• 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
Because people like you have run up our national debt so high because of the decreases in taxes while waging four wars at one time and allowed so much of our nations' wealth to be outsourced to China and India and profiting on it while wage earners have had their wealth decrease.

that is beyond moronic

why don't you try to remotely prove it. its the entitlement nonsense started with the New Deal that costs the big bucks.

and businesses outsource because of two reasons

1) a business is designed to make a profit

2) and dems have created an environment that retards the making of profits

try again
 
ROFL now it all makes sense.

But it's all ok Turtle Dude don't let mere math get in the way of your truthiness.

how does math create a definition

you obviously think revenue and costs are the same thing

I do not
 
that is beyond moronic

No. It's just as moronic as your stance.

why don't you try to remotely prove it. its the entitlement nonsense started with the New Deal that costs the big bucks.

and businesses outsource because of two reasons

1) a business is designed to make a profit

2) and dems have created an environment that retards the making of profits

try again

So what you're saying is that in order to better our country economically, we have to have an abused labor underclass similar to India's and China's?
 
how does math create a definition

you obviously think revenue and costs are the same thing

I do not

Where did I say that revenue and cost are the same thing? I said that they produce the same result. A decrease in 500 in revenue has the same net value as a increase in cost of 500.
 
No. It's just as moronic as your stance.



So what you're saying is that in order to better our country economically, we have to have an abused labor underclass similar to India's and China's?

uh that is not responsive. Hiking taxes on the top 2% does not help an abused underclass. Weaning them off of dependency and ending the enabling of social pathologies would go alot farther in improving their lot than buying their votes with handouts and waging war on the wealthy with idiotic tax hikes.

but it is clear you have no clue about the raison d'etre of a corporation and its not to supply you with a job or to pay taxes to greedy bureaucrats
 
Where did I say that revenue and cost are the same thing? I said that they produce the same result. A decrease in 500 in revenue has the same net value as a increase in cost of 500.

no it doesn't either unless what you get for the spending is the same as what you do not have to expend to foresake the revenue.
 
No. It's just as moronic as your stance.



So what you're saying is that in order to better our country economically, we have to have an abused labor underclass similar to India's and China's?

We already do. They are called Mexicans.
 
Where did I say that revenue and cost are the same thing? I said that they produce the same result. A decrease in 500 in revenue has the same net value as a increase in cost of 500.

Then why not decrease our costs and let people keep their money to spend, spending money is what get's economy going correct?
 
uh that is not responsive. Hiking taxes on the top 2% does not help an abused underclass. Weaning them off of dependency and ending the enabling of social pathologies would go alot farther in improving their lot than buying their votes with handouts and waging war on the wealthy with idiotic tax hikes.

but it is clear you have no clue about the raison d'etre of a corporation and its not to supply you with a job or to pay taxes to greedy bureaucrats

I understand perfectly why corporations exist.
 
Then why not decrease our costs and let people keep their money to spend, spending money is what get's economy going correct?

Not when that money is spent in other countries.
 
People with incomes over 250k aren’t necessarily owners of huge companies with lots of employees and expanding corporations. Some are actually small businesses. To assume that this particular tiny group of small businesses expanded their employee base simply because they paid a few percentile less in income tax is ridiculous.

That's probably true. I frankly never heard of any business not expanding because of income tax changes. They generally don't expand because they can't get credit.

Furthermore, as I understand the spending habits of the rich, it's far more about their net wealth rather then annual income liabilities. So increasing taxes won't have the same impact upon their marginal propensity to consume as say changes in the stock market. While the rich do make up something like 37% of the domestic consumer market (massive to say the least), the impact of taxes verse changes in wealth upon their spending becomes a real issue in times like these.

While the rich can sit on it.. which is exactly what they are doing.

You basically just went the long way in explaining that the rich have higher marginal propensity to save then the middle class and thus expanding the discretionary spending of the middle class ensures greater money velocity in the economy. I don't disagree.

I don't see why creating tax incentives for increased spending in the private sector are not on the table.. IE: If you expand your employment base in your business then you get X % in tax breaks. Ether way the employer is going to be out the money so why not invest it in their assets?

What makes you think they aren't? Obama in the stimulus enacted a verbatim Bush tax incentive for increasing private sector spending via bonus depreciation. And he's now pushing an amped up Bush R&D credit to get more spending. As for employment related credits, it's questionable. Generally, businesses are not hiring because the added cost of a worker does not exceed their potential profit. To incentivize hiring, we'd need a credit that would reduce the cost substantially and thereby increase potential profit. But we'd need to ensure this credit existed for some time. That's bloody expensive.

