Tax cuts do not pay for themselves

[Lucky... 0]

For all you name-droppers, this is from Greenspan. Reagan appointee, Clinton extended him and well as others may have. This guy is non-partisan and saw years of both parties run thru. He is pro tax cut, but when times are better.

So come on, name droppers, this is an objective source who was right there when the economy was way up and way down, what say you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

For all you name-droppers, this is from Greenspan. Reagan appointee, Clinton extended him and well as others may have. This guy is non-partisan and saw years of both parties run thru. He is pro tax cut, but when times are better.

So come on, name droppers, this is an objective source who was right there when the economy was way up and way down, what say you?

So, you're calling out "name-droppers" by dropping a name.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Spending is the problem and the Dems lead the pack when it come to spending (however the R's have not had a good record on this topic either)

Here is one article followed by the Google search with was simply "Deficit spending by party in control of congress".

Interesting stuff



http://www.examiner.com/x-51717-Dallas-Tea-Party-Examiner~y2010m7d22-More-Democrat-Lies-Spawned-Over-Deficit-Spending

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Deficit+spending+by+party+in+control+of+congress&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For all you name-droppers, this is from Greenspan. Reagan appointee, Clinton extended him and well as others may have. This guy is non-partisan and saw years of both parties run thru. He is pro tax cut, but when times are better.

So come on, name droppers, this is an objective source who was right there when the economy was way up and way down, what say you?

So, you're calling out "name-droppers" by dropping a name.

This is an objective name, not some RW / Libertarian sociopath cutting taxes in the name of corporate welfare. He was appointed by your annointed fascist leader, how could he be all bad?

[lawrocket 3]

Nothing about the government pays for itself. Taxpayers pay for everything whether they like it or not.

No. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. All it does it help people pay a bit more for themselves.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Nothing about the government pays for itself. Taxpayers pay for everything whether they like it or not.

Quote

No. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Thank you, the voice of reason.

Quote

All it does it help people pay a bit more for themselves.

And who pays for schools, roads, etc? Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate welfare. Tax cuts when wealth is fairly disrtributed is equity and positive capitalism. It's time for tax increases to spur private reinvestment, you know that.


Unless it's odd timing, you just voted that tax cuts pay for themselves while stating they don't.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Nothing about the government pays for itself. Taxpayers pay for everything whether they like it or not.

Quote

No. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Thank you, the voice of reason.

Quote

All it does it help people pay a bit more for themselves.

And who pays for schools, roads, etc? Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate welfare. Tax cuts when wealth is fairly disrtributed is equity and positive capitalism. It's time for tax increases to spur private reinvestment, you know that.


Unless it's odd timing, you just voted that tax cuts pay for themselves while stating they don't.

Nice twist
Same old tired talking point of who pays for roads and shit

Show me where he said he did not want to pay any taxes Mr Twister!

He just disagrees with you at what level taxation is considered confishatory or punishment.

But then you worry about others who have more than you so I guess it is not a surprise

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And who pays for schools, roads, etc?

We do. The government takes our money and pays for building new roads. And maintaining roads. They are supposed to get this money from taxes on fuel. For example, in California we pay in excess of 60 cents per gallon in taxes. Those would usually be devoted to roads but end up going elsewhere.

Schools? Yes. Property taxes and other taxes go to the funding of schools. So in California's general fund there is budgeted to be $83.404 billion. Education spending is $46.927 billion - meaning that education is 56.3% of spending. HEalth and Human Services is $22.859 billion. Prisons get $8.981 billion.

So, just take education, HHS and prisons and you've got $78.767 billion. Of $83.404 billion. Yes - those three things make 94.4% of the California budget. Our money goes to prisons to support the massive population of people being held for things like drug crimes, etc. We've got our money being used to pay for schools that are always alleged to be underperforming and are asking for more money.

It's more than just roads. It's more than just "schools."

Quote

Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate welfare.

This is the same line of thinking that I pointed out. Where not taking money from people is equivalent to giving them money. No. It is not. The two are very separate things.

Quote

Tax cuts when wealth is fairly disrtributed is equity and positive capitalism

"Fairly distributed?" Herein lies my problem. Fairness is an exterior judging of factors. What is fair to the wolf is death t the sheep and vice versa. What is fair to me is not viewed as fair to you.

