"Paying" for tax cuts

[Quantum Windbag]

The money is there but we choose not to pay for it by choosing not to tax ourselves. We can afford it but choose not to pay for it. We choose to put it on our credit card rather than pay it out of cash flow.

This from a guy that insist I am an ideologue.

We are not choosing any such thing. Congress is ignoring the fact that they do not have the money and putting it on our credit cards.

Cool story, thanks.

As a businessman, you know that profits are not merely a function of cost. If profits were only about costs, businessmen would do nothing but focus on costs. But you know that is not true. Businesses also focus on revenues. Profits are a function of costs AND revenues. Profits are not solely a function of costs. Profits are not solely a function of revenues. Profits are a function of both. If a business decides to stop selling into a profitable market, then the decision to stop selling into the market is the cause of the loss. Government is no different. If the government decides to forego revenue, it is the decision to stop taxing that causes the shortfall, just like the decision to stop selling into the market is why the business has the loss.

There is a difference between a business and the government, businesses do not have unlimited credit that enable them to ignore costs. A business that ignores the fact that they do not have the money to pay for everything that catches its fancy will fail pretty quickly, governments just keep on spending.

The tax cut does cause the shortfall, but the spending causes the problem.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Total booby trap.

When this "tax holiday" runs out, dems will whine and cry about how republicans will be then raising taxes on the much ballyhooed "working families".

Of course, republicans are stupid and will fall for it.

well of course! Just like Republicans whining and crying about how Democrats are raising taxes on the top 2%, the much ballyhooed "job creators".

And of course, Dems are stupid and they cave on it.

That "top 2%" crap is a fake propagandist yammering point for the brain dead, too.

People move into and out of the top brackets all the time.

But I've already given up on intellectual honesty from Fabian socialist/progressive/Keynesian authoritarian central controller types, so it comes as no surprise that you'd parrot and toe the ruling class line.

 

[Toro]

This from a guy that insist I am an ideologue.

We are not choosing any such thing. Congress is ignoring the fact that they do not have the money and putting it on our credit cards.

They are our elected representatives. They are doing what the people they represent want them to be doing.

"We" have decided that we want lower taxes but don't want spending cut. "We" could decide to pay for our spending. "We" have chosen not to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This from a guy that insist I am an ideologue.

We are not choosing any such thing. Congress is ignoring the fact that they do not have the money and putting it on our credit cards.

They are our elected representatives. They are doing what the people they represent want them to be doing.

"We" have decided that we want lower taxes but don't want spending cut. "We" could decide to pay for our spending. "We" have chosen not to.

Are they? I would agree that is what they are supposed to do, but it seems to me that they are more likely to do what the party heirarchy tells them to. Remember the uproar from from Nebraska after the Cornhusker Kickback? Maybe, if there are more uprisings like the one that went down last month they might start doing what we say, which is not to cut taxes, but to cut the deficit. You can sit back and claim that the American people do not want spending cuts or tax increases, but the numbers seem to point to the fact that they would be willing to accept both.

Poll: Americans Want Deficit Cut, Oppose Fixes : NPR

 

[Toro]

The right-wing ideologues argue that the fiscal balance is always a function of spending. It is never a function of taxes. If the government cuts taxes and the deficit widens, it is always a problem of spending. What matters to the fiscal balance is spending. Taxes are irrelevant. Or so the argument goes.

Of course, if one is to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, if the fiscal balance is always determined by spending and never by taxes, the corollary is that surpluses are never because taxes are too high. After all, the ideologues argue, the fiscal balance is never a function of taxes. It is always a function of spending. Ergo, a surplus is always because the government is spending too little.

I imagine that the ideologues will huff and puff that taxes are always too high, or the logical conclusion doesn't make sense, etc., etc., etc. But the logical continuum of their argument is that since the fiscal balance is always a function of spending and never about taxes, if deficits are always caused by too much spending, surpluses are always caused by too little spending, because it is a logical contradiction to say that taxes never matter when there is a deficit and only matter when there is a surplus.

 

[Toro]

This from a guy that insist I am an ideologue.

We are not choosing any such thing. Congress is ignoring the fact that they do not have the money and putting it on our credit cards.

