Tax cuts or balance budget

Mayor Snorkum said:

No.

Tip O'Neill was a Democrat. All the socialist programs are Democrat inventions, and all of them violate the Constitution and should not therefore exist in this country.

Click to expand...

All of them?

:rofl

All of them

Mayor Snorkum said:

"Both" wars? The United States now has three wars to contend with.

However, since military spending is constituitonal, it's last on the list of what should be cut from the US budget.

Not one "socialist safety net" program passes constituitonal muster and 100% of them should be axed.

And Mayor Snorkum sees your envy of the wealthy who pay far far more in taxes than you do.

Click to expand...

Then you remain right where the upper class put you. Continuing to bear the burden of their tax cuts in ever increasing National debt in hopes that someday the wealth will trickle down enough to actually create jobs. But its's only been 30 years. These things probably take while right?

The Republicans are not going to scrap programs that their only large constituency depends on to keep them from living on the street. Without the elderly voting block, Republicans don't get elected to office.

So your thinking that is a possibility is delusional.

Aunt Spiker said:

And since the right isn't doing it either it's also a violation of their agenda.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's the Republicans who aren't doing it. The Republicans are to the "right" as orange is to purple. Not a lot of overlap. Far too many leftists in the GOP. Look at McCain and Bush, for example.

Catawba said:

Then you remain right where the upper class put you. Continuing to bear the burden of their tax cuts in ever increasing National debt in hopes that someday the wealth will trickle down enough to actually create jobs. But its's only been 30 years. These things probably take while right?

The Republicans are not going to scrap programs that their only large constituency depends on to keep them from living on the street. Without the elderly voting block, Republicans don't get elected to office.

So your thinking that is a possibility is delusional.

Click to expand...

The burden isn't the tax cuts, the burden is the unconstitutional spending.

Okay, so you're jealous of people with more money. Too bad, this thread is about the economic problem of the budget, and the budget problem is a problem of spending, not of stealing. There are relevant facts you must ignore to hold the position you do.

When tax revenues go up, spending goes up more.

When tax revenues decline, spending goes up.

No tax has ever expired.

No government program is discontinued without massive hysteria from the left, even useless programs like NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts have their devoted useful idiots standing up for them.

A person making $250,000 today is not "rich", not even "wealthy", merely comfortably well off.

When 100% of all the wealth held by people earning $250,000 and above is seized, it won't be enough to balance the budget. When that money runs out, the people making $100,000 will be "wealthy".

At least try to be funny while you psuedo-troll.

Actually, it's the Republicans who aren't doing it. The Republicans are to the "right" as orange is to purple. Not a lot of overlap. Far too many leftists in the GOP. Look at McCain and Bush, for example.

Click to expand...

StillBallin75 said:

Are we talking state level or federal level??

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. I mean my state, Louisiana. Every year expenses must not exeed income.

Balanced budget of course, anyone who says tax cuts at this point is just delusional. What I've found from all these debates is that most people screaming for Bush's tax cuts were not the ones who benefited from it. The ones who believe that Obama "raised their taxes" in fact got a tax break from Obama. People delude themselves into thinking they are somehow in the top 1% of the population that earns more than $250k per year. They almost never do. They're lying to themselves and to others, just like "Joe the Plumber."

We actually need to raise taxes to pay off the debt, plain and simple. Spending needs to be cut IN HALF or more, and stay that way permanently.

March said:

Balanced budget of course, anyone who says tax cuts at this point is just delusional. What I've found from all these debates is that most people screaming for Bush's tax cuts were not the ones who benefited from it. The ones who believe that Obama "raised their taxes" in fact got a tax break from Obama. People delude themselves into thinking they are somehow in the top 1% of the population that earns more than $250k per year. They almost never do. They're lying to themselves and to others, just like "Joe the Plumber."

We actually need to raise taxes to pay off the debt, plain and simple. Spending needs to be cut IN HALF or more, and stay that way permanently.

Click to expand...

If we increase the GDP that will increase tax revenue. Raising tax rates is not the only way to increse revenue. If an increase in tax rates hurts our GDP then we're not gaining.

Why on Earth would the GDP increase due to Bush's tax cuts?

March said:

Why on Earth would the GDP increase due to Bush's tax cuts?

Click to expand...

Well what if cutting taxes sparked higher productivity and output? - Higher GDP. Tax revenue is going to be about 18% of GDP so that's where they put their focus. If higher tax rates increased the GDP somehow then that's what would happen.

I just don't see how Bush's tax cuts lead to "higher productivity and output." All I saw was disasterous malinvestment and the pending collapse of our economic system. This idea that cutting the taxes of the superwealthy somehow causes them to invest the money back into the country is a myth -- that never happened. I'd like to see some evidence that the Bush tax cuts did absolutely anything useful for our economy in the first place. Otherwise, they should have been made to expire.

March said:

Why on Earth would the GDP increase due to Bush's tax cuts?

Click to expand...

GDP increased in large part due to housing price increases and being able to re-mortgage.

March said:

I just don't see how Bush's tax cuts lead to "higher productivity and output." All I saw was disasterous malinvestment and the pending collapse of our economic system. This idea that cutting the taxes of the superwealthy somehow causes them to invest the money back into the country is a myth -- that never happened. I'd like to see some evidence that the Bush tax cuts did absolutely anything useful for our economy in the first place. Otherwise, they should have been made to expire.

Click to expand...

If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive. Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.

sazerac said:

If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive. Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.

Click to expand...

GDP & Tax, on average, has a history of increasing year to year no matter what the tax policy is. Why is Bush's tax policy special when it likely would have happened anyway?

megaprogman said:

GDP & Tax, on average, has a history of increasing year to year no matter what the tax policy is. Why is Bush's tax policy special when it likely would have happened anyway?

