends.

If you want to play that card.. Who pays for the bomb we drop on the Middle East? Just like you disdain paying for someone else's healthcare, I disdain paying for someone else's war.

I get we are polar opposites ideologically. And I agree, tax revenue is our money. Choosing what to do with it is reflected by those we elect to government office.

Win some, lose some.
 
<snip>

So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".

What you are not taking into account is that the tax code affects people's behavior. Make the tax code and/or regulation/mandates too expensive for the rich and they take their businesses, investments, commerce, and industry along with the jobs they generate to more tax/regulation friendly places. The rich don't get rich by managing their resources unwisely. Does them being encouraged to take their money elsewhere help us out here in the USA? I think not.

Take away attractive deductions from people who benefit from them and they may not feel like they can afford to help fund that museum exhibit or the new hospital wing or it makes more sense or it is more affordable to rent a place than buy one which lowers housing values and eliminates countless jobs for millions.

To assume that if you change the tax code to benefit the government, that everything else will stay the same is not at all the way to look at it.
 
Yes it is

Not an argument.

a tax cut is a free pay raise just like any other handout.

Spoke like a true statist subject, what utter bass ackwards thinking.

The person paying the tax isn't the one with their hand out. Your pay is your own, it doesn't belong to the government first. Their taking less from you is not a pay raise, your gross income has not changed. The state being less taxing isn't doing you a favor, its being less of a burden.

Also, most importantly, your income, or any pay raise you earn, is NOT a hand out. It is the very opposite of a handout, slave.
 
Back
Top Bottom