You prefer a system where your idea of fairness is forced. Taking money from those whom you feel don't deserve it and giving it to people that you feel do deserve it for some societal benefit that you define. This is a system where the individual is nothing more than a capital good to be utilized for what the benevolent dictators view is best.

Of course, this is not unprecedented. US history is rich with utilization of people for the benefit of others and the power-holders' viewpoints of what is and is not beneficial to society. Fortunately, we had a 13th Amendment that found that those people are individuals with the right to self-determination that was in excess of what their masters thought was best for everyone. Your enuciated vision for the best society is one where a few people work and perform for the benefit of everybody else.

I'd suggest reading Plato's Republic. Back to the fairness to the sheep issue, Socrates argued that a just man would help people while doing harm to nobody. On the other hand, Socrates goes on to argue about justice being that which is defined by the rulers. He goes on to create "noble lies" which are designed to make the City appear just.

The Republic contains much argument about society telling individuals what they are and what they can be for the benefit of society - the individual as a pawn for the creation and maintenance of societal order.

Which, of course, is interesting because for your ideas to work there must be a firm and even despotic government to force compliance. A person is only as free as he or she is allowed to be and your thoughts are to force compliance with your ideals.

Quote

It's time for tax increases to spur private reinvestment, you know that.

No I don't. Tax increases to spur private investment are akin to plastic surgery to spur natural beauty. I understand that you are arguing to increase taxes in order to cause people/corporations to invest in matters that would be sheltered. This, of course, was the situation found throught the 1970's, where tax shelters were so heavily utilized. The 1986 Tax Reform Act removed a lot of the shelters and lowered the tax rate. Tax revenues increased because large sums of money were subject to taxation but at a lower rate, which meant more honesty with the tax returns and declared earnings, etc.

Quote

you just voted that tax cuts pay for themselves while stating they don't

I didn't vote.

The Laffer curve is pretty straighforward. There exists a tax rate at which revenues are maximized. Tax at 100% and revenues will be non-existent because people won't work for anything they cannot keep. Tax at 0% and revenues will be $0. Somewhere in between is the maximum number. This number varies by the month, year, etc.

Now - the Laffer curve is not intended to allow people ot keep more money. It's designed to maximize revenues.

Tax cuts "paying for themselves" is the same thing as a "price cut making more money." Charging $10 per glass of lemonade might result in revenue of $10.00 in a day, with perhaps a $9.50 profit. Lower the price to $1.00 and you might see $50.00 in revenue, and if the cost is $30.00 then you've profited by $20.00. Cutting the price paid for itself and then some.

However, "paying for itself" indicates ownership. The government doesn't own my wages. I do. It's not a matter of the government saying, "We'll receive less revenue if we lower taxes." They are saying, "A tax cut won't pay for itself."

The two concepts are similar but come from entirely opposed positions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,467]

>Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate
>welfare.

Arguably government spending is much closer to "corporate welfare" than tax cuts are. Examples would be the government paying farmers not to farm and military contractors to not build something.

If tax cuts are indeed "welfare" then the welfare system in this country would get very simple. Just give poor people tax cuts and they'll have all the welfare they need, without having to give them any money.

>And who pays for schools, roads, etc?

Depends on the model. User fees/taxes in the form of registration fees, gasoline taxes and tolls are probably the most straightforward way to pay for roads, for example.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Arguably government spending is much closer to "corporate welfare" than tax cuts are. Examples would be the government paying farmers not to farm and military contractors to not build something.

Or military contractors to build something.

Although Canada has approximately the same landmass to protect we're spending 30X what they do for defense.

We speed over 7X what China does in second place.

We even spend more than the rest of the world put together.

Paying companies to equipping a military so much larger than it needs to be is the biggest example of corporate welfare in this country.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Arguably government spending is much closer to "corporate welfare" than tax cuts are. Examples would be the government paying farmers not to farm and military contractors to not build something.

Or military contractors to build something.

Although Canada has approximately the same landmass to protect we're spending 30X what they do for defense.

We speed over 7X what China does in second place.

We even spend more than the rest of the world put together.

Paying companies to equipping a military so much larger than it needs to be is the biggest example of corporate welfare in this country.

you do understand we pay to protect many allies like Japan and canada. That is why their military spending is so much lower than ours. we could make them pay for their own protection but then we would have many countries with larger militaries and ours would have to spend even more to stay on top. I would much rather be in the country holing the gun than the country that is not holding the gun (or the country holding the smaller gun)

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate
>welfare.