Click to expand...

What's special is that he pushed the cuts and that it increased revenues. More revenue came in than otherwise would have. Tax revenues stay more constant than always increasing. As a percentage.

sazerac said:

What's special is that he pushed the cuts and that it increased revenues.

Click to expand...

This is why I am asking, revenues tend to increase over time as the economy expands, regardless of tax policy (again, on average, we do have recessions from time to time)

sazerac said:

More revenue came in than otherwise would have. Tax revenues stay more constant than always increasing. As a percentage.

Click to expand...

So, you are saying a higher percentage of taxes were paid, compared to GDP, than in earlier times?

megaprogman said:

GDP & Tax, on average, has a history of increasing year to year no matter what the tax policy is. Why is Bush's tax policy special when it likely would have happened anyway?

Click to expand...

Just because an account increases, it doesn't mean it's also NOT experiencing a loss... Its crucial to analyze the information in ratios; compare previous years to this year, compare growth ratios, compare revenue growth/loss ratios each year. Do not simply look at the numbers and compare them. I am not saying this is what people are doing, but I have seen many people post numbers on these forums and try to make an argument, and it's not a good argument.

megaprogman said:

This is why I am asking, revenues tend to increase over time as the economy expands, regardless of tax policy (again, on average, we do have recessions from time to time)



So, you are saying a higher percentage of taxes were paid, compared to GDP, than in earlier times?

Click to expand...

Revenues don't tend to increase by percentage of GDP. They tend to be a constant percent of the GDP. So if you can increase the GDP you will collect 18 % of the additional monies.

There's lots of ways this can happen. It can happen by cutting taxes. It can happen by raising taxes. It can happen by invention or favorable weather.

I lean Conservative and I'll answer: You have to do both at the same time. Spending is way out of control. It needs to be be reduced and reduced drastically. I would use the FY 2008 budget as a base line and make reduction from there. Taxes, especially business taxes are way too high. They need to come down and come down fast. Remember Government does not create jobs, private businesses do. I say get the government out of the way and turn the genius of the American business loose.

Kandahar said:

Good luck getting a straight answer from any conservatives here. I've asked this question before, and most of them resent the whole premise of government paying for the services it provides. :roll:

Click to expand...

Balanced budget, of course.

sazerac said:

If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive.

Click to expand...

Why didn't it, then? Why did they continue to outsource and not re-invest in America if that is the case?

sazerac said:

Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.

Click to expand...

These two statement are contradictory. First you attribute it to the tax cuts then say it has more to do with the economy than anything. Which is it?

I personally don't see any evidence that Bush's tax cuts did anything you claim, in theory or in reality.

Our economy didn't really "grow" either, we didn't begin producing more. If anything speculation increased tremendously during that period, not actual growth. GDP is a poor reflection of economic reality in my opinion, especially in America. How can 70% of an economy be based on consumption? If people increase consumption, which therefore "grows" the economy, how is that a good thing?

sazerac said:

As bad as our politicians are, at least we have a law that they must balance the budget.I have no doubt that we would owe many trillions of dollars otherwise.

Click to expand...

The problem with that it is impossible to highly undesirable to balance a budget in a recession. In a recession, revenues fall dramatically (almost $.5T in this recession), while cutting expenditures in a recession does nothing to help, and in fact further slows the economy.

sazerac said:

Revenues don't tend to increase by percentage of GDP. They tend to be a constant percent of the GDP. So if you can increase the GDP you will collect 18 % of the additional monies.

There's lots of ways this can happen. It can happen by cutting taxes. It can happen by raising taxes. It can happen by invention or favorable weather.

Click to expand...

Is there evidence that GDP increases were over and above what they would have been under the old tax laws?

SheWolf said:

If you had to pick one or the other, which one is more important?

Click to expand...

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I'd take a different option.

I favor more efficient government spending.

We can't have tax cuts because the government needs revenue to operate. It just does. It needs to do it for the military, for transportation infrastructure, for the regulation of safe commerce, for public education, and for law enforcement.

However, demanding a balanced budget is pretty pie-in-the-sky. Our government operating via debt is the norm. And people invest in our national debt because our government is an extremely stable entity for investment. On the other hand, that's not the same as operating on a deficit, and the larger our deficit is the more we will have to pay back our national debt.

So what we need to do is use our debt more selectively and efficiently. And we need to start spending on government programs that wil increase the economy. One way to do this is to do less military spending and instead use that money to increase and maintain our transportation infrastructure. This is important because our economy depends on commerce and commerce depends on transportation routes for goods and services to flow. I also heard that every $1 spent on transportation infrastructure gives us a return of $1.50.

So while we definitely need to bring government spending under control, we also need to focus that government spending on things that will increase our economy. Instead of looking at it as government spending it should instead be looked at as government investments and we should invest in those things that will give the people of the U.S. a return on those investments.

March said:

Why didn't it, then? Why did they continue to outsource and not re-invest in America if that is the case?



These two statement are contradictory. First you attribute it to the tax cuts then say it has more to do with the economy than anything. Which is it?

I personally don't see any evidence that Bush's tax cuts did anything you claim, in theory or in reality.

Our economy didn't really "grow" either, we didn't begin producing more. If anything speculation increased tremendously during that period, not actual growth. GDP is a poor reflection of economic reality in my opinion, especially in America. How can 70% of an economy be based on consumption? If people increase consumption, which therefore "grows" the economy, how is that a good thing?

Click to expand...

We did see an increase in total revenue after the tax cuts. It's just a fact. It didn't mean the economy would go gangbusters or that we would't go to war or that businesses would stop outsourcing.

GDP is very important in cosidering the well being of an economy.