• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

It’s likely going to require changes to both to have any hope of attaining a balanced federal budget and to have any excess revenue to gradually reduce the national debt.
I don’t think taxes need to be raised. Freezing spending will work.
 
I don’t think taxes need to be raised. Freezing spending will work.

That won’t work for things like Social Security or Medicare. How long do you think federal workers would stay at their jobs without getting pay increases?
 
That won’t work for things like Social Security or Medicare. How long do you think federal workers would stay at their jobs without getting pay increases?
I’m not saying every program has to freeze its spending. So yes, there will need to be cuts in some areas so other areas can grow (welcoming Washington into the economic world most of us live in).

As for the federal worker attrition and their ranks dwindling, I call that a side benefit.
 
I don’t think taxes need to be raised. Freezing spending will work.

Conservatives keep on talking about running the US like a business, but a business that only cuts spending and doesn't bring in revenue is a crappy company.

Do you think the really old people in the GOP base would want to cut Social Security or Medicare? Conservatives also treat the military like a sacared cow and think it should get 800 billion dollars a year, at a minimum. Also why do conservatives never talk about the subsidies that the government gives to corporations?

How much does Jeff Bezos pay in taxes?


Is he overtaxed?

Why does Norway have a more generous welfare state and have less debt than the US?


Gee, it almost feels like fiscal conservatism is a giant scam and most fiscal conservatives don't actually care about the debt:

 
I’m not saying every program has to freeze its spending. So yes, there will need to be cuts in some areas so other areas can grow (welcoming Washington into the economic world most of us live in).

As for the federal worker attrition and their ranks dwindling, I call that a side benefit.

The problem is that “cuts to” is far different than a “freeze in” federal spending. Keep in mind that every federal department, agency and program has the support of the donor class or it wouldn’t exist.
 
Conservatives keep on talking about running the US like a business, but a business that only cuts spending and doesn't bring in revenue is a crappy company.
Yes, I think bringing in business principles for managing the federal finances would be a superb I idea, and I question the seriousness of anyone who would challenge that.

Do you think the really old people in the GOP base would want to cut Social Security or Medicare? Conservatives also treat the military like a sacared cow and think it should get 800 billion dollars a year, at a minimum. Also why do conservatives never talk about the subsidies that the government gives to corporations?
Don’t know and I don’t care. Spending more than you make for decades on end is not going to lead to good place for “old people” or anyone else, for that matter.

How much does Jeff Bezos pay in taxes?
Don’t know, don’t care.


Is he overtaxed?

Why does Norway have a more generous welfare state and have less debt than the US?


Gee, it almost feels like fiscal conservatism is a giant scam and most fiscal conservatives don't actually care about the debt:

That tax polices I favor would produce very different outcomes: a single rate paid on all income earned over the poverty level with no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, and no tax favors for Washington to sell.
 
Conservatives keep on talking about running the US like a business, but a business that only cuts spending and doesn't bring in revenue is a crappy company.

Do you think the really old people in the GOP base would want to cut Social Security or Medicare? Conservatives also treat the military like a sacared cow and think it should get 800 billion dollars a year, at a minimum. Also why do conservatives never talk about the subsidies that the government gives to corporations?

How much does Jeff Bezos pay in taxes?


Is he overtaxed?

Why does Norway have a more generous welfare state and have less debt than the US?


Gee, it almost feels like fiscal conservatism is a giant scam and most fiscal conservatives don't actually care about the debt:


While congress critters enjoy re-election rates of over 90% it’s ridiculous to expect them to stop their continuous federal deficit (stimulus?) spending. Of the 435 House races 22 are said to be toss-ups and only 3 to 5 Senate races are said be toss-ups in 2024.
 
Yes, I think bringing in business principles for managing the federal finances would be a superb I idea, and I question the seriousness of anyone who would challenge that.

Then the US should increase taxes to increase revenue, companies usually do things to increase revenue, not just reduce spending.
Don’t know and I don’t care. Spending more than you make for decades on end is not going to lead to good place for “old people” or anyone else, for that matter.

