Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[Care4all]

3 steps to a balanced budget in 4 short years and a surplus in year 5.

1) Freeze Spending.
2) Freeze Spending
3) Freeze Spending.

FYI-
Spending has been frozen since the sequester, back in 2013..... still no balanced budget....

 

[Zander]

3 steps to a balanced budget in 4 short years and a surplus in year 5.

1) Freeze Spending.
2) Freeze Spending
3) Freeze Spending.

FYI-
Spending has been frozen since the sequester, back in 2013..... still no balanced budget....

Not true.

It has been increasing every year.

2013 = $3.4 Trillion
2014 + $3.5 Trillion
2015 = $3.8 Trillion
2016 = $4.1 Trillion

 

[edthecynic]

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

It has always been the Right who never pay for government spending, the Left always tries to pay for spending with taxes the Right with borrowing. The Left say deficits matter and need to be paid for with taxes, the Right say St Ronnie PROVED deficits don't matter.

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
- Ronald Reagan

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
- Dick Cheney

"I am a deficit hawk."
- Dick Cheney

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

 

[edthecynic]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

 

[ScienceRocks]

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

That is what the republicans want to do nationally. It'll kill our leadership in this world and make us a second rate nation....China will be happy as they'll be the new super power.

For what? For the few good 1%'ers that pay the full amount and don't cheat? Lol

 

[ScienceRocks]

The 1% don't give a shit how poor we're as a nation either...Look at the poorest shit holes on earth to realize that it is about control whether then living in a nice country with a little more wealth....

People need to realize this....Republicans want to fucking destroy this country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rich love sweat shops and wage slaves! If they can give someone .25 cents per day and make forty times that off of a product these assholes will have an erection.

Even some of the goddamn conservative hicks will live to regret sucking the rich mans dick within the next decade or so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan escalated the Cold War and didn't pay for it. George Bush Sr. started the 1st Iraq War and didn't pay for it. GW Bush started two wars and didn't pay for either of them.

That's how you accumulate debt - create extraordinary (outside the norm) government expenditures but take no measures to obtain the extraordinary revenue to cover those expenditures.

In fact, in the cases of Reagan and GW Bush, they exacerbated those actions by cutting taxes while they were creating those extraordinary expenditures.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reagan escalated the Cold War and didn't pay for it. George Bush Sr. started the 1st Iraq War and didn't pay for it. GW Bush started two wars and didn't pay for either of them.

That's how you accumulate debt - create extraordinary (outside the norm) government expenditures but take no measures to obtain the extraordinary revenue to cover those expenditures.

In fact, in the cases of Reagan and GW Bush, they exacerbated those actions by cutting taxes while they were creating those extraordinary expenditures.

Yep, wars, tax breaks and healthcare cost is 90% of our debt...Infrastructure, science, and education has NOT caused the debt but those are the areas the republicans will cut....Why? Because they help the little guy.

 

[Montrovant]

There are lots of countries in the world where you pay no income tax, but they're all dangerous shit holes, where you need bodyguards to protect you from criminals and thieves.

The five most livable countries with no income tax | Nomad Capitalist

 

[imawhosure]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

You know, I find it really interesting that Trump supporters are happy about his tax plan, yet are still thinking he's gonna fulfill his campaign promises.

If you cut taxes, there is less money for the government to use on things like infrastructure, the military, etc.

Trump has said that he's going to "rebuild the military" meaning a large increase in military spending. He's also said that he would build a border wall, of which just the initial cost is around 1 BILLION dollars. He also promised to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, meaning roads, bridges and power grid.

How can he do all that spending if he's going to cut the revenue that the government gets (taxes)?

It's not true that if you cut taxes, then government has less money. That's false primary thinking. Cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts (of course it depends on how you do it). In the 3 most drastic tax cuts in the past century, tax revenue increased by no less than 40%, upwards to 64%. It's called the laffer curve.

And I find it interesting that the left suddenly cares about the debt again. If y'all care about the debt, let's balance the freaking budget please. Let's take all spending down to zero, then see where spending is doing good for the citizens, and cut what's not helping citizens. Does that not sound reasonable??

Got a link to back up your claims that cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts?

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

 

[NYcarbineer]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

So when the government 'steals' from you- and pays for police and fire departments- that pisses you off.

Yes, that does piss me off.

You know, I find it really interesting that Trump supporters are happy about his tax plan, yet are still thinking he's gonna fulfill his campaign promises.

If you cut taxes, there is less money for the government to use on things like infrastructure, the military, etc.

Trump has said that he's going to "rebuild the military" meaning a large increase in military spending. He's also said that he would build a border wall, of which just the initial cost is around 1 BILLION dollars. He also promised to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, meaning roads, bridges and power grid.

How can he do all that spending if he's going to cut the revenue that the government gets (taxes)?

It's not true that if you cut taxes, then government has less money. That's false primary thinking. Cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts (of course it depends on how you do it). In the 3 most drastic tax cuts in the past century, tax revenue increased by no less than 40%, upwards to 64%. It's called the laffer curve.

And I find it interesting that the left suddenly cares about the debt again. If y'all care about the debt, let's balance the freaking budget please. Let's take all spending down to zero, then see where spending is doing good for the citizens, and cut what's not helping citizens. Does that not sound reasonable??

Got a link to back up your claims that cutting taxes actually increases tax receipts?

It only works up to a certain point; increasing debt means we are beyond, that certain point. spend and finance, is all the right wing knows how to do.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are lots of countries in the world where you pay no income tax, but they're all dangerous shit holes, where you need bodyguards to protect you from criminals and thieves.

The five most livable countries with no income tax | Nomad Capitalist

lol

3. Bermuda
While you could live in the Bahamas on a few thousand dollars a month, Bermuda isn’t quite so cheap. Nor is it as tropical. Bermuda is one of our top five island countries with no income tax, but its status as a most livable country means you’ll pay $15 for a gallon of milk. Due to its isolated location, Bermuda is one of the world’s most expensive places to live.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bullshit. I hope we do just keep on digging this hole we can never come up out of. May the deficit grow until this soceity has to come to terms with its own perceptual reality and empire.

This new found concern for spending after 8 years & 9 trillion in frivolous handouts is laughable.

Nothing new found about it son. It's just more partisanshit for you.

says the pot to the kettle

 

[Skull Pilot]

Until Washington shows us that they can control spending I wouldn't count on tax cuts not costing anything, especially to future generations.

it is always the spending that costs

 

[rightwinger]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

 

[Skull Pilot]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

do both at the same time

 

[rightwinger]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

The government receives money from working Americans. The government then spends that money on various shit. When the government decides to STEAL LESS FROM YOU it is supposed to adjust it's budget accordingly but it never does. The spending continues because they know they can STEAL more from you latter to compensate for their irresponsible behavior.

Ultimately they are giving you back what was yours all along so it is NOT spending that has to be accounted for but rather an opportunity for them to prove they can live within their means.

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

do both at the same time

That is the way it is supposed to be done

You don't go to your boss and ask him to cut your hours and then try to figure which bills will get paid

You cut your bills first and then decide you can work less hours

 

[Cellblock2429]

Until Washington shows us that they can control spending I wouldn't count on tax cuts not costing anything, especially to future generations.

Anyone who talks about taxes without addressing spending is a fake.

It is funny that those who support spending trillions for war are the same ones who bitch about someone getting a few hundred bucks in food stamps.

/---- Both of your assumptions are straw man arguments.