They are our elected representatives. They are doing what the people they represent want them to be doing.

"We" have decided that we want lower taxes but don't want spending cut. "We" could decide to pay for our spending. "We" have chosen not to.

Are they? I would agree that is what they are supposed to do, but it seems to me that they are more likely to do what the party heirarchy tells them to. Remember the uproar from from Nebraska after the Cornhusker Kickback? Maybe, if there are more uprisings like the one that went down last month they might start doing what we say, which is not to cut taxes, but to cut the deficit. You can sit back and claim that the American people do not want spending cuts or tax increases, but the numbers seem to point to the fact that they would be willing to accept both.

Poll: Americans Want Deficit Cut, Oppose Fixes : NPR

Right. That's a first step. The problem is that they don't want their spending cut. They want spending on others cut.

A strong majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, say they support a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to cut the deficit — but they falter when asked whether they support specific fixes.

So when asked to make hard choices, Americans blanch. Don't raise my taxes or cut my spending. Raise taxes and cut spending for the other guy.

This is why I say your argument is damaging for the nation. To cut the deficit, we have to make sacrifices. That is going to entail tax increases and spending cuts. I think most of the pain should be on the spending side. But to say that deficits are always a problem of excessive spending, it makes it difficult to come to a political compromise that is necessary - cutting spending AND raising taxes - to fix this problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right-wing ideologues argue that the fiscal balance is always a function of spending. It is never a function of taxes. If the government cuts taxes and the deficit widens, it is always a problem of spending. What matters to the fiscal balance is spending. Taxes are irrelevant. Or so the argument goes.

That alone proves I am not an ideologue, since I continually point out that the problem is spending more than you have, not just spending.

Of course, if one is to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, if the fiscal balance is always determined by spending and never by taxes, the corollary is that surpluses are never because taxes are too high. After all, the ideologues argue, the fiscal balance is never a function of taxes. It is always a function of spending. Ergo, a surplus is always because the government is spending too little.

How is that either logically consistent or intellectually honest?

I imagine that the ideologues will huff and puff that taxes are always too high, or the logical conclusion doesn't make sense, etc., etc., etc. But the logical continuum of their argument is that since the fiscal balance is always a function of spending and never about taxes, if deficits are always caused by too much spending, surpluses are always caused by too little spending, because it is a logical contradiction to say that taxes never matter when there is a deficit and only matter when there is a surplus.

What logic? You are spouting idiocy, and I have never heard anyone argue anything like it before.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are our elected representatives. They are doing what the people they represent want them to be doing.

"We" have decided that we want lower taxes but don't want spending cut. "We" could decide to pay for our spending. "We" have chosen not to.

Are they? I would agree that is what they are supposed to do, but it seems to me that they are more likely to do what the party heirarchy tells them to. Remember the uproar from from Nebraska after the Cornhusker Kickback? Maybe, if there are more uprisings like the one that went down last month they might start doing what we say, which is not to cut taxes, but to cut the deficit. You can sit back and claim that the American people do not want spending cuts or tax increases, but the numbers seem to point to the fact that they would be willing to accept both.

Poll: Americans Want Deficit Cut, Oppose Fixes : NPR

Right. That's a first step. The problem is that they don't want their spending cut. They want spending on others cut.

A strong majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, say they support a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to cut the deficit — but they falter when asked whether they support specific fixes.

So when asked to make hard choices, Americans blanch. Don't raise my taxes or cut my spending. Raise taxes and cut spending for the other guy.

This is why I say your argument is damaging for the nation. To cut the deficit, we have to make sacrifices. That is going to entail tax increases and spending cuts. I think most of the pain should be on the spending side. But to say that deficits are always a problem of excessive spending, it makes it difficult to come to a political compromise that is necessary - cutting spending AND raising taxes - to fix this problem.

How is arguing that spending more money than we have is bad bad for the nation? Exactly what part of my argument can you point to where I said we should cut taxes and increase spending? Have I been wasting all of these posts with you when you have not even been reading them?

 

[JFK_USA]

Wow people are pretty stupid. Okay lets put it this way.

You make $100,000 dollars. You have a home necessary budget of $70000.

