• 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?


  • Total voters
    61
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.
Trying to explain basic math to him is about as effective as teaching quantum physics to your dog.

I should have said "mule." It's not so much inability, as stubborn refusal.
 
Last edited:
As long as the government spends recklessly and is supported by people that demand more government spending and no accountability...I dont support ANY taxes. You dont solve the problem by giving addicts more money to spend.
 
As long as the government spends recklessly and is supported by people that demand more government spending and no accountability...I dont support ANY taxes. You dont solve the problem by giving addicts more money to spend.
“Starve the beast” has been a right wing mantra for decades. It’s moronic. All that happens is republicans slash revenues, and then outspend democrats. EXPLODING the deficit and debt.
 
Cut taxes for those households making less than 200K, gradually increase them for over that amount. Tax capital gains at a higher percentage past 100K when the funds are cashed out. Higher business taxes for businesses realizing a net profit of more than 1 million a year. Get rid of the graft and waste throughout the government.
 
No. Refusing to adjust outlays in response to changes in receipts causes spending beyond revenues.
No. By “changes in receipts” you are actually referring to just shoveling more and more money to big donors. Why should we expect the bottom half of the country who are struggling just to get along to live on less just so that politicians can reward big donors with huge tax breaks?

In a House Rules Committee hearing on Feb. 24, Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking Democrat on the committee, offered several amendments to cap the extension of tax cuts at various income levels — first for those making under $400,000 per year, then at $1 million, then at $100 million, then $1 billion per year. All were rejected along party lines. Again, it’s all about rewarding the big donors l

The $400,000 level would have cut the amount of “changes in receipts” by about half or 2 trillion dollars. I know that he can’t afford a suit or a baby sitter when he is in the Oval Office but how much more money do you think Elon Musk needs?
 
Cut taxes for those households making less than 200K,
Republicans won’t agree to cutting taxes only for those under 200K, or 400K or 1M or even 1B! Half the cuts or 2 trillion dollars will go to those making MORE than 400K.

In a House Rules Committee hearing on Feb. 24, Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking Democrat on the committee, offered several amendments to cap the extension of tax cuts at various income levels — first for those making under $400,000 per year, then at $1 million, then at $100 million, then $1 billion per year. All were rejected along party lines.

gradually increase them for over that amount. Tax capital gains at a higher percentage past 100K when the funds are cashed out. Higher business taxes for businesses realizing a net profit of more than 1 million a year. Get rid of the graft and waste throughout the government.
 
It’s not an argument. It’s 4 decades of data showing you lol.

You have made that claim a few times and never actually provided the data. I have given you the data that shows revenues increasing after tax cuts. Your handwaving isn't an argument.

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

Again you display static reasoning. Your argument assumes that both "something"s are the same thing when they aren't. If that "something" grows following a tax cut, as it did in the 60s, 80s and 2010s then that 22% can be large than the 29% of the something as it existed before the tax cut.

What's larger, 33% of a 10" pizza of 25% of an 18" pizza?

Nope. Goalposts have been firmly cemented.

No they have no. The argument was not about a deficit, the argument was about revenue, which isn't the deficit.

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

I'm stating facts and you are proving you can present no actual argument and are very very bad with basic math.
 
You have made that claim a few times and never actually provided the data. I have given you the data that shows revenues increasing after tax cuts.
Refuted this already. Revenues increase year over year, every year due to population growth and inflation, barring a recession. Collecting something at 22% instead of 29%, means you collected less. This is irrefutable mathematical fact.
Your handwaving isn't an argument.
Which is why I’ve instead pointed out the 4 decades of economic data showing we didn’t magically increase economic output when Troy locals slashed revenues. And instead pointed out the massive deficits caused by the reduced revenue.
Again you display static reasoning. Your argument assumes that both "something"s are the same thing when they aren't. If that "something" grows following a tax cut, as it did in the 60s, 80s and 2010s then that 22% can be large than the 29% of the something as it existed before the tax cut.
Had there been the mythical and magical increase in economic output that republicans always propose when they slash revenues, you’d have a point. But this has never happened. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.
What's larger, 33% of a 10" pizza of 25% of an 18" pizza?
Had the economy gone from 10 to 18, you’d have a point. But it didn’t.
No they have no. The argument was not about a deficit, the argument was about revenue, which isn't the deficit.
Decreased revenue causes deficits lol.
I'm stating facts and you are proving you can present no actual argument and are very very bad with basic math.
Nope. You are parroting long debunked right wing fiscal stupidity. I am pounding it into the ground with actual mathematical fact, and 4 decades of economic data.
 
I support adding additional tax brackets which would be a tax increase on all Americans making above 600k a year. The deficit is becoming a huge problem but we can't just keep giving rich people tax cuts and slashing federal programs that help common people.
 
What's larger, 33% of a 10" pizza of 25% of an 18" pizza?
If you are a modern state and claim to be a beacon of democracy, it ought to pay for the social services comparable to other democracies, especially in light of the freedoms and protections we grant to corporations. All I want, not 33%, not even 25% (which would ironically put us in the range of other modern states!)....all I want is 20%.

fredgraph (1).webp
 
If you are a modern state and claim to be a beacon of democracy, it ought to pay for the social services comparable to other democracies, especially in light of the freedoms and protections we grant to corporations. All I want, not 33%, not even 25% (which would ironically put us in the range of other modern states!)....all I want is 20%.

View attachment 67571648

Criminey, you folks REALLY love moving goal posts. Revenues as a % of GDP isn't the actual value of the revenue, all that it shows is when and where GDP grows faster than revenue, not the absolute value of the revenue collected.

Saying "All I want is 20%" is the kind of simplistic nonsense that feeds the left but accomplishes nothing. What if that constant 20% that you demand results in a 20% but with a declining GDP? If GDP drops 20%, but you still collect 20% of that, are you happy?

It is entirely possible to collect more revenue at 15% of GDP than at 20% of GDP depending on the size of the GDP in each case.
 
Refuted this already. Revenues increase year over year, every year due to population growth and inflation, barring a recession. Collecting something at 22% instead of 29%, means you collected less. This is irrefutable mathematical fact.

You refuted nothing. You provided zero data. You simply claim the data exists and somehow you keep failing to provide it.
 
Criminey, you folks REALLY love moving goal posts. Revenues as a % of GDP isn't the actual value of the revenue,
it is not moving anything, it is an expression of the cut of the pie, it has a value, stop posting nonsense
all that it shows is when and where GDP grows faster than revenue, not the absolute value of the revenue collected.
It also shows the effect of tax rate cuts, IRS enforcement effectiveness....ect on the overall collection of revenue. Again, I will settle for 20%
Saying "All I want is 20%" is the kind of simplistic nonsense that feeds the left but accomplishes nothing. What if that constant 20% that you demand results in a 20% but with a declining GDP?If GDP drops 20%, but you still collect 20% of that, are you happy?
Oh, you want to assume some marginal tax change causes a change in GDP. Did you see the chart? Do you you see those periods where marginal rates went up...say 93-00?

It is entirely possible to collect more revenue at 15% of GDP than at 20% of GDP depending on the size of the GDP in each case.
Anything is possible.....flying monkeys and all.

I'm guessing the whole "modern state" concept is rejected since it was not touched upon.
 
You have made that claim a few times and never actually provided the data. I have given you the data that shows revenues increasing after tax cuts. Your handwaving isn't an argument.
What your point? Unless we have a major recession government revenue pretty much always goes up. Normal GDP growth, immigration and inflation will see to that.

The point is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. That is revenues growing faster than they would have otherwise.

Take the Trump tax cuts one year out:


Or last year:


Of course, Republicans will twist themselves into pretzels trying to prove otherwise but it just doesn’t happen. For example, they published a Congressional report saying that revenues hit a new high in 2022 and wages were up because of the tax cuts, both of them by more than the CBO projected when they analyzed the 2017 tax cut. Therefore, according to the Republicans you can’t believe the CBO who was telling the truth about what would happen if the tax cuts were extended this year.

Anymore with half a brain can figure out that their claim is nonsense. The biggest driver of increased government revenue and wages was due to worldwide inflation of 8% in 2021 and 4% in 2022. Everything went up! Obviously there was no way that the CBO could have predicted Covid and the resulting post Covid inflation!
 
You refuted nothing.
Refuted your premise.
You provided zero data.
40 years of economic data including revenues, and GDP.
You simply claim the data exists and somehow you keep failing to provide it.
This has been debated in dozens of threads, which you’ve participated in and have seen the data. There is no need to continuously refute what has already been refuted.

Collecting something at 22% means you take in less than if you collected at 29%. This is irrefutable.

We know from the actual economic data, that GDP didn’t magically increase when republicans slashed revenue. We know from the actual receipts vs expenditures, that all Reagan, bush 2 and Trump accomplished with their revenue slashing was EXPLODED deficits and EXPLODED debt.
 
Actually cutting tax in the past has increased federal revenue...but with that said the problem is when there is extra money in the federal bank both parties are guilty of going on a spending binge.
 
or Putin/Gaza spiking oil prices...
Oil prices are 100% controlled by OPEC...when OPEC cuts oil supply the price of oil goes up. When the oil production goes up prices go down and the US oil production has nothing to do with the price at the pump.
 
Cutting taxes of course increases the debt. Cutting taxes while also increasing spending, increases the debt more so. The latter is what republicans do every time they are in power. The slash revenue and then outspend democrats.

And still waiting for you to show us how an ex-President can sign the Omnibus Spending Bill and therefore is responsible for that deficit in FY2009. You know the one the Dems bragged about cutting him out and where they took the last Bush/Rep deficit of a paltry $161B, with the lower tax rates, to their $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B for the next three.
 
And still waiting for you to show us how an ex-President can sign the Omnibus Spending Bill and therefore is responsible for that deficit in FY2009. You know the one the Dems bragged about cutting him out and where they took the last Bush/Rep deficit of a paltry $161B, with the lower tax rates, to their $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B for the next three.
Oh look, you still haven’t learned how a bill becomes law 😂
 
Back
Top Bottom