• 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 or balance budget

What is more important?

  • A balanced budget (no growth in debt)

    Votes: 39 88.6%

  • Tax cuts

    Votes: 5 11.4%
  • Total voters
    44
cpwill said:
now the question becomes, will all of those who have voted in favor of the balanced budget option support Senate Republicans when they put up just such a bill? my bet will be that many of them do not.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't support a bill that allowed plotiticians to openly consume deep fried children, even if it balances the buget.
 
cpwill said:
now the question becomes, will all of those who have voted in favor of the balanced budget option support Senate Republicans when they put up just such a bill?


my bet will be that many of them do not.
Click to expand...

The problem with that cp is that theyve already extended the tax cuts <fed> and many states the first thing they did was give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations before they even mentioned the budgets...NJ, Gov Christie, Wisc, Gov Walker, Fla Gov Scott, Ohio, Gov Kasich
 
mattillac said:
I wouldn't support a bill that allowed plotiticians to openly consume deep fried children, even if it balances the buget.
Click to expand...

How about a bill that required them to eat KFC every day and they weren't allowed to have their cholesterol checked if they hadn't cut 5% from their unconstitutional programs that year?
 
lpast said:
Balanced Budget, reduce spending first. Then we can afford tax cuts
Click to expand...

That wasn't an allowed option because doing what's needed isn't part of this particular poll. This poll was designed to avoid the obvious.
 
megaprogman said:
Its a question nobody has been able to answer yet.
Click to expand...

What? The economy grew under Bush because the tax cuts kept the money in the hands of people who use money to make money, and people can't make money by giving it away to people who don't produce. Money is only made when people are paid to produce more than what their paid...ie, they're productively employed.

Nothing complicated about that, once you realize that the money taken from the wealthy by government is handed over to people who don't produce wealth, only paperwork. That's why the nation can't tax itself into prosperity. No matter how hard they try, every time the left tries to tax it's way out of the hole it's created, the hole gets deeper.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What? The economy grew under Bush because the tax cuts kept the money in the hands of people who use money to make money, and people can't make money by giving it away to people who don't produce. Money is only made when people are paid to produce more than what their paid...ie, they're productively employed.

Nothing complicated about that, once you realize that the money taken from the wealthy by government is handed over to people who don't produce wealth, only paperwork. That's why the nation can't tax itself into prosperity. No matter how hard they try, every time the left tries to tax it's way out of the hole it's created, the hole gets deeper.
Click to expand...

Yes, the economy grew, nobody is disputing that, but economies tend to always grow, so there is nothing special about that. What we don't know is whether the economy would have grown more, less, or the same under a different tax policy. Nobody here has even attempted to answer that question on a theoretical level (since we cannot answer it on a reality level). All I have gotten so far (like in the quoted section) is a restatement of principals and talking points, which may or may not be true (again, they are unverified claims, like the question I am trying to get someone to answer).
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Yes, the economy grew, nobody is disputing that, but economies tend to always grow, so there is nothing special about that. What we don't know is whether the economy would have grown more, less, or the same under a different tax policy. Nobody here has even attempted to answer that question on a theoretical level (since we cannot answer it on a reality level). All I have gotten so far (like in the quoted section) is a restatement of principals and talking points.
Click to expand...

Hmm...so economies always tend to grow, do they?

What about when the Federal Reserve created the first Great Depression?

What about when the federal government's intrusion into the free market created the Great Recession?

What about that guy Carter?

Economies grow like gardens. When tended well, they flourish. When abused, they die. Under the regimes of fools who never plant anything but tobacco and other cash crops, the garden of the economy dies under leftist rule. Tax cuts are like planting soy beans, it restores nutrients to the soil.

Ain't nothin' automatic about a growing economy, it requires prudent attention.

What we do know is that without Bush's tax cuts, any recovery from Clinton's departing taxed-too-much recession would have been feeble, short-lived, and a victim of al qeada later that same year. To argue that we don't know what would have happened if taxes were not cut or raised is absurd and foolish.

There's a reason Obama never lifted the nation from the Great Recession. He hasn't cut taxes.
 
Last edited:
Mayor Snorkum said:
Hmm...so economies always tend to grow, do they?

What about when the Federal Reserve created the first Great Depression?

What about when the federal government's intrusion into the free market created the Great Recession?

What about that guy Carter?

Economies grow like gardens. When tended well, they flourish. When abused, they die. Under the regimes of fools who never plant anything but tobacco and other cash crops, the garden of the economy dies under leftist rule. Tax cuts are like planting soy beans, it restores nutrients to the soil.

Ain't nothin' automatic about a growing economy, it requires prudent attention.
Click to expand...

You do realize the term tend has an implication of averaging, right? Yes, we have recessions (as I have already mentioned in this thread), but that doesn't invalidate my point, only that you misunderstood my terminology.

I agree that economies have to be tended properly, if left to their own devices too long, they will begin to destabilize and concentrate wealth, causing harm. However, in the US we largely succeed in doing that and it has been shown by the wide variety of successful first world economic models around the world, that tending can be pretty diverse and still work (I think it largely depends on culture personally)
 
Last edited:
Badmutha said:
I will vote C.--Tax Cuts--Balanced Budget--Prosperity--Destroying Liberalism


Federal Tax Revenue AFTER......The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1982_1988snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending061777_60056_66644_73404_76916_85429_909.png




Federal Tax Revenue AFTER.......The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


We The People were given a bigger allowance........and Tax Revenue increased....defying all laws of liberal economics.

The Democrat Party and its universal solution of more taxes and more regulation is killing this country......
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's not surprising that a growing economy would generate growing revenues. Not at all.
 
yes that's the POINT. when you cut tax rates you boost economic growth; and you do it even more so when you reduce government spending as well.
 
mattillac said:
I wouldn't support a bill that allowed plotiticians to openly consume deep fried children, even if it balances the buget.
Click to expand...

it balances the budget by reducing it to revenues, and requries a supermajority of Congress to override. nothing there about eating children.

The problem with that cp is that theyve already extended the tax cuts <fed> and many states the first thing they did was give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations before they even mentioned the budgets..
Click to expand...

actually if you want to talk about "budget busting tax cuts"; the middle class tax cut is 'costing' the federal government more than tax cuts for the 'wealthy' are. so perhaps you should be irritated at all those greedy middle-income families.

OR, we can recognize that people are generally rational actors, and that thus the relationship between tax rates and actual revenue is tenuous at best.



wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


taxes tend to hover around 18% of GDP; only once in the past 50 years has it even gone over 20% (hilariously, while Bush was President). Bush tax cuts of 2003 led to an increase in revenues, and it wasn't until the current Recession that we see a drop to 15%.

in the 1950's and 1960's, tax rates on high income earners were (comparatively) sky-high; yet they brought in no more revenue as a share of GDP. why?

because people seek to avoid exposing their income to taxes.

assuming you aren't in the middle of a market crash who's recovery has been stalled by foolish government intervention (ie: us right now), you are going to get about 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. if you want to get out of debt, therefore, you have to get federal expenditures UNDER 18% of GDP.

it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem.
 
cpwill said:
yes that's the POINT. when you cut tax rates you boost economic growth; and you do it even more so when you reduce government spending as well.
Click to expand...

as for the issue of what lower tax rates mean for revenues:

Federal-Personal-Income-Tax-Collections.JPG


Analyzing the data presented on this chart, we make the following observations:

1. The average percentage of GDP represented by U.S. federal personal income tax revenues from 1946 through 2006 is 8.0%. The percentage share of personal income tax revenues with respect to GDP is normally distributed, with a standard deviation of 0.8%. This defines the typical range for the personal income tax share of GDP of 7.2% to 8.8%...

2. Recessions (shown by the vertical red bands) often coincide with decreased revenue for the federal government from personal income taxes. This is exactly what we should expect to see, as the total level of income earned falls with employment levels during recessions...

3. There are unique circumstances that coincide with percentage shares greater than 8.8%:..

4. Unique circumstances also apply to the one period in which the percentage share of personal income taxes dipped below the lower level of 7.2%...

5. Years in which tax rate cuts took effect (1964, 1970, 1971, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 2003) all saw government collections of personal income taxes dip initially, then begin to rise afterward, with the total of personal income tax collections always falling in the range between 7.2% and 8.8% of GDP...

This last phenomenon suggests that the distribution of taxable income shifts in accordance with changes in the tax rate structure of the income tax code to maintain a stable equilibrium with respect to overall GDP, albeit with a small lagging effect. This level of equilibrium is given by a level of personal income tax collections representing 8.0% of GDP, plus or minus 0.8%, which holds in the absence of unique economic and fiscal policy factors.

Basically, this means that as tax rates change, people shift their level of economic production to account for the change in the tax rate structure, and do so in a way that maintains this overall level of equilibrium.

In the case of a steeply progressive tax rate structure, people act to reduce their economic output (and income) or channel it in ways so as to avoid the increased level of taxation through personal income taxes. In the case of a flatter tax rate structure, people act to increase their economic output and income, dispense with tax avoidance strategies, and personal income tax collections rise in the years following when the tax rate reduction is first implemented to levels consistent with the natural level of equilibrium.

Where the economy is concerned, higher, more progressive tax rates would result in both lower levels of GDP and personal income tax collections, while lower, flatter tax rates would result in higher levels of GDP and personal income tax collections...
 
cpwill said:
as for the issue of what lower tax rates mean for revenues:

Federal-Personal-Income-Tax-Collections.JPG


Analyzing the data presented on this chart, we make the following observations:

1. The average percentage of GDP represented by U.S. federal personal income tax revenues from 1946 through 2006 is 8.0%. The percentage share of personal income tax revenues with respect to GDP is normally distributed, with a standard deviation of 0.8%. This defines the typical range for the personal income tax share of GDP of 7.2% to 8.8%...

2. Recessions (shown by the vertical red bands) often coincide with decreased revenue for the federal government from personal income taxes. This is exactly what we should expect to see, as the total level of income earned falls with employment levels during recessions...

3. There are unique circumstances that coincide with percentage shares greater than 8.8%:..

4. Unique circumstances also apply to the one period in which the percentage share of personal income taxes dipped below the lower level of 7.2%...

5. Years in which tax rate cuts took effect (1964, 1970, 1971, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 2003) all saw government collections of personal income taxes dip initially, then begin to rise afterward, with the total of personal income tax collections always falling in the range between 7.2% and 8.8% of GDP...

This last phenomenon suggests that the distribution of taxable income shifts in accordance with changes in the tax rate structure of the income tax code to maintain a stable equilibrium with respect to overall GDP, albeit with a small lagging effect. This level of equilibrium is given by a level of personal income tax collections representing 8.0% of GDP, plus or minus 0.8%, which holds in the absence of unique economic and fiscal policy factors.

Basically, this means that as tax rates change, people shift their level of economic production to account for the change in the tax rate structure, and do so in a way that maintains this overall level of equilibrium.

In the case of a steeply progressive tax rate structure, people act to reduce their economic output (and income) or channel it in ways so as to avoid the increased level of taxation through personal income taxes. In the case of a flatter tax rate structure, people act to increase their economic output and income, dispense with tax avoidance strategies, and personal income tax collections rise in the years following when the tax rate reduction is first implemented to levels consistent with the natural level of equilibrium.

Where the economy is concerned, higher, more progressive tax rates would result in both lower levels of GDP and personal income tax collections, while lower, flatter tax rates would result in higher levels of GDP and personal income tax collections...
Click to expand...

Finally, someone answered the question. Thanks :)
 
cpwill said:
it balances the budget by reducing it to revenues, and requries a supermajority of Congress to override. nothing there about eating children.



actually if you want to talk about "budget busting tax cuts"; the middle class tax cut is 'costing' the federal government more than tax cuts for the 'wealthy' are. so perhaps you should be irritated at all those greedy middle-income families.

