• 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
Well stated. The left makes the mistake of looking at tax revenue as a zero-sum game
The US economy is a zero sum game, how does revenue escape that fact?
as if the amount of earnings and jobs remains static.
There is a definite amount of spending per year in an economy.
They think more tax revenue is a simple matter of increasing taxes.
No, you can have varying amounts due to GDP, tax enforcement .....but yeah, in general terms, holding all other things equal, increasing the rate causes greater revenue.
They don't think of the negative consequences of raising taxes, which leads to more use of tax shelters and less employment opportunities.
Shelters exist no matter the rate, go ahead and present the correlation between tax rates and "employment opportunities". Generally job offers corelate to economic conditions, rates do not set economic activity.
 
True. The problem is that congress critters still manage to spend roughly $1.50 for every new dollar earned. My point is that tax cuts do not cause deficits as the op is suggesting. Deficit spending does.
That's the point being expressed. For the last forty years, the Republicans have cut taxes and expanded spending. This has caused the deficit and debt to expand to new levels.

The problem is that they cut taxes without making up the difference.
 
For the last forty years, the Republicans have cut taxes and expanded spending.
You less than half right on that. For most of the last 40 years, the democrats in congress have been in control of spending. Republicans are certainly not blameless, however, to suggest they are the only or biggest spenders is quite a stretch.
 
All of this is just why you think tax cuts are bad. It has nothing to do with refuting the obvious: spending more then you take in is what causes debt.
I would agree if you are talking about individuals. Within reason most individuals income is fixed.

In the case of government you could also say taking in less than you spend is what causes debt. Government revenue is not fixed. Taking in less is a choice.

And yes, I think giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy is bad when it increases the debt.
 
Yes. But it's also irrelevant to my point.
It is directly related to the collection of revenue, which is central to debt. Not only is Donny expanding US debt by granting the top 0.1% unprecedented levels of cuts, he is destroying the agency responsible for collecting revenue. It is always absurd how your lot avoids discussion of revenue......when you are not part of the 0.1%.
 
I would agree if you are talking about individuals. Within reason most individuals income is fixed.

In the case of government you could also say taking in less than you spend is what causes debt. Government revenue is not fixed. Taking in less is a choice.
Choice or not, the debt doesn't happen until money is spent.
 
The US economy is a zero sum game, how does revenue escape that fact?
You are completely clueless in that regard.
There is a definite amount of spending per year in an economy.
And when that definite amount of spending is over and above tax revenue, deficits occur.
Shelters exist no matter the rate,
Tax increases cause them to be used significantly more. Tax cuts lead to them being used less as those with the money are far more likely to invest and spend it then hide it in tax shelters.
 
It is directly related to the collection of revenue, which is central to debt. Not only is Donny expanding US debt by granting the top 0.1% unprecedented levels of cuts, he is destroying the agency responsible for collecting revenue. It is always absurd how your lot avoids discussion of revenue......when you are not part of the 0.1%.
None of this word salad changes this simple fact: spending more than you have is what causes debt.
 
You are completely clueless in that regard.
So go and show that a certain amount of spending DID NOT happen in 2024 in the US. It was not infinite, it was not zero.
And when that definite amount of spending is over and above tax revenue, deficits occur.
Thats a Captain Obvious comment, it was not a point of contention. You get no points for that blurt....other than admitting, agreeing to.....a certain amount of spending happened, ie, zero sum game.
Tax increases cause them to be used significantly more.
So after Raygun dropped the top marginal rate, did the number of tax avoidance schemes decline, vanish?
Tax cuts lead to them being used less as those with the money are far more likely to invest and spend it then hide it in tax shelters.
Where is your evidence for your claim?
 
I know, it is tough to create an argument that can take that next step, you fell backwards.
There is no "next step." If your revenue falls, you have to spend less. If you don't, you create debt. Spending more than you have is what causes debt, not having less. The spending is the last step.
 
There is no "next step."
well, not for your argument, apparently.
If your revenue falls, you have to spend less.
I know that is the plan, destroy the IRS, stop collecting revenue....oooopsy! we gotta cut more spending.......lets spiral down into third world levels of govt.
If you don't, you create debt. Spending more than you have is what causes debt, not having less. The spending is the last step.
This is absurd, there is no "last step", other than turning off the lights on this democracy. If thats the plan, well there you are.
 
You less than half right on that. For most of the last 40 years, the democrats in congress have been in control of spending. Republicans are certainly not blameless, however, to suggest they are the only or biggest spenders is quite a stretch.
They are demonstrably the biggest spenders. And on top of being bigger spenders, they are so fiscally incompetent that not only do they outspend democrats, they slash revenue at the same time.
 
Tax increases cause them to be used significantly more. Tax cuts lead to them being used less as those with the money are far more likely to invest and spend it then hide it in tax shelters.
This never happens though. We have 4 decades of data showing when republicans slash revenues, there is no magical increase in economic output to offset the loss of revenues. All that happens is deficits and debt explode, and the Rich stockpile more and more wealth.
 
There is no "next step." If your revenue falls, you have to spend less. If you don't, you create debt. Spending more than you have is what causes debt, not having less. The spending is the last step.
You understand that budgets are proposed and money allocated, BEFORE revenue collection for that fiscal year right?
 
well, not for your argument, apparently.

I know that is the plan, destroy the IRS, stop collecting revenue....oooopsy! we gotta cut more spending.......lets spiral down into third world levels of govt.

This is absurd, there is no "last step", other than turning off the lights on this democracy. If thats the plan, well there you are.
You are off the rails. The point, the only point, I've been making is that tax cuts don't create deficits, spending does. If you want to expand the argument beyond what I'm talking about, just say so so I can ignore your replies.
 
This never happens though. We have 4 decades of data showing when republicans slash revenues, there is no magical increase in economic output to offset the loss of revenues. All that happens is deficits and debt explode, and the Rich stockpile more and more wealth.
I started a thread to discuss economic basics. Guess who isn't participating.
 
Cutting taxes does not increase the debt. Spending beyond revenues is what increases the debt, in all cases.
Just to be clear, you are arguing that taxes don’t affect the debt, but we all know that you are wrong.
 
Choice or not, the debt doesn't happen until money is spent.
The debt doesn’t happen until you plan to spend more than you take in which is what Republicans are doing. Way more.

The Democrats had a plan that would have added far less to the debt than Republicans. Unfortunately, people are either stupid or don’t care and voted for Republicans whose stated plans were to ratchet up the debt again exactly like they are doing.

And again, I don’t agree with squeezing money out of the poorest in our country and giving it to people making over a billion dollars a year. Maybe you think that’s a great idea but I don’t. Don’t forget that is exactly what is happening. 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.

If you don’t like debt then I wonder if you voted for the wrong party. Perhaps twice?

Democrat vs Republican 2024 plans added debt 10 years out:

IMG_0454.webp


Last 2 administrations:

IMG_0419.webp
 
Last edited:
The debt doesn’t happen until you plan to spend more than you take in
The debt doesn't happen until you actually spend more than you take in. I can plan to knock over a liquor store all day long, but I haven't robbed the liquor store until I've robbed the liquor store.
 
Back
Top Bottom