You pay gets cut to $60000, if you still have a budget of $70000 you are running a deficit. You have to have other people (Banks) take up your debt. You don't reduce a deficit by continuing the very thing keeping you in a deficit. You have to either cut spending or increase revenue. You don't reduce a deficit or debt by increase spending and reducing revenue (more in debt) or reducing revenue and spending (break even).

 

[Toro]

How is arguing that spending more money than we have is bad bad for the nation? Exactly what part of my argument can you point to where I said we should cut taxes and increase spending? Have I been wasting all of these posts with you when you have not even been reading them?

I'm not arguing that spending what we don't have is not bad. I'm arguing what causes the budget deficit.

In that post in which you refer, I'm merely demonstrating that the American people want to eliminate the deficit without making sacrifices. They want other people's taxes to be raised and other people's spending to be cut. When Americans start saying "cut my social security, cut my Medicare funding, cut my kid's school funding," then you will know that the American people are serious about cutting the deficit. But right now, they aren't.

 

[Toro]

The right-wing ideologues argue that the fiscal balance is always a function of spending. It is never a function of taxes. If the government cuts taxes and the deficit widens, it is always a problem of spending. What matters to the fiscal balance is spending. Taxes are irrelevant. Or so the argument goes.

That alone proves I am not an ideologue, since I continually point out that the problem is spending more than you have, not just spending.

Of course, if one is to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, if the fiscal balance is always determined by spending and never by taxes, the corollary is that surpluses are never because taxes are too high. After all, the ideologues argue, the fiscal balance is never a function of taxes. It is always a function of spending. Ergo, a surplus is always because the government is spending too little.

How is that either logically consistent or intellectually honest?

I imagine that the ideologues will huff and puff that taxes are always too high, or the logical conclusion doesn't make sense, etc., etc., etc. But the logical continuum of their argument is that since the fiscal balance is always a function of spending and never about taxes, if deficits are always caused by too much spending, surpluses are always caused by too little spending, because it is a logical contradiction to say that taxes never matter when there is a deficit and only matter when there is a surplus.

What logic? You are spouting idiocy, and I have never heard anyone argue anything like it before.

This whole discussion is about cause and effect. What causes changes in the fiscal balance, i.e. the deficit?

I argue that the fiscal balance is caused by changes in taxes and spending, depending on circumstances. You argue that the fiscal balance is always caused by spending, never by taxes. If the government cuts taxes, deficits are always because of spending.

So, since by your logic, the fiscal balance is always caused by spending, the logic works in reverse. If the government jacks up taxes, causing a surplus, the surplus is not caused by tax hikes, it is caused by the lack of spending. Tax increases didn't cause the budget surplus, the lack of spending did. Tax decreases didn't cause the budget deficit, too much spending did. That's the logically consistent answer.

 

[editec]

Deficits can be caused by spending more than you have.

They can also be caused by a reduction of income needed to pay for basics that keep one alive. Sure, you can just choose to die but that is unrealistic and against human nature.

This argument is silly, though. We already have a huge deficit. Cutting spending to nothing will not make it go away and cutting taxes will only add to it as we struggle to pay off the interest.

What are the basic needs of the government? Will it die if it does not get food and water? If so, how much does it need?

As I have repeatedly posted, a reduction in planned increases in spending of about 4% per year will balance the budget in about 10 years. Continue that policy and we will eventually pay off the deficit. You are acting like the current deficit is insurmountable, when it is only the projected deficit is insurmountable.

Would you be kind enough to show us the math that supports that theory?

Id be particularly interested in what revenue projections you're plugging into your equasion that leads to us both increasing spending by 4% while ALSO paying down the national debt.

I suspect that your revenue projections are very hopeful, and further that you are assuming that costs will somehow remain static and no inflation will happen.

But hey, what do I know?

You're the guy with the formula, so showing us the math would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance for augmenting your theory with some numbers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is arguing that spending more money than we have is bad bad for the nation? Exactly what part of my argument can you point to where I said we should cut taxes and increase spending? Have I been wasting all of these posts with you when you have not even been reading them?

I'm not arguing that spending what we don't have is not bad. I'm arguing what causes the budget deficit.

In that post in which you refer, I'm merely demonstrating that the American people want to eliminate the deficit without making sacrifices. They want other people's taxes to be raised and other people's spending to be cut. When Americans start saying "cut my social security, cut my Medicare funding, cut my kid's school funding," then you will know that the American people are serious about cutting the deficit. But right now, they aren't.

Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit. If cutting taxes caused a deficit it would cause a deficit even if you cut taxes because the government was getting more tax money than it needs.

Spending does not cause a deficit. If spending caused a deficit it would cause a deficit even if you had enough taxes to cover the spending.

That means that only one thing can cause a deficit, which is what I have been saying all along. The only thing that causes a deficit is spending more money than you have.

Period.

Yet you keep trying to tell me that cutting taxes causes a deficit, and keep thinking that I am arguing that spending causes a deficit. That makes you wrong twice over.

That poll you posted doesn't prove anything but that that poll indicates some strange things. I do not know when it was taken, who was surveyed, or what questions were asked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Deficits can be caused by spending more than you have.

They can also be caused by a reduction of income needed to pay for basics that keep one alive. Sure, you can just choose to die but that is unrealistic and against human nature.

This argument is silly, though. We already have a huge deficit. Cutting spending to nothing will not make it go away and cutting taxes will only add to it as we struggle to pay off the interest.

What are the basic needs of the government? Will it die if it does not get food and water? If so, how much does it need?

As I have repeatedly posted, a reduction in planned increases in spending of about 4% per year will balance the budget in about 10 years. Continue that policy and we will eventually pay off the deficit. You are acting like the current deficit is insurmountable, when it is only the projected deficit is insurmountable.

Would you be kind enough to show us the math that supports that theory?

Id be particularly interested in what revenue projections you're plugging into your equasion that leads to us both increasing spending by 4% while ALSO paying down the national debt.

I suspect that your revenue projections are very hopeful, and further that you are assuming that costs will somehow remain static and no inflation will happen.

But hey, what do I know?

You're the guy with the formula, so showing us the math would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance for augmenting your theory with some numbers.

Read the bipartisan deficit reduction plan, it is pretty simple.

 

[Toro]

That poll you posted doesn't prove anything but that that poll indicates some strange things. I do not know when it was taken, who was surveyed, or what questions were asked.

If the poll doesn't prove anything, and you don't know when it was taken, who surveyed it or what the questions were, why did you post it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145461-paying-for-tax-cuts-13.html#post3073797

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That poll you posted doesn't prove anything but that that poll indicates some strange things. I do not know when it was taken, who was surveyed, or what questions were asked.

If the poll doesn't prove anything, and you don't know when it was taken, who surveyed it or what the questions were, why did you post it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145461-paying-for-tax-cuts-13.html#post3073797

I didn't post the poll, I posted evidence that people want the deficit cut when you claimed they do not. The poll included in the story is still bunk.

 

[Toro]

That poll you posted doesn't prove anything but that that poll indicates some strange things. I do not know when it was taken, who was surveyed, or what questions were asked.

If the poll doesn't prove anything, and you don't know when it was taken, who surveyed it or what the questions were, why did you post it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145461-paying-for-tax-cuts-13.html#post3073797

I didn't post the poll, I posted evidence that people want the deficit cut when you claimed they do not. The poll included in the story is still bunk.

The evidence is the poll. So, in other words, you used a poll to prove your "evidence", yet you don't actually believe the poll.

OK, if you say so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the poll doesn't prove anything, and you don't know when it was taken, who surveyed it or what the questions were, why did you post it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145461-paying-for-tax-cuts-13.html#post3073797

I didn't post the poll, I posted evidence that people want the deficit cut when you claimed they do not. The poll included in the story is still bunk.

The evidence is the poll. So, in other words, you used a poll to prove your "evidence", yet you don't actually believe the poll.

OK, if you say so.

The details in the poll are not the evidence.

 

[Toro]

I didn't post the poll, I posted evidence that people want the deficit cut when you claimed they do not. The poll included in the story is still bunk.

The evidence is the poll. So, in other words, you used a poll to prove your "evidence", yet you don't actually believe the poll.

OK, if you say so.

The details in the poll are not the evidence.

Oh, so in other words, the parts of the poll that confirms what you believe is evidence, and the parts of the poll you don't believe is bunk.

Got it.