Do republicans still think that raising taxes does NOT lower the deficit?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'll be fine either way, so meh

Nice picture, without authoritative support. Did you just pull those numbers out of your ass or do you have some stats for me?

Most Americans Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the 80s
After 30 years, The New York Times admits Reaganomics worked - AEI

 

[BulletProof]

What's stupid, Bullet Proof is to think you can tax your way out of a deficit. When you've got a government that is as wasteful and inefficient as our is...raising taxes is like pouring water into a bucket that has huge gashes in the sides. It doesn't matter how much water you pour into that bucket...you're NEVER going to get it full unless you fix the holes!

I was addressing the claim that the feds can't tax the rich because they'd just move their legal residence. That evasion tactic works at the state level, but not the federal level.

I don't think you we can tax our way out of a massive deficit with a massive government. We should cut military spending in half, drastically reduce federal medical spending, and freeze entitlements.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's stupid, Bullet Proof is to think you can tax your way out of a deficit. When you've got a government that is as wasteful and inefficient as our is...raising taxes is like pouring water into a bucket that has huge gashes in the sides. It doesn't matter how much water you pour into that bucket...you're NEVER going to get it full unless you fix the holes!

I was addressing the claim that the feds can't tax the rich because they'd just move their legal residence. That evasion tactic works at the state level, but not the federal level.

I don't think you we can tax our way out of a massive deficit with a massive government. We should cut military spending in half, drastically reduce federal medical spending, and freeze entitlements.

Let me guess...you think the super wealthy have to stay in the US? That most of them don't already have residences in other parts of the world? You obviously weren't around when Great Britain decided that they would tax their wealthiest at 98% back in the sixties. There was a mass exodus of the wealthy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

lol I have to know this is still true. Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?

To me, this is one of the most hilarious and stupid things republicans believe and I need an update. Because a Neanderthal like Trump is now president, I am not optimistic.

The more money the fucking government takes the more it spends that's how we got to be 20 trillion in debt.

The only way to kill Spendzilla is to starve it to death

 

[BulletProof]

The only way to kill Spendzilla is to starve it to death

You can't starve it to death. If you cut off its food supply, it'll just start making it's down food. That is, the government will start printing money, and devaluing your money in the process. When push comes to shove, the government would sooner raise taxes than abide by being starved.

If you can't directly cut spending, you can't shrink the government.

 

[BulletProof]

Let me guess...you think the super wealthy have to stay in the US? That most of them don't already have residences in other parts of the world? You obviously weren't around when Great Britain decided that they would tax their wealthiest at 98% back in the sixties. There was a mass exodus of the wealthy.

How many times do I have to say it doesn't matter where the rich lives, the US can still tax their income produced in the US. Most people we call rich aren't in a position to take their income production out of the US. But, moving between states is trivial. Most of the people in the military claim to live in Texas, or some other state without income taxes. Why don't they claim to live in another country, to get out of federal taxes, also? Because it's not that easy.

 

[Zander]

The problem is the Federal Government never cuts actual spending.

Here is a compromise- Have the Federal government cut actual spending. Not baseline, not inflation adjusted, CUT actual spending. Let me make this simple so even the dullest LWNJ's can understand: Cutting actual spending means : If they spent $100 trillion this year, They spend less than $100 trillion the following year. I suggest they cut it by 2% and only spend $98 trillion next year.

Try telling any sane individual that the Federal Government can't find and trim 2% of fat in the budget?

It ain't rocket science. I could do in about 5 minutes.

After they cut spending, THEN we can talk about raising taxes.

Why is that so hard?

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me guess...you think the super wealthy have to stay in the US? That most of them don't already have residences in other parts of the world? You obviously weren't around when Great Britain decided that they would tax their wealthiest at 98% back in the sixties. There was a mass exodus of the wealthy.

How many times do I have to say it doesn't matter where the rich lives, the US can still tax their income produced in the US. Most people we call rich aren't in a position to take their income production out of the US. But, moving between states is trivial. Most of the people in the military claim to live in Texas, or some other state without income taxes. Why don't they claim to live in another country, to get out of federal taxes, also? Because it's not that easy.

Think about what you just said, BP! If you're going to tax their income produced in the US...then everyone of them that can move their operations to a locale where they AREN'T being hit with huge taxes...will do so!

It's not easy for the poor or the middle class...but it's very easy for the wealthy! Most of them already own residences outside of the US.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if they DO keep their capital in the US...they'll put it into investments solely designed to maintain capital not create profits! When the people with capital don't invest that capital in businesses...then people without capital don't get hired to work. What you're calling for is a recipe to both decrease tax revenues and to utterly destroy job creation in this country. If that's your goal...then have at it!

 

[BulletProof]

The problem is the Federal Government never cuts actual spending.

Most people don't want the government to cut spending.

Here's the options:
A) Increase spending on the military, and increase spending on welfare to get Democrat cooperation.
B) Increase spending on welfare, and increase spending on the military to get Republican cooperation.
C) Cut military and welfare spending.

9 out of 10 people don't chose A or B. 9 out of 10 people are more interesting increased spending for their pet big government program to be serious about cutting federal spending.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's not easy for the poor or the middle class...but it's very easy for the wealthy! Most of them already own residences outside of the US.

And that's why there are no wealthy in NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. They all took their money and went to live with the rest of the wealthy in MS, AL, and LA .

 

[Oldstyle]

The problem is the Federal Government never cuts actual spending.

Most people don't want the government to cut spending.

Here's the options:
A) Increase spending on the military, and increase spending on welfare to get Democrat cooperation.
B) Increase spending on welfare, and increase spending on the military to get Republican cooperation.
C) Cut military and welfare spending.

9 out of 10 people don't chose A or B. 9 out of 10 people are more interesting increased spending for their pet big government program to be serious about cutting federal spending.

Cutting spending in any way is something that big government always fights tooth and nail to prevent from happening. The more money politicians have to hand out...the more power they have and the easier it is for them to get reelected to office.

If I were running for President I'd do so on a platform of instigating mandatory spending cuts of say 5% for EVERY government program. Nobody is a sacred cow...nobody gets preferential treatment...everyone has to cut the waste that is obviously there!

I can already tell you what the response would be from the career public service sector to that. They'd do everything they could to make those cuts hurt the average American as much as possible to "punish" them for making those cuts mandatory. You'd see public parks closed to the public...you'd see shorter hours of operation for government offices...you'd see slowdowns to back up operations. It won't be easy because let's face it...it's almost impossible to fire a civil servant and they know it.

 

[dudmuck]

It's not easy for the poor or the middle class...but it's very easy for the wealthy! Most of them already own residences outside of the US.

And that's why there are no wealthy in NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. They all took their money and went to live with the rest of the wealthy in MS, AL, and LA .

 

[BulletProof]

Some points:

1) It's incredible that so many states could be getting more than they give, especially when a lot of federal money doesn't even go to the states.

2) This seems like a reason for the blue states to jump on board of demanding a smaller federal government, and tax cuts.

3) If the chart was ordered by the absolute money received, the chart would probably be reversed. The blue states get more money.

And that's why there are no wealthy in NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. They all took their money and went to live with the rest of the wealthy in MS, AL, and LA .

[/QUOTE]

 

[Flash]

Spending more money than we take in increases the deficit and the cumulative debt.

The answer is not to try to figure out some stupid oppressive way to tax people more. The only sane thing to do is to stop spending so much money for the cost of government.

That worthless dumbshit greedy asshole Obama put the cumulative debt so astronomically high nothing is ever going to pay it off.

 

[Mr Natural]

The answer is not to try to figure out some stupid oppressive way to tax people more. The only sane thing to do is to stop spending so much money for the cost of government.

Yeah, let's start with that overblown military of ours and work our way down from there.

 

[Darkwind]

lol I have to know this is still true. Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?

To me, this is one of the most hilarious and stupid things republicans believe and I need an update. Because a Neanderthal like Trump is now president, I am not optimistic.

If you raise taxes by 10 billion dollars and increase spending by 25 billion, has the deficit gone up or down?

The deficit is about spending, not taxation.

 

[Thinker101]

lol I have to know this is still true. Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?

To me, this is one of the most hilarious and stupid things republicans believe and I need an update. Because a Neanderthal like Trump is now president, I am not optimistic.

If you raise taxes by 10 billion dollars and increase spending by 25 billion, has the deficit gone up or down?

The deficit is about spending, not taxation.

Christ sake, ya had to ask him a tough question.

 

[Doc1]

lol I have to know this is still true. Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?

To me, this is one of the most hilarious and stupid things republicans believe and I need an update. Because a Neanderthal like Trump is now president, I am not optimistic.

"Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?"

You have the intellect of a jellyfish. Budgets don't get "paid down".

 

[Billy000]

lol I have to know this is still true. Do you people actually believe that raising taxes would NOT pay down a government budget?

To me, this is one of the most hilarious and stupid things republicans believe and I need an update. Because a Neanderthal like Trump is now president, I am not optimistic.

If you raise taxes by 10 billion dollars and increase spending by 25 billion, has the deficit gone up or down?

The deficit is about spending, not taxation.

Yeah, no shit that scenario wouldn't lower the deficit, but that isn't what i said is it? If the tax rate is high enough, the spending won't increase the deficit.