"Paying" for tax cuts

[shintao]

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

Of course not accepting taxation and applauding tax cuts, is saying you are irresponsible and not taking personal responsibility for your own actions that caused the deficit. in short, you have nothing coming and should be taxed at 75% until you clean up your mess, instead of handing to your child to do it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Who's paying for the tax cut???????? That's a silly question. You don't count chickens before they are hatched and the government would be better off not counting tax dollars collected until they are actually collected. There is nothing to pay for. Those that say a tax cut costs money are only playing politics and counting on something they don't have.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're talking to people who have actually argued that this amounts to a tax cut because people had an expectation of higher taxes 1/1 so now that is isn't going up, it's like it is going down.

These people live in world 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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??

Cutting the military budget to zero would be stupid. On the other hand, closing all those overseas bases that we really do not need might be a good idea. If a foreign country wants us to be there to help protect them they can pay for the costs of operating the base, and we wouldn't be facing nearly the deficit we are.

It does not have to be all or nothing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who's paying for the tax cut???????? That's a silly question. You don't count chickens before they are hatched and the government would be better off not counting tax dollars collected until they are actually collected. There is nothing to pay for. Those that say a tax cut costs money are only playing politics and counting on something they don't have.

We have to pay for tax cuts (BTW, nobody got a tax cut, but never mind that little piece of reality), but we don't have to pay for spending?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're talking to people who have actually argued that this amounts to a tax cut because people had an expectation of higher taxes 1/1 so now that is isn't going up, it's like it is going down.

These people live in world 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality.

People keep telling me that if I repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, people will think it is the truth. I decided to test this concept be repeating the truth often and as loud as I possibly can. It is probably a waste of time, but if it works I will be famous.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Who's paying for the tax cut???????? That's a silly question. You don't count chickens before they are hatched and the government would be better off not counting tax dollars collected until they are actually collected. There is nothing to pay for. Those that say a tax cut costs money are only playing politics and counting on something they don't have.

We have to pay for tax cuts (BTW, nobody got a tax cut, but never mind that little piece of reality), but we don't have to pay for spending?

It might be an old fashioned idea, but Congress, like all the other households in America, shouldn't be spending more money than they have to spend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Absolutely correct!

1. For seventy-two of the last hundred years, the government has spent more than it has taken in.
2. And over the last fifty years, the government has run deficits forty-four of those years: that’s 88%!
3. Over the last ten years, deficits in nine. Historical Tables | The White House

On this matter I think we can agree that both parties must re-discover their "conservative roots."

 

[boedicca]

"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?

Considering how the Fed keeps Printing More Money via QE, it's clearly no longer a limited resource.

Badabing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

Novel idea huh.

All we truly 'need' to do is cut spending to the point the dbt/def lowers. As that lowers the value of the dollar will [should] increase.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Absolutely correct!

1. For seventy-two of the last hundred years, the government has spent more than it has taken in.
2. And over the last fifty years, the government has run deficits forty-four of those years: that’s 88%!
3. Over the last ten years, deficits in nine. Historical Tables | The White House

On this matter I think we can agree that both parties must re-discover their "conservative roots."

But I don't think deficits per se are bad. Deficits this size, requiring this much to service the debt is really the issue.
Most households have a large amount of debt as well. It isn't a problem as long as their ratios are in check.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You're talking to people who have actually argued that this amounts to a tax cut because people had an expectation of higher taxes 1/1 so now that is isn't going up, it's like it is going down.

These people live in world 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality.

People keep telling me that if I repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, people will think it is the truth. I decided to test this concept be repeating the truth often and as loud as I possibly can. It is probably a waste of time, but if it works I will be famous.

Can I have your autograph?

 

[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??

Cutting the military budget to zero would be stupid. On the other hand, closing all those overseas bases that we really do not need might be a good idea. If a foreign country wants us to be there to help protect them they can pay for the costs of operating the base, and we wouldn't be facing nearly the deficit we are.

It does not have to be all or nothing.

Let say we cut the military by 95%, and NO, we are not the World Police, let the UN do its job. That is what they are there for. Notice the word "US TROOPS." That means troops that defend the US. Stop sticking our troops on the bloody fucking target.

Now the question remains for spending cuts, would you cut the military to 95% to balance the budget, lower your taxes, and etc.??

 

[8537]

First, let me apologize for my smartass response. I could have made my point without being a jackass...

"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?

I don't think it's imposed on trade by governments - the earliest forms of money weren't government issued at all, and even here in the US we have had several instances of private money production. Money simply facilitates trade (and stores value....)

The fed doesn't print more money when we face inflation - it does just the opposite. it contracts the supply. On the flipside, creating more money can sometimes lead to inflation.... But I suspect I misread your intention with that comment?

More to the point, however, is that the amount of money in circulation is in large part irrelevant. What matters more is how quickly it is exchanged. If Gates keeps billions and billions of it under his mattress, the entire economy responds with deflation. But the real value of money is very certainly finite - it's simply the real value of the goods and serviced produced (divided by velocity, but that's a different discussion). There is a limit to our productive capacity and a limit to the scarce resources money represents - and therefore a scarcity of money. If 50% of productive capacity and resources are owned by Bill Gates, that only leaves the remaining 50% for everyone else. Printing more money for printing's sake doesn't change the capacity or the amount of resources.

 

[shintao]

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?

Absolutely correct!

1. For seventy-two of the last hundred years, the government has spent more than it has taken in.
2. And over the last fifty years, the government has run deficits forty-four of those years: that’s 88%!
3. Over the last ten years, deficits in nine. Historical Tables | The White House

On this matter I think we can agree that both parties must re-discover their "conservative roots."

But I don't think deficits per se are bad. Deficits this size, requiring this much to service the debt is really the issue.
Most households have a large amount of debt as well. It isn't a problem as long as their ratios are in check.

Spoken like a true Reaganite that thinks living check to check & on a credit card is being fiscally responsible.

 

[rightwinger]

Why don't we make a deal...

No tax cuts till corresponding spending cuts have been identified

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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??

Cutting the military budget to zero would be stupid. On the other hand, closing all those overseas bases that we really do not need might be a good idea. If a foreign country wants us to be there to help protect them they can pay for the costs of operating the base, and we wouldn't be facing nearly the deficit we are.

It does not have to be all or nothing.

Let say we cut the military by 95%, and NO, we are not the World Police, let the UN do its job. That is what they are there for. Notice the word "US TROOPS." That means troops that defend the US. Stop sticking our troops on the bloody fucking target.

Now the question remains for spending cuts, would you cut the military to 95% to balance the budget, lower your taxes, and etc.??

If you can conclusively prove that the only way to cut the deficit is to cut military spending by 95% than have at it with my full support. Since the truth is that all we have to do is reduce the planned increase in spending by a bout 4% to eliminate the deficit in about 10 years you are going to have a hard time selli9ng that one though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're talking to people who have actually argued that this amounts to a tax cut because people had an expectation of higher taxes 1/1 so now that is isn't going up, it's like it is going down.

These people live in world 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality.

People keep telling me that if I repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, people will think it is the truth. I decided to test this concept be repeating the truth often and as loud as I possibly can. It is probably a waste of time, but if it works I will be famous.

Can I have your autograph?

Send me a check for $1000.00 and I will autograph the back and have my bank send it to you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Absolutely correct!

1. For seventy-two of the last hundred years, the government has spent more than it has taken in.
2. And over the last fifty years, the government has run deficits forty-four of those years: that’s 88%!
3. Over the last ten years, deficits in nine. Historical Tables | The White House

On this matter I think we can agree that both parties must re-discover their "conservative roots."

But I don't think deficits per se are bad. Deficits this size, requiring this much to service the debt is really the issue.
Most households have a large amount of debt as well. It isn't a problem as long as their ratios are in check.

Spoken like a true Reaganite that thinks living check to check & on a credit card is being fiscally responsible.

If I buy an apartment building every year for $1M and put $200k down then I am running an $800k deficit for the year. After two years I am 1.6M in debt.
But if my DCR is 20% so what?
I realize this concept is beyond you but maybe someone can explain it to you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Absolutely correct!

1. For seventy-two of the last hundred years, the government has spent more than it has taken in.
2. And over the last fifty years, the government has run deficits forty-four of those years: that’s 88%!
3. Over the last ten years, deficits in nine. Historical Tables | The White House

On this matter I think we can agree that both parties must re-discover their "conservative roots."

But I don't think deficits per se are bad. Deficits this size, requiring this much to service the debt is really the issue.
Most households have a large amount of debt as well. It isn't a problem as long as their ratios are in check.

1. Since every administration increased both deficit and debt, you know that they are related...and they have an effect:

a. “In 2010, these interest payments (net of some interest income) will claim $209 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.” Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

b. Based on future ability to pay its debts, each nation is give a rating. “The big three agencies are Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poors. What they do is assess how likely a borrower is to be able to repay its debts and help those trading debt contracts in the secondary market.” Debt crisis: how Fitch, Moody's and S&P rate each country's credit rating. Visualised - with a spreadsheet. UPDATED | World news | guardian.co.uk.

c. The costs of borrowing are contingent on the rating. Currently the US is listed as AAA, Stable…and this keeps the interest costs of borrowing low. Recently, for example, Greece was downgraded to BB+, Negative, and the cost of its debt rose to over three time that of the US.

d. Moody’s warned that if the U.S. credit rating was at risk if economic growth was slower than the Obama administration projects. US credit rating at risk, Moody's warns - Telegraph And this is an administration fraught with bogus calculations!

e. JUPITER, FL--(Marketwire - May 10, 2010) - Weiss Ratings, an independent rating agency covering the nation's financial institutions, issued a challenge today to Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch: To downgrade the long-term sovereign debt of the United States in order to help protect investors and prod Washington to fix its finances. Weiss Ratings Challenges S&P, Moody's and Fitch to Downgrade Long-Term U.S. Debt

2. Check out the effects the debt is projected to have on taxes

‘As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082…."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent." Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), May 19, 2008, Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

a. And the future of our debt, unless there are big changes?

“Spending on the three major entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will more than double in the next 40 years. Without major reforms, entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenues by 2052.” http://www.issues2010.com/pdf/Entitlements.pdf


3. Let’s see all of the debt in one place!
a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion*covers commitments for 75 years
b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor