earthworm
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,728
- Reaction score
- 904
- Location
- Goldsboro,PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
it depends on the particular cut, and it depends upon your horizon.
for example if you were to slash income taxes from 35% to 15%, it is unlikely that within the next two years income in the US would rise by an order enough to make up the difference; but if you were to offer a one-year capital gains tax cut of (say) from 20 to 15%, then it is possible that enough people would seek to make good on that cut by realizing their gains that you would see an increase in total revenues.
Yes trading a tax cut for other spending is a cost. If you cut back spending to avoid losing revenue that does not make tax cuts free.
lol. Nice going there turtledude. Logging out of the system and voting repetitively as a guest. Actual real users who voted "free" are at the moment 3. The rest are guest voters. Honesty is clearly not a trait you hold.
Of course they are not "free".
If our taxes, right now, are fair and equitable, and nothing is done to change anything, then this non-action is free.
Where I disagree with the conservatives is the concept of using tax cuts to stimulate our economy. This may work in the short term, but not in the long term.
What we should do are the things necessary for full employment.
It isn't just turtledude that is complete denial of all this. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Cutting off a source of revenue costs money. The tiny percentage of employers in that top percentile who will pay more taxes have zero effect on the tax base. The tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Further the assumption is that while this minuscule group will not try and expand or employ more people because they pay a small portion of their wealth in taxes is poor logic at best.
I can see value in continuation of middleclass tax cuts somewhat. Obviously a couple thousand dollars in working class peoples pockets makes a difference in their ability to consume. I don't believe tax cuts are an appropriate way to go about stimulus personally but letting the Bush Tax cuts expire on the middle class in a time of recession isn't a good idea. Sometime in the future after the economy recovers taxation will have to come back. Deficit spending can be dealt with in good times .. not in bad times.
Arguments with turtledude usually end up in some variety of elitist insinuation where by all the unfortunate people deserve what they get and all the wealthy are victims of the parasitic state. What he does not acknowledge is the parasitic nature of the wealthy on society. Clearly if there is a "tapeworm" on American society you can find it on wall street financials and the banking industry.. not main street.
Prove it or apologize. I have been away from my house from 8.30 this morning to 10 minutes ago. YOu make accusations you cannot possibly prove
your definition of cost is faulty. If you have no money that doesn't mean you have costs. Its only if you spend do you have costs
Prove it. Tell me, why is that virtually ALL of the "Free" votes are guest votes while most of the "no way" votes are actual, registered users?
No, that would be your definition. You have constantly avoided my analogy proving that the forgone revenue results in a cost. Pretending peoples' posts who refute you don't exist does not show that your argument is strong.
I avoid your nonsense often because I have other things to do and your yapping at me gets tiresome.
I'm not sure why Turtle thanked Digsbe's post. Especially when Disgbe reiterated that the loss of revenue was tied to the tax cut. And that the dollars are government's. Two things that Turtle has repetitively rejected.
Why would he thank a post that doesn't support his argument and contains two arguments that were repetitively used against him before by others?
Maybe he just saw the word "free" and made up the rest?
His post made sense. It might mean less revenue to the government.
But a tax cut costs nothing.
Less revenue is not the same as a cost.
A cost requires money going out.
Which is the same thing everyone who said you are wrong said as well. It does appear you saw the word "Free" and assumed the rest.
Only if you keep pretending that. I see you are still running away from my analogy showing you are as usual, wrong.
Uh, a lost sale costs you revenue. Hello? Mcfly?
Which a tax cut often does. Especially debt financed tax cuts which as Lord T pointed out and you ran away from, is nothing more then a loan. Your whole argument ignores the cycle of inflows and outflows. Probably why you are deliberately pretending my analogy doesn't exist.
Well, you thanking a post that doesn't support your argument is in line with posting articles which don't address your point.
His post made sense. It might mean less revenue to the government. But a tax cut costs nothing. Less revenue is not the same as a cost. A cost requires money going out. A tax cut means that less revenue MIGHT NOT COME IN. That is obvious to everyone
When that money in the hands of private entities, especially corporations, outsource those dollars to China for cheap products or India for cheap work forces and those companies sell more to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S., then yes, those revenues are lost.
Yawn-more nonsense.
Don't like it? Can't deal with it? Don't have a response?
Call it nonsense and make no attempt to appear intelligent.
Tax cuts are not costs. They may have to be offset by other cuts but they don't cost anything since they are not an expenditure
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?