"Paying" for tax cuts

[Quantum Windbag]

Just who does your money belong to anyway?

Much is being made of the cost of the Obama tax compromise. The left in particular is taking aim on extending the Bush tax rates for “millionaires and billionaires.” The lefty press is quick to point out what they perceive as hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. After all, extending the tax rates will “cost the government” $400 billion and $140 billion for the millionaires. Not so says Judd Gregg. It’s your, “It’s not your money” quote of the day. Now I will admit my ultimate fiscal conservative dream is to see government cut down to size. And it is true if government spending isn’t cut, then the government has to borrow or confiscate more money from us, including the rich. But tax cuts don’t need to be paid for because … well as Gregg points out to Andrea, it ain’t the government’s money.

Senator Judd Gregg schools MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on taxes | Radio Vice Online

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

Just in case some progressives out there have trouble with the concept I will rephrase this in simpler language. The government is not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how rich they are. Money is not a limited resource, and Bill Gates having billions of dollars is not making anyone poorer. If you take money from him and give it to everyone else all you will accomplish is making Gates poor, you will not make anyone else rich.

The only way to spend more money than you have is to spend more money than you have.

Senator Judd Gregg attempts to explain this revolutionary concept to Andrea Mitchell. He is wasting his breath, but I know he is right so I will join him in wasting my time posting the same thing.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdJAjaceIM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Say it along with me, the only way to add to the deficit is spend more money than you have.Money is artificial, and one person having more of an artificial object does not deny others anything.

For those here who are rich and think the government should have more of your money, just send it to them. they will be more than happy to take it and find a way to waste it without you insisting that everyone else has to give up their money.

 

[boedicca]

This is a good example of why we need an independent citizens group to score legislation.

The CBO is instructed to cook the scores by assuming that tax policy doesn't affect behavior, which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows is a big bunch-o-b'loney.

 

[8537]

"Money is not a limited resource"

I will never understand the misapplication of economics and logic that lead people to make this claim.

 

[Ravi]

If you must borrow money, at interest, to make up for tax revenue, then certainly tax cuts add to the deficit.

 

[Meister]

Who's getting a tax cut? I just see no one is getting a tax increase.

 

[boedicca]

Who's getting a tax cut? I just see no one is getting a tax increase.

The 2 point decrease in Social Security taxes is a tax cut.

I'd rather that we did without that bit - and then focused on reducing spending.

 

[Political Junky]

Gregg schools Mrs. Greenspan.

 

[8537]

Who's getting a tax cut? I just see no one is getting a tax increase.

as currently proposed in the compromise, anybody who works is getting a tax cut - specifically, a reduction of two percentage points off of their FICA contribution (applied to income up to about 102,000 annually). That equals a tax cut of a $1,000 for someone making 50K and $2,000 for a person making 100K.

 

[Intense]

I think we should pass a law that makes it illegal for Liberals to buy anything on sale. Liberals should only pay list price, it is the only honorable thing for them to do. No buy on get one free, no rebates, no credit card miles, apply it to the deficit. Of course Conservatives, being rational beings, are exempted from these minor bumps in the road of life.

 

[Meister]

Great....I get to keep more of my hard earned money for myself and my family.
The politicians would just blow it any ways.

 

[VaYank5150]

So....you don't have to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you don't have to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts?

1. PAYGO: The idea was to track all new entitlement spending and tax legislation, and, if these are not deficit-neutral by years end, automatic spending cuts would kick in. “Congress passed the Budgetary Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990, which specified two new deficit reduction mechanisms: pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules and statutory discretionary spending caps.” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf

a. First, politicians exempted major categories of mandatory spending, including Social Security. Cuts in Medicare were limited to 4% Mercatus, Op. Cit.

b. “It was never enforced. Over those 12 years, Congress enacted $700 billion in non-offset entitlement expansions and tax cuts, and then cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced the law. Congress typically waited until the final spending bill of the year, and then simply added a paragraph mandating that PAYGO not be enforced against any past bills.” PAYGO is an Unworkable Gimmick | The Heritage Foundation

2.Congress can avoid PAYGO simply by declaring that legislation is too important to worry about the deficit, then they issue a waiver. During the 110th Congress, they dodged PAYGO to the tune of over $400 billion, including the Auto Bailout, Unemployment Extension, two Alternative Minimum Tax patches, Farm Bill, S-CHIP, several Stimulus Bills, and a dozen other.

3. By designating legislation “emergency,” the legislation can avoid many of the normal budget rules, and, instead, enter the “supplemental appropriations process.” Realize, the process is designed for events like wars and natural disasters…but “each year over the last tw-and-a-half decades, Congress and the President have enacted between one and eight supplemental bills, rnging form $1.3 billion in FY 1988 to $120 billion in FY 2007.” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf

 

[VaYank5150]

I only ask because the inital Bush tax cuts were never "paid for" with any spending cuts. Spending increased every year under the Bush administration. So now, with the GOP suddenly finding their "conservative roots", or at least resurrecting their talking points for the weak minded to believe, where are the spending cuts to offset the extension of these tax cuts that were never paid for with spending cuts to begin with?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just who does your money belong to anyway?

Much is being made of the cost of the Obama tax compromise. The left in particular is taking aim on extending the Bush tax rates for “millionaires and billionaires.” The lefty press is quick to point out what they perceive as hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. After all, extending the tax rates will “cost the government” $400 billion and $140 billion for the millionaires. Not so says Judd Gregg. It’s your, “It’s not your money” quote of the day. Now I will admit my ultimate fiscal conservative dream is to see government cut down to size. And it is true if government spending isn’t cut, then the government has to borrow or confiscate more money from us, including the rich. But tax cuts don’t need to be paid for because … well as Gregg points out to Andrea, it ain’t the government’s money.

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

Yeah.....the Whitehouse had been INUNDATED (over that last-two-years), by Republicans' suggestions of where to start cutting spending.....but, it always sounded like "NO!!".

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Money is not a limited resource"

I will never understand the misapplication of economics and logic that lead people to make this claim.

Educate me then. I believe money is an artificial construct imposed on trade by governments so that they can keep track of everything their citizens do. It is not tied to any resource, is controlled entirely by central banks, and more is printed every time we face the specter of inflation. What exactly is it that limits how much money exist in the world, and how does Gates having a few billion keep anyone else from getting as much as they want?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you must borrow money, at interest, to make up for tax revenue, then certainly tax cuts add to the deficit.

No it does not. The act of spending more money than you have, and borrowing to cover the deficit, adds to the deficit. Tax cuts themselves do not, especially if they are 10 years old.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think we should pass a law that makes it illegal for Liberals to buy anything on sale. Liberals should only pay list price, it is the only honorable thing for them to do. No buy on get one free, no rebates, no credit card miles, apply it to the deficit. Of course Conservatives, being rational beings, are exempted from these minor bumps in the road of life.

I think it is more likely that everyone would suddenly admit that they are conservatives.

 

[shintao]

The only way to spend more money than you have is to spend more money than you have.

So you would agree the best way to lower the deficit is to cut spending, and since the biggest expenditure is the military, we should bring all the US troops home that do not benefit the taxpayer, and cut the military budget to zero??

 

[The Rabbi]

"Money is not a limited resource"

I will never understand the misapplication of economics and logic that lead people to make this claim.

That's a true statement. You will never understand that concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I only ask because the inital Bush tax cuts were never "paid for" with any spending cuts. Spending increased every year under the Bush administration. So now, with the GOP suddenly finding their "conservative roots", or at least resurrecting their talking points for the weak minded to believe, where are the spending cuts to offset the extension of these tax cuts that were never paid for with spending cuts to begin with?

Which is my point. If we had not spent more money than we had we would not have increased the deficit. Cutting spending is not paying for tax cuts, it is a common sense reaction to not having the money in the first place. We wouldn't even be having this discussion of the government did not spend more money every year in the hope that money would magically appear.