• 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

Neomalthusian said:
The United States government is monetarily sovereign, so its ability to suspend is not directly affected by changes in tax rates or even changes in tax revenue.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. I should have started each of those statements with, "In the absence of deficit spending and with the knowledge that tax collection is not necessary for gov't spending, the answer is ..."

I assumed your points were thought exercises, and I answered in the common vernacular that tax revenue is necessary for government expenditure. Which, while procedurally it is not, it is politically necessary.

Partisan arguments about tax cuts and government spending are wrought with double standards. The only semi-intelligent place this discussion could go is in discussing the merits of the modern macroeconomic orthodoxy, i.e., whether deficits really do matter, whether the federal budget needs to be more in balance, or whether larger deficit spending is better under current circumstances.

Rewind to 2010, the stimulus that was pushed through was effectuated significantly by way of tax cuts. Tax cuts are one of the administratively easiest ways to increase deficits in order to try to get away from recessions and depressions.

The partisan rhetoric about "cutting assistance to the poor to pay for tax cuts for billionaires" is extremely idiotic. No expenditure needs to be cut in order to "pay for" tax cuts, because tax cuts aren't an expense. Also, income taxes are not the taxes that affect billionaires.
Click to expand...

While that (bolded) is literally true, the political climate in this country is such that at least the appearance of an attempt to balance spending with revenues must be upheld.
 
jonny5 said:
40 billion is 1% of 4000 billion, which is what the govt spends every year. And I said its a start. Especially considering CBO expects spending to grow by 120 billion this year, about 3%.
Click to expand...
You're right, one percent of the budget is $40 billion. What makes you think you can cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense by 1%? Social Security and Medicare are entitlements that people paid for. Medicaid is needed by the poor. Please explain the morality of cutting seniors and the poor so that the rich can avoid tax increases.
 
MTAtech said:
You're right, one percent of the budget is $40 billion. What makes you think you can cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense by 1%? Social Security and Medicare are entitlements that people paid for. Medicaid is needed by the poor. Please explain the morality of cutting seniors and the poor so that the rich can avoid tax increases.
Click to expand...

Easy, its the rich's property. No one else is 'entitled' to their earnings. Explain to me the morality of taking from one person and giving to another, against their consent. Or the morality of helping people who can help themselves.
 
jonny5 said:
Easy, its the rich's property. No one else is 'entitled' to their earnings. Explain to me the morality of taking from one person and giving to another, against their consent. Or the morality of helping people who can help themselves.
Click to expand...
With all the moral fights to fight, defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money, isn't on my list -- nor should it be. I think you may have touched on the differences between rich liberals and rich conservatives. Rich liberals don't mind being taxed more for the good of the nation, while rich conservatives just care about themselves and the hell with anyone else.
 
Gaea said:
The federal government has absolute power in our society. Unless you think that Mississippi can re-institute slavery?
Click to expand...

Slavery is not part of any constitutions.
 
jonny5 said:
Easy, its the rich's property. No one else is 'entitled' to their earnings. Explain to me the morality of taking from one person and giving to another, against their consent. Or the morality of helping people who can help themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you disapprove of all taxes if the individual objects?
 
MTAtech said:
With all the moral fights to fight, defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money, isn't on my list -- nor should it be. I think you may have touched on the differences between rich liberals and rich conservatives. Rich liberals don't mind being taxed more for the good of the nation, while rich conservatives just care about themselves and the hell with anyone else.
Click to expand...

That's a completely bogus narrative.
 
MTAtech said:
Thank you for that convincing argument displaying your comprehensive and in-depth debate skills.
Click to expand...

As if your preceding comment displayed any such thing either.

"Rich liberals, inherently good, rich conservatives, inherently bad!"

That sort of tripe doesn't warrant a big expenditure of energy to construct a convincing argument. It's a puerile comment that deserves little more than an abrupt dismissal.

You come across as quite gullible.
 
MTAtech said:
With all the moral fights to fight, defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money, isn't on my list -- nor should it be. I think you may have touched on the differences between rich liberals and rich conservatives. Rich liberals don't mind being taxed more for the good of the nation, while rich conservatives just care about themselves and the hell with anyone else.
Click to expand...
you merely are saying that envy is acceptable, rich liberals support taxation because its the classic strategy of taking one step back to take two forward. Rich liberals tend to be rich BECAUSE of the government and thus support more and more government taxation. They also substitute supporting welfare socialism for actually helping others. Conservatives, of all economic strata, tend to be far more charitable-to both secular and religious based charities-then liberals. when liberals give its USUALLY to organizations that promote more socialism rather than organizations that actually help the poor
 
MTAtech said:
With all the moral fights to fight, defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money, isn't on my list -- nor should it be. I think you may have touched on the differences between rich liberals and rich conservatives. Rich liberals don't mind being taxed more for the good of the nation, while rich conservatives just care about themselves and the hell with anyone else.
Click to expand...

Rich conservatives care about rich liberals too. Thats the real difference. You have a double standard, conservatives dont.
 
MTAtech said:
You're right, one percent of the budget is $40 billion. What makes you think you can cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense by 1%? Social Security and Medicare are entitlements that people paid for. Medicaid is needed by the poor. Please explain the morality of cutting seniors and the poor so that the rich can avoid tax increases.
Click to expand...

Provide for yourself first, so that you can then provide for others. Provide for your family second, so that they do not become a burden to others. Show mercy and generosity as you see fit based on your own values and abilities. There is my morality, I believe in people more than governments.
 
Nuber said:
Provide for yourself first, so that you can then provide for others. Provide for your family second, so that they do not become a burden to others. Show mercy and generosity as you see fit based on your own values and abilities. There is my morality, I believe in people more than governments.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the U.S., the richest nation on the planet, with many many millionaires and billionaires, can't provide for the needs of the many -- something that countries far less affluent than the U.S. has already done?
 
MTAtech said:
Are you suggesting that the U.S., the richest nation on the planet, with many many millionaires and billionaires, can't provide for the needs of the many -- something that countries far less affluent than the U.S. has already done?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that we cut defense, reinvest the money at home by providing tuition free college($80 B), and then an educated population will get better jobs, that pay more taxes, stimulating revenue.
 
MTAtech said:
Are you suggesting that the U.S., the richest nation on the planet, with many many millionaires and billionaires, can't provide for the needs of the many -- something that countries far less affluent than the U.S. has already done?
Click to expand...

I suggest they shouldn't have to. People don't have the right to other people's things.
 
Winston said:
I'm suggesting that we cut defense, reinvest the money at home by providing tuition free college($80 B), and then an educated population will get better jobs, that pay more taxes, stimulating revenue.
Click to expand...

I agree, cut military spending, close some of the numerous military bases, maybe raise the retirement age for people under a certain age.
 
MTAtech said:
Are you suggesting that the U.S., the richest nation on the planet, with many many millionaires and billionaires, can't provide for the needs of the many -- something that countries far less affluent than the U.S. has already done?
Click to expand...

If we are talking about a human, or a country, I don't see how it is helpful to borrow with one hand and give with the other. We should put our own house in order first, then help others.
 
Nuber said:
If we are talking about a human, or a country, I don't see how it is helpful to borrow with one hand and give with the other. We should put our own house in order first, then help others.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure MTA was talking about helping those in our own country.
 
If the Wealthy shouldn't be taxed because its wrong to take another persons property. The we shouldn't take a poor working mans money at all.And if thats so how can your Senators take their KickBack err i mean political donations from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom