This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)
How is asking you to prove something
that no respectable economist, including those who pushed tax cuts equate to such logic?
You have to prove tax cuts are neutral because you argued it and you are being challenged.
You have two options here: Prove or drop the argument. The "I don't have to prove anything" tactic you are trying effectively shows
you have no bloody idea what you are talking about. While that may be obvious to others, it does not appear obvious to you.
Your position is that as long as a majority of voters (be they tax payers or parasites) want more and more spending, those who pay taxes have a duty to be soaked more and more.
Wrong.
My position is you need to prove your argument. You are currently failing to do so and pathetically attempting to label me in a sad attempt to weasel your way out of actually proving what you say.
If you could actually back up your statement, despite contrary evidence by economists who pushed tax cuts, you would. But as evident by your total failure to provide anything other then pedestrian labeling attacks, you cannot.
Tax cuts don't have to be paid for because they are not spending.
Apparently you do not understand what "tax expenditure" means. In that way, tax rebates, credits and loopholes are not spending and don't have to be paid for. Furthermore, your argument means all deductions don't have to be paid for. If we have a budget of $500 which does not change on a balance budget, but then issue a tax cut which puts us $50 in the red, does that equate to never having to paid for when it is funded by debt?
You are explicitly arguing that debt financing expenditures never have to be paid for. That's insane.
What you are really saying is that if we cut taxes we have to find a way to fund the outrageous bloated government someway else. Half of what the government spends is not constitutionally proper to start with.
Be that as it may, it does not support your notion that tax cuts don't need to be paid for. No changes to base spending and tax cuts funded by debt do not support your position.
No economist worth their degree supports your idea that tax cuts never have to be paid for.
IF my taxes are cut-and I am still a net tax payer-who is forced to pay for my cuts--the people who don't pay taxes in the first place? LOL. Now tell me-is the government actually paying for all its spending now?
Yes, via the Chinese. That should be obvious. It's how Bush funded his round of tax cuts. And why I consider them little more then loans.
Of course not so your ranting that tax cuts have to be paid for is crocodile tears at best.
One must wonder if you can add.
No changes to spending + a tax cut = tax cuts revenue neutral? That's crazy talk.
If I save money I don't have to pay for that. I realize many of you operate under the assumption that wealth first belongs to the government and what is left over those who earn it can keep.
The only way you people can justify confiscatory taxes (and yes, when some have to pay half of their income in taxes-state local and federal that is confiscatory) is that it clearly is for everyone's good (BTW the general welfare is not promoted by taking from some for the benefit of other groups). I have several grounds for opposing a progressive tax and "proving tax cuts are neutral" is not necessary to my position.
It's amusing how you are completely incapable of actually talking about the subject and automatically revert to vague attacks upon people who do not share the beliefs you are attacking.