OR, we can recognize that people are generally rational actors, and that thus the relationship between tax rates and actual revenue is tenuous at best.



wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


taxes tend to hover around 18% of GDP; only once in the past 50 years has it even gone over 20% (hilariously, while Bush was President). Bush tax cuts of 2003 led to an increase in revenues, and it wasn't until the current Recession that we see a drop to 15%.

in the 1950's and 1960's, tax rates on high income earners were (comparatively) sky-high; yet they brought in no more revenue as a share of GDP. why?

because people seek to avoid exposing their income to taxes.

assuming you aren't in the middle of a market crash who's recovery has been stalled by foolish government intervention (ie: us right now), you are going to get about 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. if you want to get out of debt, therefore, you have to get federal expenditures UNDER 18% of GDP.

it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem.
Click to expand...

If one zooms in on the relevant range of that chart instead of scaling it from 0-100% to make the changes appear less significant than they are, a quite different picture emerges:

Federal+Tax+Revenue.jpg


Tax cuts and tax hikes have indeed had a significant effect on tax revenue. Each 1% change is equivalent to about $150 billion in today's dollars.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If one zooms in on the relevant range of that chart instead of scaling it from 0-100% to make the changes appear less significant than they are, a quite different picture emerges:

Federal+Tax+Revenue.jpg


Tax cuts and tax hikes have indeed had a significant effect on tax revenue. Each 1% change is equivalent to about $150 billion in today's dollars.
Click to expand...
How so? The picture is the same regardless of the scaling... changes to marginal tax rates have no reliable effect on federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The variability you see is more tied to periods of economic expansion/boom/recession than anything else.
 
Taylor said:
How so? The picture is the same regardless of the scaling... changes to marginal tax rates have no reliable effect on federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The variability you see is more tied to periods of economic expansion/boom/recession than anything else.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense, seeing as we're not dealing with absolute dollar revenue, but as a percentage of the economy.
 
cpwill said:
now the question becomes, will all of those who have voted in favor of the balanced budget option support Senate Republicans when they put up just such a bill?


my bet will be that many of them do not.
Click to expand...

So to your mind supporting balancing the budget requires supporting the plan you want passed? That is patently absurd. No only is it possible to support balancing the budget but be opposed to some ideas on how to do it, it is likely.

Let me ask you this, if you support balancing the budget, do you support my plan to balance it over any other plan?
 
PeteEU said:
Where were you during the last decade? You do realize that the start of the "out of control spending" was under a Republican congress and White House right?
Click to expand...

we warned you that man couldn't possess the one ring for long. why didn't you listen to us?
 
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...

How are you getting to the balanced budget?
 
if you want to balance the budget raising taxes on the 5% that pay most of the income taxes and all the death taxes won't help because the other 95% will continue to support those politicians who pander to them with more spending.

if you want to balance the budget you have to make reckless government spending so painful to most voters that they will punish politicians who engage in such activity. that would require making the majority start paying their fair share of what they use
 
iamitter said:
That doesn't make sense, seeing as we're not dealing with absolute dollar revenue, but as a percentage of the economy.
Click to expand...

you've never heard of writing down losses? of increased government transfer payments during a recession? the Feds didn't exactly pay themselves taxes on the stimulus; yet that was real money that was transferred from taxable activities.

the chart kandahar posted is the exact same as mine with one notable difference: it doesn't compare tax revenues to tax rates. dramatic swings in tax rates have not produced anything similar in tax revenues[/il].
 
Redress said:
So to your mind supporting balancing the budget requires supporting the plan you want passed? That is patently absurd. No only is it possible to support balancing the budget but be opposed to some ideas on how to do it, it is likely.

Let me ask you this, if you support balancing the budget, do you support my plan to balance it over any other plan?
Click to expand...

it's not a cutting bill; it's just a balanced budget bill. the "how" is TBD, just the "You Must" is to be set into law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom