"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

[Toro]

Strange, I posted multiple dictionary definitions of the word pay, and asked you to show one that fit in with the way you are using the word. You found one that used the word compensate, then used the word in a context that means neutralizing the effect of something. Can you show me any definition of the word pay that means neutralizing the effect of, or did compensate in the definition you chose actually mean to make appropriate and, usually, counterbalancing payment to?

Not a counterbalancing monetary payment. A counterbalancing action. The compensation of getting drunk is a hangover. The compensation for cheating on one's wife is a divorce. One "pays" for drinking and cheating, even if it doesn't cost one a dime. Neither of these examples involves any sort of monetary payment for property rights.

My original point is that the term "pay" has multiple meanings. There can be 10 definitions of "pay" that relate to monetary exchange and one that does not, and it is still correct to use "pay" in a non-monetary context.

Just as an aside, what if those tax cuts actually yield both a reduced police force and a reduced crime rate? Did we still pay for them or do we only have to pay for them if there is a negative effect?

If that's the case, maybe the police force was corrupt and the reason for all the crime. Then, we were paying both for taxes and a high crime rate.

 

[KissMy]

too stupid but 100% liberal.

1) If tax and spend worked recessions and depressions would be a thing of the past.

2) taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive depresses an economy obviously

3)an economy grows one way and way only and that is from new or improved products from the productive class.

See why we are positve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

When the productive become unproductive & start hording cash causing recession then tax & spend works. Tax cuts little to stimulate spending & hiring for someone bent on hording cash.

The last people who are interested in hoarding cash are rich people. Putting their money to work is how they make their money so hoarding it is counter intuitive. What we have now isn't hoarding for the sake of having money to hoard, it's paralyzing fear over a political instability. Why do rich people have investment accounts and not savings accounts? Do they hide vast amounts of cash under the bed? Buried in the backyard?

The super rich invest by buying US companies, firing their US workers, raiding their pension funds, screwing US investors, sending the company to China, hiding & investing their profits offshore.

We need investment in small business here at home. All the money has been sucked up by the super rich & off-shored or blown up in the housing sector. R&D & small business have been crushed along with the good jobs they create here at home.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Strange, I posted multiple dictionary definitions of the word pay, and asked you to show one that fit in with the way you are using the word. You found one that used the word compensate, then used the word in a context that means neutralizing the effect of something. Can you show me any definition of the word pay that means neutralizing the effect of, or did compensate in the definition you chose actually mean to make appropriate and, usually, counterbalancing payment to?

Not a counterbalancing monetary payment. A counterbalancing action. The compensation of getting drunk is a hangover. The compensation for cheating on one's wife is a divorce. One "pays" for drinking and cheating, even if it doesn't cost one a dime. Neither of these examples involves any sort of monetary payment for property rights.

My original point is that the term "pay" has multiple meanings. There can be 10 definitions of "pay" that relate to monetary exchange and one that does not, and it is still correct to use "pay" in a non-monetary context.

Just as an aside, what if those tax cuts actually yield both a reduced police force and a reduced crime rate? Did we still pay for them or do we only have to pay for them if there is a negative effect?

If that's the case, maybe the police force was corrupt and the reason for all the crime. Then, we were paying both for taxes and a high crime rate.

Hangovers are side effects of getting drunk, compensation for it would be having a designated driver. Do designated drivers pay for getting drunk? The consequences of cheating are a divorce. No one pays for a divorce by cheating, which is the only way to put this into context of paying for tax cuts.

As I said, I posted every definition of pay I could find, and you have not come up with one that says anything about paying for having less money. Feel free to find a definition anywhere that backs up your position.

 

[KissMy]

are you a socialist? Do you want Obozo to make all our investment decisions or do you want them made by private people investing their own hard earned money?

Now even a liberal can understand why the USSR failed!!

Are you saying that Bush's no bid contracts & cost plus contracts were better than Solyndra?

A GSE that allows business to socialize losses & privatize gains is worse than socialism.

you complete moron liberal!! I'm saying that private people investing their own hard earned money will do far better than liberal bureaucrats playing with other people's money!

Still over your head??

The private sector sector as a rule does better but not always. Mitt Romney's father created the MBS causing the malinvestment of the private sector's money. He was the father of the housing bubble that wrecked our economy.

The House That George Romney Built

Richard M. Nixon came to office in 1969, so it was left to a Republican administration, and Mr. Romney, to preside over the first mortgage-backed security sale in 1970, which they enthusiastically embraced. “This event,” Mr. Romney said, “marks a revolutionary step forward in our efforts to increase the funds available for mortgage financing.” But in an eerie prefiguring of the 2000s, the subprime lending program soon fell apart as predatory lenders and unscrupulous house flippers defrauded first-time buyers. The government found itself insuring mortgages on houses that could never be resold. After first denying the problems, Mr. Romney was ultimately forced to freeze the program in 1971. Yet even as the lending program ended, the mortgage-backed security sector blossomed, at least for higher-quality, middle-class homes. Securitization worked as an instrument to connect local demand and global capital.

Bypassing traditional bank deposits allowed money to come from almost anywhere: small-town banks, union pensions and European investors could all buy American mortgages. Lending on houses, at least for middle-class housing, became easier than ever before.

And that was the problem. While Mr. Romney may have stopped the fraud, he didn’t address the flip side of the urban crisis: the millions invested in mortgages was money not invested in business.

Small-business loans, however, still relied on those dwindling deposits and could not be securitized. Big corporations and small homeowners could rely on the surging global capital markets, while small business found itself crowded out.

 

[jwoodie]

Do I have to spell it out? If raising taxes is good for the economy, why not raise them to 100%? Please don't cite statistical correlations unless you can back them up with sound economic theory. Otherwise, they are no more valid than predicting the stock market based on who wins the World Series.

The ONLY way out of our deficit problem is to create millions of new jobs, thereby turning tax eaters into tax payers. Tax policy should be governed by this objective only, and should not worry about "fairness" or alleged loss of revenue (based on faulty "static" analysis, which assumes NO change in behavior from tax changes). In the meantime, we should suspend ALL cost-of-living adjustments to federal programs, since this simply makes the problem larger each year.

 

[Toro]

Strange, I posted multiple dictionary definitions of the word pay, and asked you to show one that fit in with the way you are using the word. You found one that used the word compensate, then used the word in a context that means neutralizing the effect of something. Can you show me any definition of the word pay that means neutralizing the effect of, or did compensate in the definition you chose actually mean to make appropriate and, usually, counterbalancing payment to?

Not a counterbalancing monetary payment. A counterbalancing action. The compensation of getting drunk is a hangover. The compensation for cheating on one's wife is a divorce. One "pays" for drinking and cheating, even if it doesn't cost one a dime. Neither of these examples involves any sort of monetary payment for property rights.

My original point is that the term "pay" has multiple meanings. There can be 10 definitions of "pay" that relate to monetary exchange and one that does not, and it is still correct to use "pay" in a non-monetary context.

Just as an aside, what if those tax cuts actually yield both a reduced police force and a reduced crime rate? Did we still pay for them or do we only have to pay for them if there is a negative effect?

If that's the case, maybe the police force was corrupt and the reason for all the crime. Then, we were paying both for taxes and a high crime rate.

Hangovers are side effects of getting drunk, compensation for it would be having a designated driver. Do designated drivers pay for getting drunk? The consequences of cheating are a divorce. No one pays for a divorce by cheating, which is the only way to put this into context of paying for tax cuts.

As I said, I posted every definition of pay I could find, and you have not come up with one that says anything about paying for having less money. Feel free to find a definition anywhere that backs up your position.

So if you're wife leaves you because you slept around, the only way you "pay" is by monetarily paying for a divorce? You don't pay emotionally or losing access to your kids? C'mon. Be serious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only way a tax cut is going to help the economy in the long term is to keep the spending low.

The problem with the Bush tax cuts, is that his administration is spending money like it isn't lent and sold to us at interest or something. So how the hell is the economy going to strengthen, the budget stay balanced, and our debt stay low, if you're going to lessen revenue, but increase spending? It doesn't make any sense, does it?

Don't just stop at Bush2. you can take that back to 1913 when the FED was signed into law. This total ass rape of America has been going on for decades. and one of the MAIN REASONS that JFK was taken out....in public....for all to see...

Rosharch Test successful.

and one of the MAIN REASONS that JFK was taken out....in public....for all to see...

Huh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no tax on investing. Only on gains at the end of an investment when it is sold. Investors do not reduce investing due to capital gains. I thought the market would soar when Bush cut capital gains tax in half, but it did not. The market & investment went down & money flowed into housing. Capital gains should be taxed just like ordinary income. Once you earn above standard deduction amount you should have to pay just like earned income. This tax money goes to pay someone else who will in turn invest it just as the tax payer would have. the investment is not lost.

This tax money goes to pay someone else who will in turn invest it just as the tax payer would have.

Yes! The increased tax revenues will go to Obama and will be invested in great companies.....like Solyndra!

12+ million defaulted bad loans made by Wallstreet & backed by us taxpayers -VS- a few bad loan guarantees made by government.

Which Wall Street loans were backed by taxpayers? Be specific.

 

[Toro]

Other examples of using the word "pay," as in "to compensate for," as in a "counterbalancing" affect not used solely in a monetary context.

You pay for getting drunk by being hungover the next morning.
You pay for being an alcoholic by getting liver disease.
You pay for drunk driving by killing yourself in a car accident and an innocent driver.
You pay for smoking by getting lung cancer.
You pay for lying by people perceiving you as dishonest.
You pay for cheating on your wife by she leaving you and you not seeing your kids.
You pay for neglecting your girlfriend when she leaves you for someone else.
You pay for trading your best players in sports by having a worse record.
You pay for being a sinner by going to hell.
You pay for a poor diet by having a heart attack.
You pay for being an asshole by having no friends.
You pay for telling a mob boss to piss off with your life.
You pay for eating bad foods by getting heartburn.
You pay for not spending time with your kids by them not calling you when they grow up.

And so on.

All of these can be interpreted as paying for something in a non-monetary context. It's not serious to argue otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a counterbalancing monetary payment. A counterbalancing action. The compensation of getting drunk is a hangover. The compensation for cheating on one's wife is a divorce. One "pays" for drinking and cheating, even if it doesn't cost one a dime. Neither of these examples involves any sort of monetary payment for property rights.

My original point is that the term "pay" has multiple meanings. There can be 10 definitions of "pay" that relate to monetary exchange and one that does not, and it is still correct to use "pay" in a non-monetary context.

If that's the case, maybe the police force was corrupt and the reason for all the crime. Then, we were paying both for taxes and a high crime rate.

Hangovers are side effects of getting drunk, compensation for it would be having a designated driver. Do designated drivers pay for getting drunk? The consequences of cheating are a divorce. No one pays for a divorce by cheating, which is the only way to put this into context of paying for tax cuts.

As I said, I posted every definition of pay I could find, and you have not come up with one that says anything about paying for having less money. Feel free to find a definition anywhere that backs up your position.

So if you're wife leaves you because you slept around, the only way you "pay" is by monetarily paying for a divorce? You don't pay emotionally or losing access to your kids? C'mon. Be serious.

That is not what I said, nor is it what you said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Other examples of using the word "pay," as in "to compensate for," as in a "counterbalancing" affect not used solely in a monetary context.

You pay for getting drunk by being hungover the next morning.
You pay for being an alcoholic by getting liver disease.
You pay for drunk driving by killing yourself in a car accident and an innocent driver.
You pay for smoking by getting lung cancer.
You pay for lying by people perceiving you as dishonest.
You pay for cheating on your wife by she leaving you and you not seeing your kids.
You pay for neglecting your girlfriend when she leaves you for someone else.
You pay for trading your best players in sports by having a worse record.
You pay for being a sinner by going to hell.
You pay for a poor diet by having a heart attack.
You pay for being an asshole by having no friends.
You pay for telling a mob boss to piss off with your life.
You pay for eating bad foods by getting heartburn.
You pay for not spending time with your kids by them not calling you when they grow up.

And so on.

All of these can be interpreted as paying for something in a non-monetary context. It's not serious to argue otherwise.

Which one of those talks about paying for lost revenue?

 

[Toro]

Hangovers are side effects of getting drunk, compensation for it would be having a designated driver. Do designated drivers pay for getting drunk? The consequences of cheating are a divorce. No one pays for a divorce by cheating, which is the only way to put this into context of paying for tax cuts.

As I said, I posted every definition of pay I could find, and you have not come up with one that says anything about paying for having less money. Feel free to find a definition anywhere that backs up your position.

So if you're wife leaves you because you slept around, the only way you "pay" is by monetarily paying for a divorce? You don't pay emotionally or losing access to your kids? C'mon. Be serious.

That is not what I said, nor is it what you said.

What I'm saying is the word "pay" does not just mean in a monetary context. You can pay for things in other ways. If you cut taxes, you pay for it by a loss of services. Pay does not solely mean the amount of dollars that comes out of your wallet.

 

[Toro]

Other examples of using the word "pay," as in "to compensate for," as in a "counterbalancing" affect not used solely in a monetary context.

You pay for getting drunk by being hungover the next morning.
You pay for being an alcoholic by getting liver disease.
You pay for drunk driving by killing yourself in a car accident and an innocent driver.
You pay for smoking by getting lung cancer.
You pay for lying by people perceiving you as dishonest.
You pay for cheating on your wife by she leaving you and you not seeing your kids.
You pay for neglecting your girlfriend when she leaves you for someone else.
You pay for trading your best players in sports by having a worse record.
You pay for being a sinner by going to hell.
You pay for a poor diet by having a heart attack.
You pay for being an asshole by having no friends.
You pay for telling a mob boss to piss off with your life.
You pay for eating bad foods by getting heartburn.
You pay for not spending time with your kids by them not calling you when they grow up.

And so on.

All of these can be interpreted as paying for something in a non-monetary context. It's not serious to argue otherwise.

Which one of those talks about paying for lost revenue?

You pay for a reduction in taxes by a loss in services. All of these sentences are counterbalances. The counterbalance of lower taxes is less services. Therefore, you pay for lower taxes through lost services.

 

[Toro]

To further expand on one analogy above that fits with taxes, if a sports team trades its best and highest priced players and then has a lower payroll and a worse record, the sports team pays for the smaller payroll by having a worse winning record. So they are paying less in salary but the counterbalance are fewer wins. I can't imagine a fan would say their team isn't paying for it on the field by being cheap.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Other examples of using the word "pay," as in "to compensate for," as in a "counterbalancing" affect not used solely in a monetary context.

You pay for getting drunk by being hungover the next morning.
You pay for being an alcoholic by getting liver disease.
You pay for drunk driving by killing yourself in a car accident and an innocent driver.
You pay for smoking by getting lung cancer.
You pay for lying by people perceiving you as dishonest.
You pay for cheating on your wife by she leaving you and you not seeing your kids.
You pay for neglecting your girlfriend when she leaves you for someone else.
You pay for trading your best players in sports by having a worse record.
You pay for being a sinner by going to hell.
You pay for a poor diet by having a heart attack.
You pay for being an asshole by having no friends.
You pay for telling a mob boss to piss off with your life.
You pay for eating bad foods by getting heartburn.
You pay for not spending time with your kids by them not calling you when they grow up.

And so on.

All of these can be interpreted as paying for something in a non-monetary context. It's not serious to argue otherwise.

Which one of those talks about paying for lost revenue?

You pay for a reduction in taxes by a loss in services. All of these sentences are counterbalances. The counterbalance of lower taxes is less services. Therefore, you pay for lower taxes through lost services.

You do not. It is entirely possible to reduce taxes and still have enough revenue to deliver the services you need, which proves you don't pay for tax cuts, you pay for services.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To further expand on one analogy above that fits with taxes, if a sports team trades its best and highest priced players and then has a lower payroll and a worse record, the sports team pays for the smaller payroll by having a worse winning record. So they are paying less in salary but the counterbalance are fewer wins. I can't imagine a fan would say their team isn't paying for it on the field by being cheap.

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

 

[midcan5]

This debate gets old, so I'll provide a few links for those who want food for thought and not propaganda's Pavlov response.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.


"The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

_

 

[4Horsemen]

For the record, neutralizing the effect of is not the same thing as paying for. You have to neutralize the effect of lost wages by reducing spending, not by paying more for something.

"Pay" in the context of "paying for tax cuts by firing police and having more crime" is absolutely correct in the English language. "Pay" does not only mean monetary compensation, though it does mean that as well. That's why we say one pays for being drunk the night before by being hung over today, or one pays for infidelities by one's wife leaving. There is not a monetary transaction, but a compensating response to one's action. There is a trade-off. One "pays" for the trade-off. "Pay" doesn't just mean paying the police out of taxes. It also means the trade-offs of having a police force or the lack thereof.

Good parenting, Neighborhood watches, and children who care about learning will bring about better communities which is the ultimate "payoff" which also creates a residual of less crime because the criminals have a purpose now and crime is less attractive than fractions and multiplication and studying to be a great mind one day..

A cutback on more Police is a damn good idea to saving tax money and keep the prison population trending downward instead up upward which also costs money, one would have to be a total insane nutball fruitcake screwy fool to think otherwise...Or...They fancy a Police State.

 

[4Horsemen]

I'm telling you, a sure fire way to boost this Economy

there is one way and one way only to boost an economy!! Think about how we got from the stone age to here. People invented new products. Its just that simple!! No amount of liberal tricks and paper shuffling in Washington will boost the economy!!

If its not in support of innovative new products its liberal and won't work!!!!

And have those "new ideas" outsourced to Japan? you miss the point totally.

We have to keep what we have HERE. ALL OF OUR MANUFACTURING. that's what made us strong.

AND we have to Demand that other countries that want to deal with us have to deal fairly or fuck it. we'll drive Cadillac and Camaros forever. fuck a Benz.

all the rip off and raping American status has got to stop. have you seen USA's credit rating in the world lately?

We used to be AAA, now we are just A or A- rating in the world.

China is buying up all the copper and scrap metal in the world for weapons and bullets.

America is becoming a sitting duck.

 

[Toro]

To further expand on one analogy above that fits with taxes, if a sports team trades its best and highest priced players and then has a lower payroll and a worse record, the sports team pays for the smaller payroll by having a worse winning record. So they are paying less in salary but the counterbalance are fewer wins. I can't imagine a fan would say their team isn't paying for it on the field by being cheap.

There you go again. There is no evidence that, if the team had kept the higher priced players, it would have had a better record. The Yankees have the highest payroll in professional sports, yet they had a dismal record this year.

You miss the point. I'm giving a hypothetical example to demonstrate how "pay" is used as a counterbalancing affect. The existence of other possible scenarios does not make the my example untrue. If the team got better, then the salaries reduction didn't cost the team on the field. But if the best players leave and the record collapses because of it, the salary reduction cost them on the field.