Do you support cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit?

[jmotivator]

The issue with this poll is that it is assuming a static economy that doesn't actually exist.

There are many cases where cutting taxes has resulted in higher tax revenue, and raising taxes has led to lower revenue. The Laffer Curve exists.

The issue then in that the Laffer is only really defined at the endpoints at 0% taxes and 100% taxes.

So we don't REALLY know where we are on the Laffer curve, or even the shape of the curve we are living in... so will revenue go up or down with a change in the tax rate? Don't know.

Heck, you could lower taxes and watch revenue drop and then reenact the tax rates at revenue will drop again because there is no immutable Laffer curve behind any economy, it changes, like the stock market, with public perception.

So anyway, the poll requires that we assume an outcome before the outcome can be known.

My Answer: Other.

 

[jmotivator]

I support a more fair tax system that will cut the net taxes for some and increase them for others.

Only one tax rate for everyone.

Only individual filing for the wage earner.

Some tax deductions acceptable, everyone gets a single tax deduction for themself.

No tax credits.

This is the only real solution. A flat tax that applies to EVERYONE with no loopholes will collect taxes, and give the market what it desperately wants at all times: Stability.

Constant changes to the tax code inserts volatility and cost overhead and an inability to plan finances in micro and macro levels, and when a business can't project a tax burden a year or two out they will be more conservative in investment.

 

[rahl]

The issue with this poll is that it is assuming a static economy that doesn't actually exist.

There are many cases where cutting taxes has resulted in higher tax revenue, and raising taxes has led to lower revenue.

It’s mathematically impossible to get more of something by collecting less of it. We have over 4 decades of data showing tax cuts do not magically increase economic output, thereby offsetting the reduction in revenue. It has never happened.

The Laffer Curve exists.

The laffer curve has been discredited.

The issue then in that the Laffer is only really defined at the endpoints at 0% taxes and 100% taxes.

So we don't REALLY know where we are on the Laffer curve, or even the shape of the curve we are living in... so will revenue go up or down with a change in the tax rate? Don't know.

We have 4 decades of data showing revenue is less after republicans cut taxes.

Heck, you could lower taxes and watch revenue drop and then reenact the tax rates at revenue will drop again because there is no immutable Laffer curve behind any economy, it changes, like the stock market, with public perception.

So anyway, the poll requires that we assume an outcome before the outcome can be known.

My Answer: Other.

 

[aociswundumho]

You have an issue with government-run schools? Most people went to public schools.

Yeah, I do. They suck:

54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level

And they are extremely expensive:

Report Highlights. Public education spending in the United States falls short of global benchmarks and lags behind economic growth; K-12 schools spend $857.2 billion total ($17,277 per pupil) annually.

 

[jmotivator]

It’s mathematically impossible to get more of something by collecting less of it. We have over 4 decades of data showing tax cuts do not magically increase economic output, thereby offsetting the reduction in revenue. It has never happened.

That is false. Let's say you have a 20% tax on $1 trillion, and you lower the tax to 10% and it sparks economic growth so the base grows from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion, your 10% now collects $250 billion while the 20% collected $200 billion.

There are several cases where the US decreased tax rates and revenue increased. Reagan dropped the Federal Tax rate and revenue nearly tripled.

The laffer curve has been discredited.

No, it hasn't. As I pointed out, the Laffer Curve is a theoretical assertion that there is not a linear correlation between tax rates and revenue. You can in fact lower a tax rate and end up with more revenue because the resulting economic grow lead to more revenue from the smaller share than was realized by the larger share.

We have 4 decades of data showing revenue is less after republicans cut taxes.

False. Trump's 2017 tax cuts resulted in higher revenue by 2019. Tax receipts were higher during the 2020 recession year than they were in 2017.

Kennedy Tax cuts resulted in higher revenue.

As mentioned above, Reagan's tax cuts lead to a booming economy and record receipts for the time.

Asserting there is a simple linear correlation between tax revenue and revenue is simply false.

 

[rahl]

That is false.

It’s a mathematical fact.

Let's say you have a 20% tax on $1 trillion, and you lower the tax to 10% and it sparks economic growth so the base grows from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion, your 10% now collects $250 billion while the 20% collected $200 billion.

This doesn’t happen. This is the Republican promise every time they slash revenue. But it simply never happens.

There are several cases where the US decreased tax rates and revenue increased.

No there isn’t. Ever. Because it’s mathematically impossible.

Reagan dropped the Federal Tax rate and revenue nearly tripled.

No it didn’t.

No, it hasn't.

Yes it has.

As I pointed out, the Laffer Curve is a theoretical assertion that there is not a linear correlation between tax rates and revenue.

Which has been debunked.

