• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Tax cuts are free

Tax cuts cost nothing and are free


  • Total voters
    45

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Turtledude has repetitively argued that tax cuts cost nothing, aka they are free.

So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,763
Reaction score
50,691
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Obviously tax cuts are not free.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
tax cuts are not government spending

is saving money spending?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Obviously tax cuts are not free.
really? so the money belongs to the government to start with?

I guess you have to believe that to hold the positions you do

I am flattered that OC felt a need to start a thread about me though

I am doing my job
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Turtledude has repetitively argued that tax cuts cost nothing, aka they are free.

So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?
Of course they aren't free, if they were free, then all the bills I owe are free as well. I know that simply isn't true.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Of course they aren't free, if they were free, then all the bills I owe are free as well. I know that simply isn't true.
what idiocy

a bill means you received something and have to pay for it

to claim that a tax cut is the same thing would require proof that if you get a tax cut you are not paying for what you received. In reality, those who got the most tax cuts were the ones who have already paid more than they got but again that is not the issue

you all operate under the delusion that a tax cut is a form of government spending. That requires the faith based assumption that the money belongs to the government to start with. so before we had an income tax that was government spending
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
really? so the money belongs to the government to start with?
Uh, all currency is property of the government. Way to fail. Hence why defacing currency is a crime.

I am flattered that OC felt a need to start a thread about me though
This is just for the Lolz.

If you think that tax cuts are free, you must think that not selling doesn't cost you either. By not selling product, you don't bring in revenue. You no longer have that revenue to cover fixed costs. So your total profit declines as revenue has declined. That has effectively cost you. Drinking the Kool-aid doesn't change this basic accounting.

you all operate under the delusion that a tax cut is a form of government spending.
It is a form of government spending. A tax brings in revenue, by effectively returning that revenue the government has spent that money.

That requires the faith based assumption that the money belongs to the government to start with. so before we had an income tax that was government spending
It takes no such thing. Only an understanding of the flow of money.
 
Last edited:

Teh Internets

Active member
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
351
Reaction score
125
Location
Virginia, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Tax cuts don't cost money directly but they cost a s******* indirectly.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
OMG this is hilarious-the currency belongs to the government so all the wealth backing it does too

I think you have some serious envy issues with me and I am going to leave it at that
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
OMG this is hilarious-the currency belongs to the government so all the wealth backing it does too

I think you have some serious envy issues with me and I am going to leave it at that
Can't win an argument? Then make lame accusations and never refute anyone. And then run away.

Good luck finding a reputable economist who believes tax cuts are free.

Oh, btw, tell me, if you reduce revenue without reducing costs, are you making more money? lol. Or has those lost sales reduced your revenue?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Lol. Funny. That article doesn't support your position at all. All that is, is a rant on taxes. Paul never argues that tax cuts are revenue neutral. Seriously, did you even read it? I'm guessing not?

Wow. Even more fail. That is little more then expansion on Paul's central theme. And does not argue that tax cuts are revenue neutral. Seriously, didn't your teachers ever tell you to read things before posting them?

a bit different perspective than the wealth belongs to the state nonsense we get
Well, that makes sense considering that neither of them address what we are talking about.

spending costs money
And reducing revenues is functionally a cost as the costs are no longer covered.

tax cuts are not spending
Still pretending my analogy doesn't exist?

If you don't like something, or can't refute it, PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST!
 

Teh Internets

Active member
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
351
Reaction score
125
Location
Virginia, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Tax cuts are not free. They aren't spending,but still not free. Reducing the governments tax money by cutting taxes and still spending the same amount is a net loss in money. So no they aren't free.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Tax cuts are not free. They aren't spending,but still not free. Reducing the governments tax money by cutting taxes and still spending the same amount is a net loss in money. So no they aren't free.
IT comes down to semantics. Spending costs money

saving does not and its one opinion versus another

a stupid poll based on a personal conflict
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
IT comes down to semantics. Spending costs money
Wrong as usual. Your definition of cost is what is the problem.

a stupid poll based on a personal conflict
It's only stupid to you because your view is losing hard.

By your logic, tax expenditures are free too.

Child tax credit. Free
Renewable energy system credits. Free
Mortgage interest deduction. Free
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wrong as usual. Your definition of cost is what is the problem.



It's only stupid to you because your view is losing hard.

By your logic, tax expenditures are free too.

Child tax credit. Free
Renewable energy system credits. Free
Mortgage interest deduction. Free
how Am I losing

because you and a couple other lefties disagree with me?

what idiocy. You have an opinion that you think is right

I think its wrong

end of story

And you make up crap and attribute to me-that is the sign of losing

tax cuts cost nothing

the government spending money costs money

get it through your head that many people as smart or smarter than you, as educated or more educated than you are don't buy your position as being right
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Spending costs money.

Since stolen money isn't theirs in the first place, of course tax cuts are free.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
how Am I losing
Because you cannot defend your argument. The fact that you posted two links that do not discuss the topic as evidence that you are right is amusing.

because you and a couple other lefties disagree with me?
Lefties is not defined as anyone who disagrees with you.

what idiocy. You have an opinion that you think is right
One shared by the same economists who pushed Bush and Reagan to cut taxes. Oh Snap.

I think its wrong
And you post links to support that position despite both links not discussing it. What does that show?

And you make up crap and attribute to me-that is the sign of losing
Let's see:
1) You cannot find a reputable economist who supports your position
2) You cannot post links that support your position
3) You actively go out of your way to ignore arguments that refute you
4) You throw up entirely meaningless personal statements as if they consisted economic arguments.

tax cuts cost nothing
To which you are completely unable to prove.

get it through your head that many people as smart or smarter than you, as educated or more educated than you are don't buy your position as being right
Then why can't you find a single reputable economist who supports your position? Maybe because you're wrong?

So do you think that tax expenditures like the child tax credit are FREE?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Because you cannot defend your argument. The fact that you posted two links that do not discuss the topic as evidence that you are right is amusing.



Lefties is not defined as anyone who disagrees with you.



One shared by the same economists who pushed Bush and Reagan to cut taxes. Oh Snap.



And you post links to support that position despite both links not discussing it. What does that show?



Let's see:
1) You cannot find a reputable economist who supports your position
2) You cannot post links that support your position
3) You actively go out of your way to ignore arguments that refute you
4) You throw up entirely meaningless personal statements as if they consisted economic arguments.



To which you are completely unable to prove.



Then why can't you find a single reputable economist who supports your position? Maybe because you're wrong?

So do you think that tax expenditures like the child tax credit are FREE?
so if a tax hike loses revenue that is a government cost as well

you refuse to admit that you have an opinion and others don't agree with it

I want you to PROVE that tax cuts are COSTS to the government and citing economists means nothing to me since being an economist does not give t hem some special expertise on this subject.

the issue is whether tax cuts have to be paid for (note how you changed the issue with your moronic poll) and they do not. If there were a balanced budget then you could argue that they have to be offset (ASSuming that a tax cut means less revenue which is NOT always true) by a reduction in spending somewhere else. but since there is no balanced budget and since much spending is not actually paid for my point that tax cuts do not cost us money is true
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
so if a tax hike loses revenue that is a government cost as well
Indeed. If total revenue declines from the policy compared to its previous benchmark policy, then it has cost the government money.

you refuse to admit that you have an opinion and others don't agree with it
Then you must have ignored the post you quoted. Still pretending things you don't like don't exist I see.

I want you to PROVE that tax cuts are COSTS to the government and citing economists means nothing to me since being an economist does not give t hem some special expertise on this subject.
Did you really just argue that economists don't have special expertise on economic impacts from policies? Wow. That's almost basement worthy content!

Let's do this real simple just for you.

Revenue pre-tax cut: $100
Costs pre-tax cut: $100
Net surplus/deficit: $0

Revenue post tax cut: $96
Costs pre-tax cut: $100
Net surplus/deficit: $(4)

The tax cut just cost the government $4.

the issue is whether tax cuts have to be paid for (note how you changed the issue with your moronic poll) and they do not.
Uh how is that moronic? Tax cuts have to be paid for. No sensible person has ever argued otherwise. If tax cuts never needed to be paid for, then we would never have any taxes!

If there were a balanced budget then you could argue that they have to be offset (ASSuming that a tax cut means less revenue which is NOT always true) by a reduction in spending somewhere else. but since there is no balanced budget and since much spending is not actually paid for my point that tax cuts do not cost us money is true
"much spending is not actually paid" wtf are you talking about?

Wow. Deep End.

Still haven't gotten an answer on tax expenditures.

Do you think that the child tax credit is FREE?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And reducing revenues is functionally a cost as the costs are no longer covered.
Your assumption the tax cuts reduce federal revenue is invalidated by history. Even that boob JFK realized that.

However, if you're really really angst ridden over this mythical expansion of Obama's deficit, then by all means, start demanding that Obama begin cutting spending by two dollars for each dollar in tax cuts.

I mean, seriously, the Messiah his Holy Self can't cut a multi-trillion dollar budget by a mere ten percent?
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,514
Reaction score
74,575
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why are you using free when I said tax cuts are not a cost.

if all the government spending was actually paid for would we have a deficit

do you have any expertise in this subject? do you understand that expertise might mean an opinion is valid and it may not?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Your assumption the tax cuts reduce federal revenue is invalidated by history. Even that boob JFK realized that.
And you are failing to prove that it was tax cuts. Ever heard of a concept called "linear regression?" Try it.

However, if you're really really angst ridden over this mythical expansion of Obama's deficit, then by all means, start demanding that Obama begin cutting spending by two dollars for each dollar in tax cuts.
And end up like many of the IMF countries? Hell No.

I mean, seriously, the Messiah his Holy Self can't cut a multi-trillion dollar budget by a mere ten percent?
Since when did the Executive Branch control the purse strings?
 
Top Bottom