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

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

  • Yes. Short term loss, long term gains.

    Votes: 5 8.2%

  • Yes, but no tax cuts for the upper tax brackets.

    Votes: 5 8.2%

  • No. The national debt and deficit is too high for tax cuts.

    Votes: 18 29.5%

  • No. But if we were running a budget surplus, my answer would be yes.

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • No. No. No. We need to INCREASE taxes. They are too low.

    Votes: 20 32.8%

  • No. No. No. Cut my taxes, but not if it increases the debt or deficit.

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Other - please explain

    Votes: 10 16.4%
  • Total voters
    61
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.
 

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.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
jmotivator said:
The Laffer Curve exists.
Click to expand...
The laffer curve has been discredited.
We have 4 decades of data showing revenue is less after republicans cut taxes.
 
rahl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

rahl said:
The laffer curve has been discredited.
Click to expand...

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.

rahl said:
We have 4 decades of data showing revenue is less after republicans cut taxes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jmotivator said:
That is false.
Click to expand...
It’s a mathematical fact.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t happen. This is the Republican promise every time they slash revenue. But it simply never happens.
jmotivator said:
There are several cases where the US decreased tax rates and revenue increased.
Click to expand...
No there isn’t. Ever. Because it’s mathematically impossible.
jmotivator said:
Reagan dropped the Federal Tax rate and revenue nearly tripled.
Click to expand...
No it didn’t.
jmotivator said:
No, it hasn't.
Click to expand...
Yes it has.
jmotivator said:
As I pointed out, the Laffer Curve is a theoretical assertion that there is not a linear correlation between tax rates and revenue.
Click to expand...
Which has been debunked.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
This never happens. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.
jmotivator said:
False.
Click to expand...
Objectively true.
jmotivator said:
Trump's 2017 tax cuts resulted in higher revenue by 2019.
Click to expand...
Nope. We took in less revenue because we collected at a lower rate.
jmotivator said:
Tax receipts were higher during the 2020 recession year than they were in 2017.
Click to expand...
Because of population growth and inflation. Revenues will always increase, year over year, unless there is a recession.
jmotivator said:
Kennedy Tax cuts resulted in higher revenue.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t.
jmotivator said:
As mentioned above, Reagan's tax cuts lead to a booming economy and record receipts for the time.
Click to expand...
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.
jmotivator said:
Asserting there is a simple linear correlation between tax revenue and revenue is simply false.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.

rahl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jmotivator said:
You keep claiming this to be true but you don't provide the evidence.
Click to expand...
Math hid the evidence. 40+ years of economic data is the evidence.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with tax cuts. Because math is a proven science. Increase was from the tech boom.
jmotivator said:
Nope, you are mixing debt and revenue which is just silly.
Click to expand...
Less revenue creates more debt. lol
jmotivator said:
Deficits increased because of increased SPENDING, not decreased revenue.
Click to expand...
Deficits increased because of decreased revenue AND increased spending. Republican fiscal incompetence is truly astounding.
jmotivator said:
The bulk of the 2020 budget deficit was due to nearly $2 trillion in spending on COVID, not a tax cut.
Click to expand...
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.
jmotivator said:
Like I said, revenues were higher in 2020 than they were before Trump's tax cut, what changed was spending.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rahl said:
Math hid the evidence. 40+ years of economic data is the evidence.
Click to expand...

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

rahl said:
Nothing to do with tax cuts. Because math is a proven science. Increase was from the tech boom.
Click to expand...

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

rahl said:
Less revenue creates more debt. lol
Click to expand...

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.

rahl said:
Deficits increased because of decreased revenue AND increased spending. Republican fiscal incompetence is truly astounding.
Click to expand...

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.


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


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.
 
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.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL!! Nope. What the revenue numbers show is that revenues have risen when taxes were cut many times.
Click to expand...
Refuted this already.
jmotivator said:
Are you just being a troll? Because your arguments are just getting less sensible...
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing. I’m correcting. Math is objective.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
Correct.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. It’s a revenue problem. You don’t take in enough revenue to cover your budget.
jmotivator said:
False. As I said, revenues didn't decrease in the cases I gave you, the budgets increased.
Click to expand...
Revenue decreased each time taxes were cut, because……….math.
jmotivator said:
The deficit was not due to lower revenue in those cases, it was due to higher spending.
Click to expand...
Revenue was less because taxes were cut. Revenue was not enough to cover spending. Revenue was the problem.
jmotivator said:
I never claimed you did. I was pointing out that the 2020 deficit was largely due to spending, not tax cuts.
Click to expand...
Tax cuts caused less revenue, so of course it contributed to the deficit.
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Slavister said:
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!
Click to expand...

If only both parties would admit that they're fiscally irresponsible...
 
Hello My Son said:
If only both parties would admit that they're fiscally irresponsible...
Click to expand...
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.
 
BrotherFease said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course you can.

BrotherFease said:
The question was, are you in favor of cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit or debt.
Click to expand...
And I dispute the premise of the question, that cutting taxes can ever increase the debt. It cannot.
 

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?
 
BrotherFease said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.


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.


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.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
That's less "increasing debt" than "defaulting on the debt you have."
Click to expand...

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.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, you have refuted nothing, and your arguments have been lazy fiskings like the one above.
Click to expand...
It’s not an argument. It’s 4 decades of data showing you lol.
jmotivator said:
You claim that "math" proves your point and you offer none.
Click to expand...
22% of something is less than 29% of something.
jmotivator said:
And yes, you did move the goalposts when you decided to argue deficits rather than revenue.
Click to expand...
Nope. Goalposts have been firmly cemented.
jmotivator said:
I just can't figure out if you think you are gaslighting the argument or don't actually know the difference?
Click to expand...
I’m correcting your right wing religious belief that cutting taxes increases revenue. This never happens, and has never happened because……..math.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Cutting taxes does not increase the debt. Spending beyond revenues is what increases the debt, in all cases.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…