• 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
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.


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
Click to expand...

wait a minute a tax cut that causes the government to lose revenue is a cost sometimes and not a cost other times? That makes no sense. that's like saying if a company makes more profit paying for labor isn't a cost?
 
TurtleDude said:
wait a minute a tax cut that causes the government to lose revenue is a cost sometimes and not a cost other times? That makes no sense. that's like saying if a company makes more profit paying for labor isn't a cost?
Click to expand...

The cost is in the created deficit and debt

Not paying for something now and instead paying for it later still makes it a cost, just one that will be paid for at a later date
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The cost is in the created deficit and debt

Not paying for something now and instead paying for it later still makes it a cost, just one that will be paid for at a later date
Click to expand...

wrong-the issue is whether a tax cut is a cost. You are adding variables

A tax cut is not a cost. a tax cut may or may not reduce revenue. but costs are expenditures.

your point is correct in the sense that more spending and less revenues=a deficit and debt

but the fact remains tax cuts are not costs.
 
Dang! Is this thread still going? LOL, I gave up trying to explain to TurtleDude the strictly "Economic" definition of a "cost" a while back. Seems this debate has gone full circle............several times over.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Dang! Is this thread still going? LOL, I gave up trying to explain to TurtleDude the strictly "Economic" definition of a "cost" a while back. Seems this debate has gone full circle............several times over.
Click to expand...

maybe you need to admit that a cost is one thing and a lack of revenue is another. If you figured out the reason why OC started this thread you wouldn't be puzzled. Since I know the reason I am not going to accept a definition that is not accurate
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe you need to admit that a cost is one thing and a lack of revenue is another. If you figured out the reason why OC started this thread you wouldn't be puzzled. Since I know the reason I am not going to accept a definition that is not accurate
Click to expand...


economic cost
Definition: Actual sacrifice involved in performing an activity, or following a decision or course of action. It may be expressed as the total of opportunity cost (cost of employing resources in one activity than the other) and accounting costs (the cash outlays).

from BusinessDictionary.com - Online Business Dictionary
Click to expand...
Seems to me that a loss of revenue equals a sacrifice and, therefore, fits the economic definition of a cost.

Read more: economic cost definition
 
FluffyNinja said:
Seems to me that a loss of revenue equals a sacrifice and, therefore, fits the economic definition of a cost.

Read more: economic cost definition
Click to expand...

you can pick your definition but its not the only one. our business had a ledger-costs on one side, revenue on the other

why do you constantly claim that your defintion is the only one that matters? government spending costs money. Govenrment tax hikes cost money. tax reductions do not
 
TurtleDude said:
you can pick your definition but its not the only one. our business had a ledger-costs on one side, revenue on the other

why do you constantly claim that your defintion is the only one that matters? government spending costs money. Govenrment tax hikes cost money. tax reductions do not
Click to expand...
because I am looking at the economy in the "big picture" not simply in the terms of what a decision may or may not cost me monetarily as an individual. Tax cuts simply equate to "cost shifting" and that still equates to a cost....for someone. Just because people in a particular tax bracket receive a tax cut, does not mean that others in a different tax bracket will not "pick up" the cost. The solution would be tax cuts coupled with a reduction in government spending - if these two would actually balance out in a cost-benefit analysis then, and only then, would your tax cuts result in zero economic cost.
 
FluffyNinja said:
because I am looking at the economy in the "big picture" not simply in the terms of what a decision may or may not cost me monetarily as an individual. Tax cuts simply equate to "cost shifting" and that still equates to a cost....for someone. Just because people in a particular tax bracket receive a tax cut, does not mean that others in a different tax bracket will not "pick up" the cost. The solution would be tax cuts coupled with a reduction in government spending - if these two would actually balance out in a cost-benefit analysis then, and only then, would your tax cuts result in zero economic cost.
Click to expand...

1) the tax cuts actually made the top 1-2% pay more of the tax burden so obviously the "costs" were not shifted to the lower classes of tax payers

2) the people who want tax hikes only for the rich have no desire to cut spending since that would hurt them politically. Since those who want the rich to pay more also want to spend more, there is no sound reason to support more tax hikes on the rich

3) again you can call costs what you want. Using your definition you are correct. Using my definition I am right. and there is no way to prove whose definition is correct. I won't claim you are an indiot for using a overly broad definition. BUt I will note that the tax hikers claim anyone who doesn't use the definition that fits their agenda is "stupid" which is pathetic
 
Tax Cuts go well with Overall Reduced Government Spending

They should try it some time. I hear it's fabulous dahling
 
TurtleDude said:
1) the tax cuts actually made the top 1-2% pay more of the tax burden so obviously the "costs" were not shifted to the lower classes of tax payers

2) the people who want tax hikes only for the rich have no desire to cut spending since that would hurt them politically. Since those who want the rich to pay more also want to spend more, there is no sound reason to support more tax hikes on the rich

3) again you can call costs what you want. Using your definition you are correct. Using my definition I am right. and there is no way to prove whose definition is correct. I won't claim you are an indiot for using a overly broad definition. BUt I will note that the tax hikers claim anyone who doesn't use the definition that fits their agenda is "stupid" which is pathetic
Click to expand...

So, if you were in the top 1-2%, according to what you state above, you'd be screaming that the "tax cuts" resulted in an extra cost for you? Right?
 
FluffyNinja said:
So, if you were in the top 1-2%, according to what you state above, you'd be screaming that the "tax cuts" resulted in an extra cost for you? Right?
Click to expand...

nope-I would argue that the system that allows too many people to have representation without taxation causes problems that we currently have-like lots of voters thinking that the rich have the duty to solve the deficit when its actually those who get much without paying for it that cause the problems

I totally oppose any sort of differential treatment in terms of a progressive income tax unless those who statutorily have to pay more get statutory benefits above those who pay less
 
TurtleDude said:
nope-I would argue that the system that allows too many people to have representation without taxation causes problems that we currently have-like lots of voters thinking that the rich have the duty to solve the deficit when its actually those who get much without paying for it that cause the problems

I totally oppose any sort of differential treatment in terms of a progressive income tax unless those who statutorily have to pay more get statutory benefits above those who pay less
Click to expand...

Well, who are you going to tax, if not the wealthy corporations. My family originally hails from the great state of Louisiana (*cough - cough*) and in the not-so-distant past, it was the petroleum industry that carried the majority of the tax burden. Because of the cost-shifting that resulted from the "unbalanced" tax structure (as you seem to refer to it) the vast majority of middle-income and working class Louisiaians paid much lower state income and property taxes for many, many years. Are you saying that this was unfair? - it certainly did not keep the Petroleum Industry from booming - and it seemed to help keep the cost of living down for the average citizen of the state.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Indeed, :mrgreen: but I'd settle for simply the reduced spending aspect
Click to expand...

do you think those who push for the rich paying more taxes have any interest in cutting government spending
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't know if you meant to do it or not. If not, you've stumbled upon a brilliant analogy for what's happening in Washington--a bunch of children with a credit card that we're responsible for paying the bill on. Nice.

So, using your analogy, is the problem that your children's allowance is too small? Or is it that they spend every dime they can possibly can and then come back for more?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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?.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I thought the concept of speed and distance was a simple concept that you could understand. Deficit is a rate, specifically the rate of increase in debt and/or depletion of savings which is not the same as debt, and it will never turn into debt. If you cut the budget, the deficit goes away but the debt remains. Like speed, if you want to stop increasing the debt, you have to take your foot off the gas and apply the brake.


Lord Tammerlain said:
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.
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.


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
Click to expand...

If you assume that increased funding for education is the same thing as increasing the quality of education, then I understand why you would consider that an opportunity cost. Given the current state of our education system and the current level of funding, I don't understand why anyone would make that assumption....
John Stossel's 'Stupid in America' - ABC News
The Real Cost Of Public Schools - washingtonpost.com

Building freeways, bridges, etc is actually a good example. Kudos for bringing it up. That can rightly be described as an investment, where the taxpayers actually get a return from their tax dollars. It's too bad the explosion in federal spending falls more in the wasteful category rather than the investment category.

On the flip side, there's the opportunity costs associated with paying people not to work.
 
obvious Child said:
Turtledude has repetitively argued that tax cuts cost nothing, aka they are free.

So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?
Click to expand...




Tax cuts cost nothing and are free. The ****ty programs that are funded by said taxes are not free...


What a dumb troll thread.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Tax cuts cost nothing and are free. The ****ty programs that are funded by said taxes are not free...


What a dumb troll thread.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts would only be free if the increased revenue resulting from increased economic activity recovered the relative cost of government. There can (in theory) be points along the tax spectrum that can in fact be "free". However, these parameters are limited at best, as exponential output growth is necessary to achieve such a "free" label.

In reality, tax cuts are not free. Tax cuts in line with spending cuts are deficit neutral.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Tax cuts cost nothing and are free. The ****ty programs that are funded by said taxes are not free...


What a dumb troll thread.
Click to expand...

Then you can cut taxes to zero and have the entire government funded for free as well? What wonderfull magic
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
hyperbole and silliness, sprinkle in a little extremist logic FTW!
Click to expand...

The point stands. You can only view tax cuts as "free" if you follow the logic of our former VP.

Dick Cheney said:
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter,"
Click to expand...
 
Depiction of the economy after all the deficit spending.

biggest-hole.jpg


I voted YES because I assume this is a question about personally receiving a tax cut.

It is a mistake to think that a Tax cut will cost the Government Revenues. Because it's all about perception and in politics and the engine that drives economics everything is dependent on a positive perception.

The mere threat of a tax increase is enough to slow, stall, or reverse a trend in the stock markets.

The same threat will put doubt in the minds of executives who make the decisions to to expand a work force or to increase production or even expand the size of a business or manufacturing company.

FDR made a lot more mistakes than most people care to notice or remember, but one thing he was right about was his famous statement that "the only thing we have to fear is fear its self."

During past times of economic uncertainty and recession major tax cuts along with major reductions in spending caused the Tax revenues to increase along with the job market, the stock markets and in a short time consumer confidence was also restored and that brought about the need to manufacture more consumer goods because everyone's attitude had be adjusted in a positive direction.

The more product produced, grown, or manufactured the greater the economy expands and good news feeds off itself in a very positive direction, where bad news has just the opposite affects.

Some might think that if one mans taxes are cut someone else will have to make up the difference, but once the positive affects of a cut begin to take hold in peoples minds the expanding economy makes up the short term loss of revenues.

It's economics 101 and it's also basic human psychology 101. What goes around comes around is true in this case.

The sad fact is that is true about defect spending also it puts that doubt into play and everything then begins to suffer and the deeper that hole is dug the worse the economy gets because that vicious cycle will propagate itself.

So tax cuts are not only free they can if used in conjunction with balanced reduction in spending not deficit spending but over all spending to bring about more prosperity.

The key comes back to that old adage: If you want to work you way out of a hole the first thing you must do is stop digging.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything, or in this case fall into a deep dark hole of economic ruin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom