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

[sakinago]

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.

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

 

[martybegan]

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.

Then why don't we just get rid of taxes and make it 0% for individuals and corporations ?

Ah argumentum ad absurdum, the first and last refuge of the scoundrel.

This conservative on post #17 disagrees doesn't think my argument was "absurd" as he proposes the elimination of personal income taxes. You now have caused a split in your people's ranks: Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

I'm assuming he wants it replaced with another form of tax. Most libertarians look towards a Sales/VAT tax as an alternative.

If I'm wrong, then he can explain. Unlike progressives, we don't subscribe to groupthink or travel in herds.

 

[sakinago]

Ah, a supply-side True Believer.

Supply side policies always fail, of course, because they're fantasy-based. In their mythical world, cutting taxes on rich people and leaving less for the middle class means rich people will create jobs, and eventually it will trickle back down on everyone else.

Not what happens, of course. The rich people just pocket the money, so the middle class pays more and gets nothing.

First, there's no shortage of investment capital, so having more investment capital available doesn't do anything.

Second, cutting taxes on the rich doesn't actually create make more capital. Tax cuts have to be paid for by selling T-bills, which take the money that the rich saved in tax cuts right back out of the economy.

And third, economies are demand driven, not supply driven. If there's demand for products from the middle class, then the supply will follow. Someone will want to make money satisfying that demand. That's capitalism. It builds up from the bottom.

Why did you rush to call it a supply side cut? I'm assuming he's referring to trumps tax plan, which is those making 50,000 or lower are not paying income tax...which is 70% of America, and definitely a demand side tax.

 

[hadit]

Giving Congress more money won't resolve any budget problems. They'll just spend more than what they get.

 

[Siete]

Trump;

cut taxes
spend trillions on the Miitary

RW hump each other to death while they bitch about deficit/debt ... ITS THE SPENDING !!!!

Stupid shits don't know wtf they want

 

[ABikerSailor]

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)?

 

[sakinago]

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??

 

[ABikerSailor]

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?

 

[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.

If tax cuts don't cost anything, why not cut taxes to zero and let the magic money tree pay for the cost of government?

 

[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.

The money is not 'yours' any more than your house is 'yours' if you still have a mortgage on it.

 

[Siete]

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?

stupid shit RW math doesnt provide links because its stupid shit ...

not taking in $$ = more money to spend ..... in lala land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[bendog]

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.

What's scary is they really believe their own bullshit. No matter how many times reality pisses in their faces, they stick with their bullshit. And if they get told, "no more Medicare for you," the bitch like the commanches just raped and killed their mothers and sisters.

 

[Montrovant]

For those who have said, "Why not cut taxes to zero," did you actually read the OP? He said that cutting taxes is supposed to lead to less spending. In other words, cutting taxes to zero would mean cutting spending to zero. I assume that the point is that when taxes are cut, spending the same amount (or more, which is more realistic) is not a necessity. There is not a cost, but rather an unreasonable continuation of spending policies in the face of lowered income.

Perhaps saying tax cuts don't cost anything was a poor way to put it, but the point seems to be that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts, which sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument. It also seems to be an argument to which neither political party adheres.

 

[sakinago]

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?

Three times revenue increased after tax cuts

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

A Little Laffer Curve Reality Should Guide Republican Tax Reform

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

North Carolina Tax Revenues Increase After Tax Cuts

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1981/5/cj1n1-3.pdf

The proof of the Laffer Curve pudding

There are all the links. Now if you want to talk deficit, that's a different story from tax revenue. A lot of people claim the laffer curve doesn't pan out because there are still deficits (still after increased revenues, which is why it's a dumb claim), but that just means the government is still spending more. They get the raise and think they can buy classy things. A lot of people compare government spending vs GDP, WHICH WE ARE SPENDING 61% of GDP. This is wrong since the government does not take in the full amount of GDP, they take in the amount of revenue from that GDP. And if they're spending 61% of the GDP they're skimming around 18% of, that's going to be quite a big problem. Yes tax revenues do increase with tax cuts, especially when tax cuts are done properly (we've needed a demand side cut forever), but it needs to be a 2 part solution. Cut spending, then cut taxes, then watch that surplus happen.

 

[g5000]

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.

Damn right. When you quit your job and have less money coming in, that doesn't cost you anything. Lost income doesn't need to be "paid for". Then you can just max out your credit card to buy stuff.

Innumeracy is fun!

 

[g5000]

He said that cutting taxes is supposed to lead to less spending.

That NEVER happens. Debt ALWAYS goes up.

Innumeracy is fun!

 

[g5000]

North Carolina Tax Revenues Increase After Tax Cuts

The federal government also saw increased revenues during the same period, without cutting taxes.

How do you explain this?

Innumeracy is fun!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[sakinago]

North Carolina Tax Revenues Increase After Tax Cuts

The federal government also saw increased revenues during the same period, without cutting taxes.

How do you explain this?

Innumeracy is fun!

Uh huh, and what about 1921, 1964, 1981....big surprise is coming...wait for it...believe or not increased economic growth leads to increase tax revenue. Ding ding ding