- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Tax cuts never cause deficits. Spending causes deficits
Tax cuts never cause deficits. Spending causes deficits
A tax cut is a decrease in revenue. Therefore, if you have enough tax cuts, with spending remaining constant, you encounter a deficit.
Just about any fair-minded observation of history and economics would reach this conclusion. And the nonpartisan CBO also agrees, with a few caveats.
This something-for-nothing mentality, that you can cut taxes AND have higher revenue, may be true under rare exceptions (such as unusually high tax rates)...but in general it has caused high deficits for 30 years.
Tax cuts actually increase revenues........They did with JFK, Reagan and Bush and they stimulated the economy in all 3 cases...
A deficit is defined as the difference between spending and tax revenue. So they both cause deficits.
Look at the graph I posted above. That's only true for the JFK tax cuts; it is NOT true of the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. And the top marginal tax rate when JFK was president was over 90%, which I think almost everyone agrees is too high.
Tax cuts only result in higher revenue in extreme circumstances like that. Under normal circumstances, they decrease revenue.
nope spending causes deficits not tax cuts
TurtleDude said:tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves
TurtleDude said:you might look around and see we are in extreme circumstances right now
remind me what the jobless rate is
Tax cuts actually increase revenues........They did with JFK, Reagan and Bush and they stimulated the economy in all 3 cases...
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)
given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream
As I have shown, the wealthy pay only a fraction of what the payed through most of our county's history. And I've shown we had less debt as a percentage of GDP when the taxes for the top tax bracket was higher.
If you wish to discuss spending, we need to start with where our biggest waste is, in our bloated military budget that is as much as the rest of the world combined, and our unfunded wars.
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)
given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream
That prediction about the poor constantly increasing taxes for everyone is clearly false.
In Europe, where income taxes are even more progressive, the parties and their supporters understand that there is a limit to the amount of progressive taxation, and their political culture overall is even more inclined for progressive taxation then Americans are.
therefore, just because we have progressive taxation that doesn't mean that spending will go up indefinately.
you are being dishonest. until less than 100 years ago the wealthy paid no income tax and until FDR came along, it was less than 5% of their income
the military isn't our biggest bloated budget item-again you are dishonest
its all the unconstitutional (if the constitution was properly interpreted) income redistribution nonsense and entitlement spending.
so please stop lying--I know history way too well to believe the garbage that the wealthy are paying less now than the majority of US history.
You are pretty cocky for someone that wasn't even aware that our top tax rate used to be 90%. Please review again the income tax history provided earlier by mbig ~
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/65402-should-2001-2003-gwb-cuts-extended-24.html#post1058560070
Notice the date income taxes began - 1913 and what the rates were. FDR's first term began in 1933.
I didn't say it was the biggest, I said it was the most wasteful.
Not according to the rule of law.
Again, you need to review our tax history. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
I tire of your lies and your dishonesty
I certainly knew that dems jacked the top rate to 90% though some will argue that the effective rates will be higher under Bambi if they go up to the 46% some want
First of all, I doubt we've ever had 70% on top income brackets, hell, even Canada stops at 50%.
I also was correct that for most of our country's history there was no income tax. and a top marginal rate of 7% doesn't mean people paid a total rate of 7% either
statists labor under the delusion that taxpayers have a duty to pay more and more as long as the government spends. One of the best reasons for tax cuts is to starve the beast (assuming the statists are right that tax cuts decrease revenue)
TurtleDude said:given the sad fact that net tax consumers will always vote for more spending since they don't pay for it and given the sad fact that a minority pays most of the federal income taxes, expecting politicians who cater and pander to the parasite class to actually cut spending is a pipe dream
This isnt a reality, this is a false premise designed to justify continually making excuses for deficits and for raising taxes.If you accept the reality that overall spending cuts are unlikely....
Well, let's examine those insults:
And I never said it did.
So where are the lies and dishonesty, except in your accusations against me?
This isnt a reality, this is a false premise designed to justify continually making excuses for deficits and for raising taxes.
I don't recall ever mentioning canada so where did that come from?
You are correct. I just checked. It was The Penguin that said that here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-and-political-platforms/65705-national-debt-and-should-pay-down-15.html#post1058560209
I got my critters confused. My mistake and I apologize.
we cannot continue to keep expanding the government. the wealthy will leave or hide their assets as they did in Sweden. The only solution is to get judges who actually start enforcing the tenth amendment.
Like it or not, the Dems started a program designed to create millions of people addicted to government entitlements and that malignancy has only spread
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?