I once heard an economist explain that tax cuts do have a one time positive effect then after that has passed they don’t really have any benefit.

I think this depends on the type of tax and the level of change.

But the suggestion was, if I remember correctly, that the economy normalises in following years and all you have as a result is less tax revenue. This would explain to some degree how economies with much higher taxation can still be very robust.

Probably that happens to a degree with all cuts, but moving from high rates to reasonable does likely cause more workers to work more. Which should increase revenue. The question is what rate does that occur at? Like all Pareto Efficiency Frontiers, the Laffer Curve is just speculation.

I see a huge albatross hanging on the US government deficit spending in military spending. The increase in spending on the military is quite nearly viewable as the equivalent of being one big social spending project.

That's without question. But you should realize that the big spending does result in lots of commercial products. It is amusing to realize that the strongest anti-Socialist/Anti-government involvement people are the biggest backers of military spending yet the military is functionally a quasi-command economy industrial arm of the US government. Lots of people have no idea that their beliefs are inherently contradictory.

cutting spending on this will just hurt with little to no social benefits derived at all. The US government is spending the same sorts of resources if not more in some cases as a socialist nation but without the positive social benefits.(gdp costs of healthcare is a primary example) Military spending should be cut and cut hard.

Not sure about that. We get alot of stuff from military spending. Prosthetic right now are expanding into real viable, useful and advance replacement parts. Well beyond what existed even 5 years ago. And that's military funded. When that eventually moves to the civilian market, the value will be immense. There is social benefit to military spending. But I agree that the cost is high.

Clearly a flat tax would increase the percentage of tax paid on the lower income brackets and put a damper on consumption.

Potentially. Many flat tax ideas have exemptions for the poor to reduce the regressive nature. The biggest problem with flat tax is that it would be done by Congress who will make it anything but simple.

If you could strip away the data to see just how much small private business expanded their enterprises as a direct result of tax breaks for incomes over 250k I do not think you will see much economic benefit or expansion of tax base if any at all comparatively speaking.

Now that would be a worthy project of a grad student in economics.
 
Then why not decrease our costs and let people keep their money to spend, spending money is what get's economy going correct?

That's not my my point I don't care if you decrease revenue and reduce spending or increase revenue and increase spending. My point is that tax cuts must be compensated for and effectively always have a cost. No one seems to have refuted that so far.
 
That's not my my point I don't care if you decrease revenue and reduce spending or increase revenue and increase spending. My point is that tax cuts must be compensated for and effectively always have a cost. No one seems to have refuted that so far.

its funny that those who push for higher taxes on the rich also push for massive social spending
 
it has lots the do with the thread though

No, the thread is clearly about the cost of tax cuts, what you are talking about is off topic. If you don't wan't to discuss the cost off tax cuts then go make another thread.
 
No, the thread is clearly about the cost of tax cuts, what you are talking about is off topic. If you don't wan't to discuss the cost off tax cuts then go make another thread.

I will go where I please but tax cuts are not a cost, they are a dimunition of revenue (in some cases) for the government. A cost is something that requires an affirmative duty to pay for. libs try to use this BS to convince the weakminded that cutting taxes for people who already pay too much of the tax burden is no different than giving others handouts. that is the entire reason for the leftwing mantra that tax cuts need to be paid for (yet you never hear them saying welfare and other handouts need to be paid for except by the rich_)
 
Lowering available revenue is not a cost.
 
Lowering available revenue is not a cost.

which is what I have been saying for days yet the wealth stealers ridiculed that concept. The reason why is obvious.
 
which is what I have been saying for days yet the wealth stealers ridiculed that concept. The reason why is obvious.
Losing an infantry company in combat is a cost.
Not having that infantry company to begin with is not.
 
Losing an infantry company in combat is a cost.
Not having that infantry company to begin with is not.

a most excellent analogy.
 
Hey! How many men in a trypical armored cavalry company?

don't know-I never was in an armored cavalry company. I'm having lunch with my nephew tomorrow-he'd know-he's back from Iraq and going to Afghanistan in the SF
 
don't know-I never was in an armored cavalry company. I'm having lunch with my nephew tomorrow-he'd know-he's back from Iraq and going to Afghanistan in the SF
Trick question! Cav units have troops, not companies.
 
Back
Top Bottom