"Paying" for tax cuts

[Oddball]

Outside of the booby trap FICA "holiday", there aren't any tax cuts.

In fact there's a tax increase on the table.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the tax cuts sunset...this might be the perfect way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting all those brand new shiny weapons systems..closing down some oversea's bases..and shrinking the number of carrier groups.

This makes no sense. How does the elimination of the tax cuts create this 'opportunity'?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Outside of the booby trap FICA "holiday", there aren't any tax cuts.

In fact there's a tax increase on the table.

Can't be. The Obama promised He'd not raise my taxes.

 

[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.

Then I guess the only honorable thing to do is to raise taxes to pay off your obligations. Is that not what any responsible honest person would do? Once you do that you are free to persue your own course. To the extent you do not is the extent to which you are a felon.

Since Bush ran up about six trillion in debt all by himself it woud seem conservatives are somewhat complicit in the robbery of America.

Why is it, having run up these debts, you now feel no obligation?

Seems like conservatives do that a lot.

Most responsible people do not spend more money than they have. When responsible people find themselves over their heads in debt they usually curtail spending until they can pay it off. No responsible person I ever met goes to his boss and demands a pay increase because he has spent more money than he has, yet that is exactly the government has, and you are trying to sell their lie that the only responsible thing to do is give them a raise.

Nice of you try to lump me in with Bush when I am simply pointing out the truth. Do you often find yourself blaming others when you do not like facts?

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. It is not an ideological position, nor is philosophically damaging, it is a simple fact. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have. The only way the government can improve the fiscal balance of a nation is get out of the way and let the nation's economy work.

Every time we have had a balanced budget the government increased both spending and taxes. The problem is that they always increase taxes at a slower rate than they increase spending, which results in an increase in the deficit. Notice that, again, it was the spending that increased the deficit, not the taxes.

If you went to a bankruptcy court and argued you do not have to cut your spending even though you lost your job they would tell you the same thing I am. It is not the fact that you lost your job that is causing the problems, it is the fact that you are not cutting your spending.

Common sense does not change just because we are talking about governments. Tax cuts do not increase the deficit, the only way to increase the deficit is spend money we do not have. In your example it was not the loss of revenue through eliminating taxes that caused the problem, it was the government refusing to recognize that the money was no longer there, and continuing to spend like it was still coming in that caused the deficit to increase.

If we cut taxes then we have less to spend.

Would you agree that no taxes should be cut untill the corresponding spending cuts have been made?

Basically, we are now spending less so we do not need to tax as much. Why do we always cut taxes first and then ignore the spending cuts part?

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

You are being intentionally obtuse

Our budget is comprised of money coming in and money going out. If you cut back on the money coming in without changing what is going out, you run a deficit.

To claim that spending is the only variable in the equation is simplistic drivel

 

[Oddball]

If we cut taxes then we have less to spend.

Would you agree that no taxes should be cut untill the corresponding spending cuts have been made?

Basically, we are now spending less so we do not need to tax as much. Why do we always cut taxes first and then ignore the spending cuts part?

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

You are being intentionally obtuse

Our budget is comprised of money coming in and money going out. If you cut back on the money coming in without changing what is going out, you run a deficit.

To claim that spending is the only variable in the equation is simplistic drivel

No, he's not being obtuse...You're being semantically dishonest.

The only thing that "costs" anything, no matter your level of income, is spending.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If we cut taxes then we have less to spend.

Would you agree that no taxes should be cut untill the corresponding spending cuts have been made?

Basically, we are now spending less so we do not need to tax as much. Why do we always cut taxes first and then ignore the spending cuts part?

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

You are being intentionally obtuse

Our budget is comprised of money coming in and money going out. If you cut back on the money coming in without changing what is going out, you run a deficit.

To claim that spending is the only variable in the equation is simplistic drivel

Who said we're reducing taxes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If tax cuts can't add to the deficit, let's cut taxes to zero and then see whether or not the deficit gets bigger.

Let me try this again.

The only way to increase the deficit is spending more money than you have. The elimination of all governmental revenue will not result in any increase in the deficit unless the government spends money it does not have.

The current tax proposal is doing exactly that. The GOP, and Obama, and some Democrats, want to continue a condition that is exactly what you are defining (and is, incidently obvious)

taking in less revenue than they are going to spend. That creates the deficit.

If you are quibbling over semantics, to say that tax cuts increase the deficit is less precise than to say that tax cuts without a proportionate cut in spending increases the deficit.

I think you're trying in your trademark weasely way to let tax cuts off the hook here, in the area of blame.

Taking in less revenue does not increase the deficit, spending more money does. Why do you insist on getting it backwards and blaming the revenue instead of the spending?

To rephrase your bolded statement, increasing spending when you know you do not have the money is going to increase the deficit. The problem is not that Congress is proposing a cut in taxes, it is that they are going to spend more than they would have even if they allowed the tax raises to go into effect. How is demanding a proportionate cut in spending going to make a difference when the government will still be spending more money than it has?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Problem is, spending out paces growth... continually. 50% tax rates is NOT the answer. Anyhoo, if the whole scheme is dependent on taxing the shit outta 5% of the population, well, that oughtta tell you there's a much larger problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you want to make all taxes voluntary?

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

It was your stupid idea. I highlighted it. You want to stop forcing people to pay taxes. That would make taxation voluntary.

One possible cause of delusions is brain damage, just saying.

The closest I got to saying that is when I pointed out that if you want the government to have more of your money they would be happy to take it, and waste it for you. That, despite your obvious lack of reading skills, does not mean that all taxes should be voluntary.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

It was your stupid idea. I highlighted it. You want to stop forcing people to pay taxes. That would make taxation voluntary.

One possible cause of delusions is brain damage, just saying.

The closest I got to saying that is when I pointed out that if you want the government to have more of your money they would be happy to take it, and waste it for you. That, despite your obvious lack of reading skills, does not mean that all taxes should be voluntary.

Well, he also is under some delusion that there are tax cuts for millionaires coming.

 

[cutter]

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

What do workers do when they lose income? They cut spending even if it makes life tough at times. Only the government thinks it is allowed to spend as much as it wants with no regard to income. Stupid,Stupid,Stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bullshit. It is not an ideological position, nor is philosophically damaging, it is a simple fact. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have.

Even in the silly game of semantics you're playing, how does deliberately reducing the amount of money we have not impact the deficit? What's odd is that you've actually formulated it correctly here with "The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have," the problem is that in your head that seems to have been reduced to simply "spending money" with the entire concept of "more money than we have" being lost. But, as you correctly note, revenues and expenditures are equally important in determining the deficit.

Toro, of course, is absolutely correct.

The only reason anyone, including you, can argue that reducing taxes increases the deficit is because the government spends money based solely on politics, and not on revenue. Increasing taxes increases the deficit because they spend more money. Reducing taxes increases the deficit because they spend more money.

Revenues have nothing to do with the deficit, only spending does. If Congress spent $5 and earned $10 it would have no impact on the deficit to reduce taxes so the government only mad $8. On the other hand, if they looked at that $10 and decided to spend $15, that would increase the deficit, even if they increased taxes so they would have $13.

This should make it obvious to anyone with a brain that the problem is not the taxes, but the spending. Since Congress refuses to tie spending to taxes except through lip service we, as their employers, need to draw the line and insist that they only spend money they have, not money they are borrowing, or money they think that taxes will generate for them.

That makes Toro, and you, totally wrong when you argue that tax cuts impact the deficit. Only spending impacts the deficit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tax cuts are not properly effective without spending cuts.

Please note, again, that I am not saying that we should, or even should not, have tax cuts. The problem is not the taxes per se, it is the fact that the government has this idea that the budget is more important than anything else. If they are thinking about spending $1000 more than they did last year, and decide to spend only $800 more, they look virtuous and tell us that they reduced the budget by $200. That is not true, and only a devotee of Newspeak would think it is. That is still a budget increase of $800.

The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have, and blaming that on the fact that you are getting less money, when you know that before you try to make your budget, is a flat out lie. We need to force them to tell the truth,l regardless of your politics. Everyone thinks the deficit is bad, but no one wants to hold the government accountable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we cut taxes then we have less to spend.

Would you agree that no taxes should be cut untill the corresponding spending cuts have been made?

Basically, we are now spending less so we do not need to tax as much. Why do we always cut taxes first and then ignore the spending cuts part?

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

You are being intentionally obtuse

Our budget is comprised of money coming in and money going out. If you cut back on the money coming in without changing what is going out, you run a deficit.

To claim that spending is the only variable in the equation is simplistic drivel

I am not being obtuse, I am insisting that the problem is that the government is spending more money than it has. Even you point out that if the government spends more than it makes it causes a deficit. Does your problem lie with the fact that cutting spending is not paying for tax cuts, it is simply wise fiscal management?

 

[rightwinger]

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

What do workers do when they lose income? They cut spending even if it makes life tough at times. Only the government thinks it is allowed to spend as much as it wants with no regard to income. Stupid,Stupid,Stupid.

Workers do not turn away potential sources of income either.

A workers fixed expenses remain the same if he is working or not. Like it or not, taxes are the governments source of income

 

[Oddball]

Tax cuts are not properly effective without spending cuts.

Please note, again, that I am not saying that we should, or even should not, have tax cuts. The problem is not the taxes per se, it is the fact that the government has this idea that the budget is more important than anything else. If they are thinking about spending $1000 more than they did last year, and decide to spend only $800 more, they look virtuous and tell us that they reduced the budget by $200. That is not true, and only a devotee of Newspeak would think it is. That is still a budget increase of $800.

The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have, and blaming that on the fact that you are getting less money, when you know that before you try to make your budget, is a flat out lie. We need to force them to tell the truth,l regardless of your politics. Everyone thinks the deficit is bad, but no one wants to hold the government accountable.

In their topsy-turvy Orwellian world, that's a "draconian cut" to the program.

But nobody ever accused them of honest use of language in the first place.

 

[rightwinger]

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

You are being intentionally obtuse

Our budget is comprised of money coming in and money going out. If you cut back on the money coming in without changing what is going out, you run a deficit.

To claim that spending is the only variable in the equation is simplistic drivel

I am not being obtuse, I am insisting that the problem is that the government is spending more money than it has. Even you point out that if the government spends more than it makes it causes a deficit. Does your problem lie with the fact that cutting spending is not paying for tax cuts, it is simply wise fiscal management?

As I have stated numerous times on this thread...wise fiscal policy is to identify your spending cuts BEFORE you cut taxes. Trust us is not an answer

 

[Oddball]

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

What do workers do when they lose income? They cut spending even if it makes life tough at times. Only the government thinks it is allowed to spend as much as it wants with no regard to income. Stupid,Stupid,Stupid.

Workers do not turn away potential sources of income either.

A workers fixed expenses remain the same if he is working or not. Like it or not, taxes are the governments source of income

Honest workers seeking more income look for more productive work, rather than robbing the liquor store then blaming the proprietor for the fact that the money in his till can't support the robber's extravagant lifestyle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A workers fixed expenses remain the same if he is working or not. Like it or not, taxes are the governments source of income

False analogy
All of the government's expenses are voluntary, none are fixed.