Economic Gurus Assemble: Tax Cuts vs Tax Reductions

[shintao]

What is better for America? Tax cuts...... or reductions in the percent taxed?

If the idea of tax cuts is to put more money in my pocket, what advantage is there in taking it out in the first place? Why not just lower the percentage people are being taxed? Save all that IRS collections & salaries, penaltys, paperwork reduction, etc.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is better is for America is for our corrupt "leaders" to stop wasting so f*cking much money.
Then we can talk about taxes.
The one thing I cannot imagine is me agreeing with a tax hike to feed this monstrosity we call congress.

 

[Oddball]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

Damn straight.
If you have a boat with an expanding leak, you fix the hole..not look for a bigger bucket.

 

[shintao]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

I would think spending cuts would have a negative impact for America, depending on what is cut by the big spenders in DC. And it doesn't reduce the money congress has to spend.

Whereas a tax reduction leaving more money in my pocket would stimulate the economy and remove some negative impacted items, say putting an unemployed familyman to work removes him from the social rolls. And it reduces the money congress has to spend.

Giving my money to government to waste, and then give me back a tax cut is abusive waste and prolly cost more to do it, than just giving a reduction in taxes. It doesn't reduce the money available to congress to spend.


So we have three options (?).

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

I would think spending cuts would have a negative impact for America, depending on what is cut by the big spenders in DC. And it doesn't reduce the money congress has to spend.

Whereas a tax reduction leaving more money in my pocket would stimulate the economy and remove some negative impacted items, say putting an unemployed familyman to work removes him from the social rolls. And it reduces the money congress has to spend.

Giving my money to government to waste, and then give me back a tax cut is abusive waste and prolly cost more to do it, than just giving a reduction in taxes. It doesn't reduce the money available to congress to spend.


So we have three options (?).

I think the spending cuts he refers to is "cutting waste".

 

[shintao]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

Damn straight.
If you have a boat with an expanding leak, you fix the hole..not look for a bigger bucket.

My concern with any spending cut is the negative impact it holds. Every action has an equal reaction also holds true in the economy & society. Things just get rotated like the cylinder of a revolver.

If we cut welfare for instance and people begin to starve, those people are not going to let that happen to their families. They are going to find a way to survive that still includes you, like steal you blind while your working, increase your insurance rates, lower property values, increase needed police force. It gets more expensive than just leaving it alone. I have had my tools ripped off, and some bastard prolly sold them for .05 cents on the dollar at a flea market. Few people steal tools to work with them. It then cost me a $500. deductable on my insurance to replace the tools, and raised the insurance rates.

And like I say, spending cuts stll left congress with your money to spend on something else.

 

[Oddball]

Well, what negative impact do you think a federal gubmint that sucks about 1/4 of the GDP straight out of the economy, to feather the nests of those who produce nothing, has on the people who earn that money?

Sheeesh!

 

[loosecannon]

What is better for America? Tax cuts...... or reductions in the percent taxed?

If the idea of tax cuts is to put more money in my pocket, what advantage is there in taking it out in the first place? Why not just lower the percentage people are being taxed? Save all that IRS collections & salaries, penaltys, paperwork reduction, etc.

What? No links? No real Econ Gurus to critique?

Jees!

Our opinions don't matter. lean way toward the cut spending let the cuts expire arguments. Because the deficit is inexcusable.

You can't spend 75% more than you make and pretend to be a credible adult. Which summarizes my sentiments about the dem majority since 06.

Think about it. If the federal Government had to meet ordinary credit worthiness standards in order to borrow $1.34 trillion/year in excess of income they would have their credit revoked, just like Greece, Iceland, Spain portugal and Ireland basically did before the ECB bailed them out.

Why don't we reverse course and simply allow every American to spend 75% above what they earn with a federal reserve backstop that makes default impossible?

Hell I will buy 3 homes 2 new boats and more bullits!

Whoever dies with the most toys wins!

 

[shintao]

Spending cuts....Spending cuts....Spending cuts.

I would think spending cuts would have a negative impact for America, depending on what is cut by the big spenders in DC. And it doesn't reduce the money congress has to spend.

Whereas a tax reduction leaving more money in my pocket would stimulate the economy and remove some negative impacted items, say putting an unemployed familyman to work removes him from the social rolls. And it reduces the money congress has to spend.

Giving my money to government to waste, and then give me back a tax cut is abusive waste and prolly cost more to do it, than just giving a reduction in taxes. It doesn't reduce the money available to congress to spend.


So we have three options (?).

I think the spending cuts he refers to is "cutting waste".

Waste encompasses everything of the federal government. Anything can be called a waste. And many people complain, "Why should I have to pay for ___XXX____?" Why don't the people who use have to be the ones that pay for it? It is a selfish unAmerican emotion, but one that holds merit. I figured out how to do what these people want to do. Get rid of the IRS, take the Spending power away from congress & the president, and make you responsible to fund whatever it is in government you want to fund.

That quickly eliminates a whole hell of a lot of programs, cuts that nasty waste, and gives you 30-65% more money to decide what you want to fund, if anything at all. Of course you will have to actually participate and do your part in the government like you should be doing. If you want freeways, you fund them. Hate welfare, don't fund it. Want your money to buy a boat, go for it. This is what I call the All Volunteer Government. All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[shintao]

Well, what negative impact do you think a federal gubmint that sucks about 1/4 of the GDP straight out of the economy, to feather the nests of those who produce nothing, has on the people who earn that money?

Sheeesh!

I really cannot say. It doesn't bother me, never has, but there must be a negative impact because the reward is so great by working. That 25% stays in the economy by subsidizing businesses where they go. Why do you suppose the republicans have never eliminated any of these programs their voters hate?? I was really disappointed in them for 6 years because they didn't restore the 2nd Amendment. But they had full control & did nothing for you, actually expanded Welfare with faith based charities.

But the problem is you have to take the money away from them, by lowering the tax rates so you never pay it into the feds to begin with.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, see, in theory, taxes cause distortions in the market system and are therefore "evil" in economic mythology. But more practically, why are they used then? Well, taxes can at least try to be used to establish state-funded services for poor people by taxing the relatively richer. But it's not always the case. That's all theoretical. What should be the question is how to better and more efficiently use taxes for policy, in a way that does not infringe people's rights, freedoms, and too much of their economic behaviour, but while still being useful for bridging the disparity gap and create more egalitarian societies. Why? Becuase more egalitarian societies make markets and states function better - high inequality itself can lead to distortions in market and state mechanisms. Of course, it's not the only solution, just like "democracy" or "free markets" are not the ONLY answers. They're real useful. But they're tools in a greater scheme. They're not stand-alone items. They have to be used in an integrated and logical structure of governance.