You don't care, but the old people in the GOP base do care. I have seen plenty of conservatives here who don't want the government to cut Medicare and Social Security, because they paid into those programs and they deserve them in their old age.

And how many conservatives will support cuts to the military? How many GOP politicians would want to to cut corporate subsidies?

How popular would these cuts actually be? Unless these things are actually popular, they won't happen.
Don’t know, don’t care.


That tax polices I favor would produce very different outcomes: a single rate paid on all income earned over the poverty level with no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, and no tax favors for Washington to sell.

And how would you enforce that on guys like Bezos?

If you give guys like Bezos a giant tax cut, what stops them from putting it in a Cayman islands account rather than investing it in the US economy? Would the tax cuts pay for themselves if that happens?
 
And how would you enforce that on guys like Bezos?

If you give guys like Bezos a giant tax cut, what stops them from putting it in a Cayman islands account rather than investing it in the US economy? Would the tax cuts pay for themselves if that happens?
Guys like Bezos are an easily solvable exception. The real problem is that most households have 0 income tax liability.
 
Because they tax their citizenry to death.

View attachment 67539587

And how much do guys like Bezos pay in taxes?


Maybe you need to raise taxes on guys like Bezos to balance the budget, because clearly these giant tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

If you think you say you are a fiscal conservative and also say that corporate tax cuts pay for themselves, I don't think you are serious.
 
I don’t think taxes need to be raised. Freezing spending will work.
Based on what?
What does it even mean, most spending is not traditionally "freezable", unless you're talking about defaulting?
Also, what do you think freezing federal spending will do? Tank the economy...job loss, perhaps a recession, without signals it would stop then perhaps a depression.
What do you think the loss of that economic activity and jobs will do to the tax revenue? Drop it. So it's going to feed back into less income to offset spending, resulting in what NatMorton?

Maybe cite some credible economists who agree that's a good idea, otherwise it looks like it's pure fantasy.
 
Then the US should increase taxes to increase revenue, companies usually do things to increase revenue, not just reduce spending.
Can you give me one good reason why I should believe handing over still more revenue to Washington would lead to anything other than still more spending?
 
Guys like Bezos are an easily solvable exception. The real problem is that most households have 0 income tax liability.

Then solve it, make him actually pay taxes.

And what sort of households with zero liability are you talking about?
 
And how much do guys like Bezos pay in taxes?


Maybe you need to raise taxes on guys like Bezos to balance the budget, because clearly these giant tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

If you think you say you are a fiscal conservative and also say that corporate tax cuts pay for themselves, I don't think you are serious.
Only 0.6% of the top 20% don’t have income tax liability. Again, the problem is that the lower and middle classes (the vast of majority of Americans) overwhelmingly don’t have effective income tax liability.
 
Then solve it, make him actually pay taxes.

And what sort of households with zero liability are you talking about?
He does pay taxes. The majority of Americans do not have any income tax liability. That is the problem. Not billionaires.
 
Based on what?
Based on math. You can try it yourself. Federal revenue growth over the last 40 years as averaged between 5% and 6%. Take our current revenue and outlay numbers, freeze the outlays, continue the 5.5% revenue growth rate, and carry if forward twenty or thirty years. Tell me what you get.

What does it even mean, most spending is not traditionally "freezable", unless you're talking about defaulting?
I’m not talking about defaulting. I’m talking about freezing total spending, not every line item.

Also, what do you think freezing federal spending will do? Tank the economy...job loss, perhaps a recession, without signals it would stop then perhaps a depression.
What do you think the loss of that economic activity and jobs will do to the tax revenue? Drop it. So it's going to feed back into less income to offset spending, resulting in what NatMorton?
I think it will eventually end annual deficits and bring down the debt.

As for dire predictions of the future, where do you think the growing debt will take us?

Maybe cite some credible economists who agree that's a good idea, otherwise it looks like it's pure fantasy.
Do you really need an economist to tell you it’s a bad idea to spend more than you take in year after year?
 
Can you give me one good reason why I should believe handing over still more revenue to Washington would lead to anything other than still more spending?

Spending will increase regardless, I am just saying a company that does not increase its revenue usually sucks. You want to treat the US like a company, you have to increase revenue then.