You can in fact lower a tax rate and end up with more revenue because the resulting economic grow lead to more revenue from the smaller share than was realized by the larger share.

This never happens. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.

False.

Objectively true.

Trump's 2017 tax cuts resulted in higher revenue by 2019.

Nope. We took in less revenue because we collected at a lower rate.

Tax receipts were higher during the 2020 recession year than they were in 2017.

Because of population growth and inflation. Revenues will always increase, year over year, unless there is a recession.

Kennedy Tax cuts resulted in higher revenue.

No they didn’t.

As mentioned above, Reagan's tax cuts lead to a booming economy and record receipts for the time.

Nope. There was no magical increase in economic output. We have decades of data showing this. All Reagan did was slash revenue, and EXPLODE the debt.

Asserting there is a simple linear correlation between tax revenue and revenue is simply false.

It’s objective, mathematical fact. It’s why every single time righties have slashed revenue, they EXPLODED the deficit and debt. Because there has been no magical increase in who omicron output.

 

[jmotivator]

It’s a mathematical fact.

This doesn’t happen. This is the Republican promise every time they slash revenue. But it simply never happens.

No there isn’t. Ever. Because it’s mathematically impossible.

No it didn’t.

Yes it has.

Which has been debunked.

This never happens. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.

Objectively true.

Nope. We took in less revenue because we collected at a lower rate.

Because of population growth and inflation. Revenues will always increase, year over year, unless there is a recession.

No they didn’t.

Nope. There was no magical increase in economic output. We have decades of data showing this. All Reagan did was slash revenue, and EXPLODE the debt.

You keep claiming this to be true but you don't provide the evidence.

Tax receipts for FY 1980 were ~$240 billion

Reagan first cut taxes in 1981 and receipts increased to ~$599 billion in 1981, and $617 billion in 1982.

It’s objective, mathematical fact. It’s why every single time righties have slashed revenue, they EXPLODED the deficit and debt. Because there has been no magical increase in who omicron output.

Nope, you are mixing debt and revenue which is just silly. Deficits increased because of increased SPENDING, not decreased revenue.

The bulk of the 2020 budget deficit was due to nearly $2 trillion in spending on COVID, not a tax cut. Like I said, revenues were higher in 2020 than they were before Trump's tax cut, what changed was spending.

 

[rahl]

You keep claiming this to be true but you don't provide the evidence.

Math hid the evidence. 40+ years of economic data is the evidence.

Tax receipts for FY 1980 were ~$240 billion

Reagan first cut taxes in 1981 and receipts increased to ~$599 billion in 1981, and $617 billion in 1982.

Nothing to do with tax cuts. Because math is a proven science. Increase was from the tech boom.

Nope, you are mixing debt and revenue which is just silly.

Less revenue creates more debt. lol

Deficits increased because of increased SPENDING, not decreased revenue.

Deficits increased because of decreased revenue AND increased spending. Republican fiscal incompetence is truly astounding.

The bulk of the 2020 budget deficit was due to nearly $2 trillion in spending on COVID, not a tax cut.

Never claimed 2020 COVOD spending didn’t add to the deficit. I pointed out tax cuts do nothing but increase the deficit, because we take in less revenue and don’t decrease spending to compensate. Republicans even INCREASE spending when they slash revenues. It’s fiscal incompetence.

Like I said, revenues were higher in 2020 than they were before Trump's tax cut, what changed was spending.

Refuted this already. Revenues always increase year over year due to population growth and inflation. There has never been a magical increase in economic output when republicans slash revenues. All that happens is deficits and debt explode. 4 decades of data show you this.

 

[jmotivator]

Math hid the evidence. 40+ years of economic data is the evidence.

LOL!! Nope. What the revenue numbers show is that revenues have risen when taxes were cut many times.

Nothing to do with tax cuts. Because math is a proven science. Increase was from the tech boom.

Are you just being a troll? Because your arguments are just getting less sensible...

Less revenue creates more debt. lol

Not really. Debt is a combination of revenue and spending. If you have a revenue of $200 billion and a budget of $300 billion you have $100 billion in deficit. If your revenue jumps to $600 billion and your budget jumps to $800 billion you have $200 billion in deficit, and it is entirely a budget problem, not a revenue problem.

Deficits increased because of decreased revenue AND increased spending. Republican fiscal incompetence is truly astounding.

False. As I said, revenues didn't decrease in the cases I gave you, the budgets increased. The deficit was not due to lower revenue in those cases, it was due to higher spending.

Never claimed 2020 COVOD spending didn’t add to the deficit. I pointed out tax cuts do nothing but increase the deficit, because we take in less revenue and don’t decrease spending to compensate. Republicans even INCREASE spending when they slash revenues. It’s fiscal incompetence.

I never claimed you did. I was pointing out that the 2020 deficit was largely due to spending, not tax cuts.

Refuted this already. Revenues always increase year over year due to population growth and inflation. There has never been a magical increase in economic output when republicans slash revenues. All that happens is deficits and debt explode. 4 decades of data show you this.

You haven't refuted ANYTHING all you do is say "No" as if your word is all you need. I've given you the numbers, and you moved the goal posts.

 

[BrotherFease]

You keep claiming this to be true but you don't provide the evidence.

Tax receipts for FY 1980 were ~$240 billion

Reagan first cut taxes in 1981 and receipts increased to ~$599 billion in 1981, and $617 billion in 1982.



Nope, you are mixing debt and revenue which is just silly. Deficits increased because of increased SPENDING, not decreased revenue.

The bulk of the 2020 budget deficit was due to nearly $2 trillion in spending on COVID, not a tax cut. Like I said, revenues were higher in 2020 than they were before Trump's tax cut, what changed was spending.

Ronald Reagan's administration both lowered and raised taxes throughout his term. Lets not ignore the reality that Reagan was a gigantic tax hiker as well.

The Debt and Deficit got so big that H.W had to raise taxes in order to stay financially solvent.

As @rahl accurately points out, Republicans have successfully lowered taxes AND increased governmental spending. They do not lower taxes AND then either decrease or keep spending levels at neutral status. If you look at the GOP new spending bill, it increases the National Debt by 3.3 trillion dollars within a ten year time span.

More over, the question posed was, are people okay with tax cuts, even if they resulted in higher deficit and debt. Their answer is a resounding yes. 3/4th of GOP voters do not care about the debt and deficit. I would be surprised if they know the difference between the two. They certainly cannot define DEI or Critical Race Theory.

 

[rahl]

LOL!! Nope. What the revenue numbers show is that revenues have risen when taxes were cut many times.

Refuted this already.

Are you just being a troll? Because your arguments are just getting less sensible...

I’m not arguing. I’m correcting. Math is objective.

Not really. Debt is a combination of revenue and spending. If you have a revenue of $200 billion and a budget of $300 billion you have $100 billion in deficit.

Correct.

If your revenue jumps to $600 billion and your budget jumps to $800 billion you have $200 billion in deficit, and it is entirely a budget problem, not a revenue problem.

Nope. It’s a revenue problem. You don’t take in enough revenue to cover your budget.

False. As I said, revenues didn't decrease in the cases I gave you, the budgets increased.

Revenue decreased each time taxes were cut, because……….math.

The deficit was not due to lower revenue in those cases, it was due to higher spending.

Revenue was less because taxes were cut. Revenue was not enough to cover spending. Revenue was the problem.

I never claimed you did. I was pointing out that the 2020 deficit was largely due to spending, not tax cuts.

Tax cuts caused less revenue, so of course it contributed to the deficit.

You haven't refuted ANYTHING all you do is say "No" as if your word is all you need. I've given you the numbers, and you moved the goal posts.

Goalposts remain firmly cemented. Tax cuts, as a matter of mathematical fact, causes revenues to be less. This is not debatable. Tax cuts, have never caused a magical increase in economic output. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.

 

[Hello My Son]

Wow, what a degradation!

74% of GOP (err... SOP = shitty old party) is for cutting taxes even if it means higher national debt? The party of "fiscal responsibility"... what nonsense!

If only both parties would admit that they're fiscally irresponsible...

 

[rahl]

If only both parties would admit that they're fiscally irresponsible...

While both parties are irresponsible with spending, republicans are completely fiscally incompetent. They not only outspend democrats, but they slash revenues at the same time.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

There's a few issues with your commentary. Lets review:

Cutting taxes does not NECESSARILY increase the debt or deficit. You can cut taxes AND reduce spending expenditure.

Of course you can.

The question was, are you in favor of cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit or debt.

And I dispute the premise of the question, that cutting taxes can ever increase the debt. It cannot.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Cutting taxes causes spending beyond revenues.

No. Refusing to adjust outlays in response to changes in receipts causes spending beyond revenues.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Opinions vary.

I see no indication in any of those charts that spending more than you take in isn't the cause of added debt.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That's the same thing.

It totally is not.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Cutting taxes reduces revenues, which in turn increases the debt unless spending is cut to compensate for the revenue reduction....

Exactly. Spending more than you take in causes debt.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That has to be the most idiotic claim I've read in quite awhile.

It's weird to be fighting so fiercely against the simple notion that debt is caused by spending more than you have.

No wonder you love Trump so much...

No u.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Mmm... not if you cut below what is required to service your debts. So, not "all" cases.

That's less "increasing debt" than "defaulting on the debt you have."

 

[jmotivator]

Refuted this already.

I’m not arguing. I’m correcting. Math is objective.

Correct.

Nope. It’s a revenue problem. You don’t take in enough revenue to cover your budget.

Revenue decreased each time taxes were cut, because……….math.

Revenue was less because taxes were cut. Revenue was not enough to cover spending. Revenue was the problem.

Tax cuts caused less revenue, so of course it contributed to the deficit.


Goalposts remain firmly cemented. Tax cuts, as a matter of mathematical fact, causes revenues to be less. This is not debatable. Tax cuts, have never caused a magical increase in economic output. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.

Again, you have refuted nothing, and your arguments have been lazy fiskings like the one above.

You claim that "math" proves your point and you offer none.

And yes, you did move the goalposts when you decided to argue deficits rather than revenue. I just can't figure out if you think you are gaslighting the argument or don't actually know the difference?

 

[jmotivator]

Ronald Reagan's administration both lowered and raised taxes throughout his term. Lets not ignore the reality that Reagan was a gigantic tax hiker as well.

Reagan never raised the income tax rate, it only decreased during his presidency while revenue increased.

The Debt and Deficit got so big that H.W had to raise taxes in order to stay financially solvent.

We aren't talking deficits, we are talking revenues and whether revenue can increase after a tax cut, which they can, and have, numerous times.

As @rahl accurately points out, Republicans have successfully lowered taxes AND increased governmental spending. They do not lower taxes AND then either decrease or keep spending levels at neutral status. If you look at the GOP new spending bill, it increases the National Debt by 3.3 trillion dollars within a ten year time span.

Rahl has moved the goalposts. We were debating the fact that lowering taxes can raise revenue, not deficits. Nobody would argue that you run a deficit when you spend more than you take in, but that isn't the argument.

I'm not even making a R-v-D argument since the higher revenue from lower tax rate phenomenon has happened under Democrat administrations as well.

More over, the question posed was, are people okay with tax cuts, even if they resulted in higher deficit and debt. Their answer is a resounding yes. 3/4th of GOP voters do not care about the debt and deficit. I would be surprised if they know the difference between the two. They certainly cannot define DEI or Critical Race Theory.

And I am pointing out that if a tax cut increases revenue, but the deficit goes up because spending increases, then the tax cut isn't the cause of the increased deficit, the spending is. In fact, if the economy grows and revenue increases as the result of a tax cut, as it can, and has, then you could safely argue that the deficit would have been higher if you increased spending and didn't lower the tax rate because you'd have the same higher spending and a lower revenue base.

 

[OlNate]

That's less "increasing debt" than "defaulting on the debt you have."

No i was more thinking about the interest.

It's a silly bit of hair splitting anyway, I just saw a nail with it's head sticking up a little in your comment and I couldn't walk past without giving it a tap.

The real way cutting taxes can increase debt is if those services are in place to prevent a greater cost. For example, SNAP is cheaper than fighting the crime associated with a significant portion of the population going hungry. Cut SNAP to facilitate a tax cut, and not only are you now facing the higher expenses of fighting crime, you have less tax revenue than before to address it.

That's how cutting taxes can result in a higher debt. Most of your core, big cost bucket services are not charity, they either exist to increase national revenue (education, Healthcare) or reduce costs (SNAP). There will be a cost associated with every service lost or degraded that needs to be factored in. If that cost exceeds the amount you save on taxes, there is the possibility that your debt could increase.

The best way to cut taxes by reducing costs, unironically, is an organization like DOGE. Properly run, at a reasonable and humane pace, it could fix a lot of your problems. Sadly, given the way it has been implemented under Trump, it will be a long time before it is given a fair shot again, but driving efficiencies and eliminating corruption is the way... you just can't put it in the hands of corrupt people. So... hehe... good luck with that.

 

[rahl]

Again, you have refuted nothing, and your arguments have been lazy fiskings like the one above.

It’s not an argument. It’s 4 decades of data showing you lol.

You claim that "math" proves your point and you offer none.

22% of something is less than 29% of something.

And yes, you did move the goalposts when you decided to argue deficits rather than revenue.

Nope. Goalposts have been firmly cemented.

I just can't figure out if you think you are gaslighting the argument or don't actually know the difference?

I’m correcting your right wing religious belief that cutting taxes increases revenue. This never happens, and has never happened because……..math.

 

[upsideguy]

Cutting taxes does not increase the debt. Spending beyond revenues is what increases the debt, in all cases.

That is idiotic. There are two ways to increase deficits..... one is to raise expenditures, the other is to reduce revenue.... Of course, cutting expenditures and/or increasing revenue have the opposite effect, to reduce deficits (or increase surplus). Sorry, that is simply Accounting 101.