Arguably government spending is much closer to "corporate welfare" than tax cuts are. Examples would be the government paying farmers not to farm and military contractors to not build something.

If tax cuts are indeed "welfare" then the welfare system in this country would get very simple. Just give poor people tax cuts and they'll have all the welfare they need, without having to give them any money.

>And who pays for schools, roads, etc?

Depends on the model. User fees/taxes in the form of registration fees, gasoline taxes and tolls are probably the most straightforward way to pay for roads, for example.

I can agree with you on this. I'd rather have a VAT with some exclusion for food, a certain amount of housing cost to replace all income tax. The rich spend a lot on luxury, so they would pay when they spend. I'd also have HUGE taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

Am I the only one that heard about how the document that Obama got from Romer (the chief economic advisor leaving soon) had a "multiplier" of 1.55 for stimulus dollars spent, meaning that they assumed that each dollar spent would mean 1.55 dollars of permanent economic impact. So, it is Obama that thinks govt spending does MORE than pay for itself. Certainly tax cuts result in some amount of increased revenue, even if not 1:1, how ridiculous is it to complain about that when Obama is claiming a 1.55:1 on spending!?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,467]

>Or military contractors to build something.

While that could indeed be a waste of money, it's harder to call it "welfare" when you are getting what you pay for. You may have made a poor decision to buy the thing, of course, but that's your decision to make. (Although I do agree that we often pay for stuff we don't need.)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Or military contractors to build something.

While that could indeed be a waste of money, it's harder to call it "welfare" when you are getting what you pay for.

Oh, I don't have a hard time at all calling it welfare.. If the fair value of a new aircraft carrier is $2 billion, and we spend no more than $2 billion and get ourselves a new aircraft carrier - but we didn't really need it in the first place (of course it can always be rationalized) - it sure as hell is welfare doled out to the military-industrial complex.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Arguably government spending is much closer to "corporate welfare" than tax cuts are. Examples would be the government paying farmers not to farm and military contractors to not build something.

Or military contractors to build something.

Although Canada has approximately the same landmass to protect we're spending 30X what they do for defense.

We speed over 7X what China does in second place.

China pays a small fraction of wages, and has the convenience (from their perspective) of a draft of 1 billion person population.

Canada's only land partner is us. Not fearing us, and benefiting from our defense expenditures makes it easy for them to live cheaply in this regard. Given their natural resources, they would be at risk were it not for the US.

and last, our planes and weapons are more expensive because often they are the state of the art technology. We don't want a fair fight in the air ; the goal for the upcoming fighters is to be able to destroy the enemy planes before they can even ID our's. If we were as willing to sacrifice our soldiers as Saddam was, it would be a lot cheaper.

[billvon 2,467]

>If the fair value of a new aircraft carrier is $2 billion, and we spend no
>more than $2 billion and get ourselves a new aircraft carrier - but we didn't
>really need it in the first place (of course it can always be rationalized) . . .

Well, of course; it may not be needed. That goes for everything from office supplies to aircraft carriers.

But again, that's not welfare. It's not welfare when a guy at Burger King works two shifts to support himself - even if the people buying those Whoppers don't really need them.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

We do. The government takes our money and pays for building new roads.

You mean like that are supposed to be doing via the gasoline tax?

We are all engines of karma

[hwt 0]

tax cuts do not pay for themselves???
are you nuts?Just read what you just wrote.
Tax cut means that people pay less money to the government.which means that a person gets to keep more of what they earned. you act as though it isn't their money...

[champu 1]

Quote

Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?"

Answer: "None. It's a hole."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

tax cuts do not pay for themselves???
are you nuts?Just read what you just wrote.
Tax cut means that people pay less money to the government.which means that a person gets to keep more of what they earned. you act as though it isn't their money...

You act as though they earned it by hunting and gathering in the wilderness using only those tools they were able to craft themselves from the land. But people don't make their money that way; they make their money via interaction with an available infrastructure of society. Without that infrastructure, they'd be unable to make that money in the first place. And that infrastructure has to be continually paid for.

So to that extent, it's not all your money, any more than the interest you must pay on, say, a capital development loan for your business is your money; that interest really belongs to the bank, even though you serve as its escrow agent until you pay it. Society is like the bank. It invests in you by providing you with an infrastructure through which you make your money. The taxes you pay is the interest paid back to society for your use of the infrastructure.

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who thinks that cutting spending only, or cutting taxes only, is the way to prosperity is ignorant of economics.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who thinks that cutting spending only, or cutting taxes only, is the way to prosperity is ignorant of economics.

Quite right, both are needed!

Only in government is there no push to be more efficient. In private industry, sometimes people will say that some particular dept is engaged in "empire building". But that is nothing compared to how it happens everywhere in government departments.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who thinks that cutting spending only, or cutting taxes only, is the way to prosperity is ignorant of economics.

Exactly, all other incidental factors must be considered like:

- GDP

- War status

- Trade balance / imbalance

- Debt status

- Current reciepts

- Current outlays

- Unemployment status

On and on. Historically our best years over the past 100 years have been under circumstances where the top brkt has been > 70%. I think it's only reasonable to consider post-FDR economics since the social structure was most like it will be forever and is now. IOW's, outlays pre-FDR are insanely different, hence irrelevant since military and social expenditures were relatively nothing comparatively.

But it's a dynamic picture, all other contributing factors must be conseidered, however, raising taxes for the rich mandates reinvestment, that is a constant. With that said, sometimes it may be beneficial to lower taxes to reduce that element and to promote savings. Taxes are waaaaay too low, some say at 50-year lows considering all taxes. We need to raise them now, Greenspan says so, he's about as non-partisan as it gets having been appointed by Reagan, continued by Clinton and maybe others. He saw bad times and good and now is the time to incr taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?"

Answer: "None. It's a hole."

That's a neat analogy, now show thru history how tax cuts have been beneficial. Oh, you can't.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

tax cuts do not pay for themselves???
are you nuts?Just read what you just wrote.
Tax cut means that people pay less money to the government.which means that a person gets to keep more of what they earned. you act as though it isn't their money...

Considering the top 20% of wealth-holder hold 93% of all cash, when those people hold their cash the economy stagnates. You are bringing this down to a Joe Public scenario when we are irrelevant when it comes to cash holdings.

Why is it you guys don't address the concept of high taxes + generous writeoffs = reinvestment = jobs?

Low taxes = profit taking and stashing = stagnation and low wages due to low demand.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And who pays for schools, roads, etc?

Quote

We do. The government takes our money and pays for building new roads. And maintaining roads. They are supposed to get this money from taxes on fuel. For example, in California we pay in excess of 60 cents per gallon in taxes. Those would usually be devoted to roads but end up going elsewhere.

Schools? Yes. Property taxes and other taxes go to the funding of schools. So in California's general fund there is budgeted to be $83.404 billion. Education spending is $46.927 billion - meaning that education is 56.3% of spending. HEalth and Human Services is $22.859 billion. Prisons get $8.981 billion.

So, just take education, HHS and prisons and you've got $78.767 billion. Of $83.404 billion. Yes - those three things make 94.4% of the California budget. Our money goes to prisons to support the massive population of people being held for things like drug crimes, etc. We've got our money being used to pay for schools that are always alleged to be underperforming and are asking for more money.

It's more than just roads. It's more than just "schools."

Well of course, do I have to list all you did as well as military, DEA, FBI, on and on...... I thought it was clear; who pays for all services?

Quote

Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate welfare.

Quote

This is the same line of thinking that I pointed out. Where not taking money from people is equivalent to giving them money. No. It is not. The two are very separate things.

And reducing taxes to nothing allows for profit-taking and avoiding reinvestment, which stagnates teh fuck out of the situation.

Quote

Tax cuts when wealth is fairly disrtributed is equity and positive capitalism

Quote

"Fairly distributed?" Herein lies my problem. Fairness is an exterior judging of factors. What is fair to the wolf is death t the sheep and vice versa. What is fair to me is not viewed as fair to you.

Of course, let's be utilitarian since the R's advocate it by their actions in some ways, then denounce it as evil in others. What makes the system work for all? High taxes and generous legitimate writeoffs. Can you historically show me times of low taxes and point to blue skies?

Quote

You prefer a system where your idea of fairness is forced. Taking money from those whom you feel don't deserve it and giving it to people that you feel do deserve it for some societal benefit that you define. This is a system where the individual is nothing more than a capital good to be utilized for what the benevolent dictators view is best.

No, I want a system that demands the rich, who are made taht way on the backs of the poor quite often, show their true patriotism they claim and be required to reinvest in the nation that made them rich.