Why does the US spend more on healthcare than Canada?


If the US healthcare system is so much better why do you spend more than say Canada?

Why does the US military have so much waste in it?


Seems like the military and healthcare systems in the US are intentionally wasteful in order to give corporate handouts.

All the billionaires who want tax cuts also profit off wasteful spending, this waste is by design.
 
Do you really need an economist to tell you it’s a bad idea to spend more than you take in year after year?
You’re talking to people who think the laws of mathematics are different for the government and they can spend infinite money and accrue infinite debt with no repercussions.
 
Spending will increase regardless, I am just saying a company that does not increase its revenue usually sucks. You want to treat the US like a company, you have to increase revenue then.

Why does the US spend more on healthcare than Canada?


If the US healthcare system is so much better why do you spend more than say Canada?

Why does the US military have so much waste in it?


Seems like the military and healthcare systems in the US are intentionally wasteful in order to give corporate handouts.

All the billionaires who want tax cuts also profit off wasteful spending, this waste is by design.
But that’s just it, revenue is increasing, and it has been increasing at a remarkable clip for a very long time. If you go look at the numbers since 1980, federal tax revenue has an average YOY increase of about 6%. There’s isn’t a Global 500 CEO that wouldn’t kill for revenue performance like that.

No, increasing revenue even more is not the answer. Curbing spending is the only path.
 
Only 0.6% of the top 20% don’t have income tax liability. Again, the problem is that the lower and middle classes (the vast of majority of Americans) overwhelmingly don’t have effective income tax liability.

That mainly due to gross annual income being ‘adjusted’ (via numerous deductions, credits, exclusions and special accounting methods - often called loopholes) based (mostly) on how and upon who that gross income was later spent.

A $10K tax deduction gets someone with enough income in the 25% bracket rate a $2.5K federal subsidy, while it gets someone with enough income in the 35% bracket rate a (40%) larger federal subsidy of $3.5K. It makes absolutely no sense to give higher income folks larger federal subsidies than lower income folks.
 
He does pay taxes. The majority of Americans do not have any income tax liability. That is the problem. Not billionaires.

Did you actually read the article I posted about Bezos not paying taxes?

Are you saying the debt is caused by poor people and poor people are lazy?

You know which country has the highest debt to GDP ratio? Japan. Do you think Japan is full of lazy moochers on welfare who don't want to work and that is why their debt is so high? Clearly that is not the problem in Japan.

Also if you are going to say " I don't care Japan and their debt", you are clearly not serious about this. Are you are unwilling to study what other countries debt loads are and how they are similar or different from the US? Doing such comparisons is basic common sense.
 
But that’s just it, revenue is increasing, and it has been increasing at a remarkable clip for a very long time. If you go look at the numbers since 1980, federal tax revenue has an average YOY increase of about 6%. There’s isn’t a Global 500 CEO that wouldn’t kill for revenue performance like that.

No, increasing revenue even more is not the answer. Curbing spending is the only path.

Is it? How does the system compensate for guys like Bezos paying nothing in taxes then?
 
Did you actually read the article I posted about Bezos not paying taxes?

Are you saying the debt is caused by poor people and poor people are lazy?

You know which country has the highest debt to GDP ratio? Japan. Do you think Japan is full of lazy moochers on welfare who don't want to work and that is why their debt is so high? Clearly that is not the problem in Japan.

Also if you are going to say " I don't care Japan and their debt", you are clearly not serious about this. Are you are unwilling to study what other countries debt loads are and how they are similar or different from the US? Doing such comparisons is basic common sense.
The fact is that, unlike your dream State (Norway), the majority of Americans don’t have federal income tax liability. You can’t have your precious welfare State in a country in which most citizens don’t owe a dime in taxes. Bezos paid $942 million in taxes from 2014-2018. Musk paid $11 billion in taxes in 2021 alone.
 
Is it? How does the system compensate for guys like Bezos paying nothing in taxes then?
I don’t agree with your premise and, even if I did, I don’t see its relevant to this discussion. The federal government is not short of revenue, period.
 
Back
Top Bottom