Quote

Of course, this is not unprecedented. US history is rich with utilization of people for the benefit of others and the power-holders' viewpoints of what is and is not beneficial to society. Fortunately, we had a 13th Amendment that found that those people are individuals with the right to self-determination that was in excess of what their masters thought was best for everyone. Your enuciated vision for the best society is one where a few people work and perform for the benefit of everybody else.

No, mine is one of reinvestment, yours is one of robber barrons sliding w/o restraint.

Quote

I'd suggest reading Plato's Republic. Back to the fairness to the sheep issue, Socrates argued that a just man would help people while doing harm to nobody. On the other hand, Socrates goes on to argue about justice being that which is defined by the rulers. He goes on to create "noble lies" which are designed to make the City appear just.

That ancient philosophy is real neat and all, but apply it to current situations and it's mere entertainment. Way diff society then. You still can't show me a maj fed tax cut that has benefitted society. So more antiquated philosophy guiding a modern society.

Quote

The Republic contains much argument about society telling individuals what they are and what they can be for the benefit of society - the individual as a pawn for the creation and maintenance of societal order.

Which, of course, is interesting because for your ideas to work there must be a firm and even despotic government to force compliance. A person is only as free as he or she is allowed to be and your thoughts are to force compliance with your ideals.

We already have a gov that requires compliance, we just disagree upon what is to be enforced.

Quote

It's time for tax increases to spur private reinvestment, you know that.

Quote

No I don't. Tax increases to spur private investment are akin to plastic surgery to spur natural beauty.

Ridiculous analogy. The economy is man-made, controlled in every aspect; to let it run free would make the well-off and filthy rich the emperors - your dream. They tried that, "let it fix itself" BS in teh GD and that didn't work so well and that was pre-FDR's social programs.

Quote

I understand that you are arguing to increase taxes in order to cause people/corporations to invest in matters that would be sheltered. This, of course, was the situation found throught the 1970's, where tax shelters were so heavily utilized. The 1986 Tax Reform Act removed a lot of the shelters and lowered the tax rate.

By then the fascist pig had already hammered the top brkt from 70% to 38%, so the 1986 changes were minimal. High taxes and generous writeoffs worked thru the 40's, 50's, 60's and when taxes were lowered things went to shit, the debt started rising; it's uncanny how as the top brkts lowered, the debt reciprocally rose. Of course that data doesn't interest you.

Quote

Tax revenues increased because large sums of money were subject to taxation but at a lower rate, which meant more honesty with the tax returns and declared earnings, etc.

Tax revs never met outlays and most of the increasedc revs were due to gross spending. Basically Reagan did what Bush/Obama did with the bailouts/stimulus, diff is that the wheels weren't about to fall off then as tehy are now. He resorted to emergency military stimulus spending in a time when there was no emergency an created a mess.

Quote

you just voted that tax cuts pay for themselves while stating they don't

I didn't vote.

Quote

The Laffer curve is pretty straighforward. There exists a tax rate at which revenues are maximized. Tax at 100% and revenues will be non-existent because people won't work for anything they cannot keep. Tax at 0% and revenues will be $0. Somewhere in between is the maximum number. This number varies by the month, year, etc.

Or, tax high and allow generous writeoffs. Show me where that hasn't worked.

Quote

Now - the Laffer curve is not intended to allow people ot keep more money. It's designed to maximize revenues.

Yea, it doesn't take into account reality. Another RW theory that hasn't worked.

Quote

Tax cuts "paying for themselves" is the same thing as a "price cut making more money." Charging $10 per glass of lemonade might result in revenue of $10.00 in a day, with perhaps a $9.50 profit. Lower the price to $1.00 and you might see $50.00 in revenue, and if the cost is $30.00 then you've profited by $20.00. Cutting the price paid for itself and then some.

However, "paying for itself" indicates ownership. The government doesn't own my wages. I do. It's not a matter of the government saying, "We'll receive less revenue if we lower taxes." They are saying, "A tax cut won't pay for itself."

Sorry, teh gov, depending upon who's in control, owns the rules and if the rules own your check, too bad. Yax cuts deprive the gov of revenue, therefore they are deficit-makers. If ya don't think so, show me times of low taxation where revs were high. Then show me times of high taxation where revs were low. Don;t forget to factor in outlays.

Quote

The two concepts are similar but come from entirely opposed positions.

Difference is that I have statistical history on my side.

• Quote