Why is it that republicans don't see how over spending and tax cutting are equally bad?

[The Rabbi]

Now, granted both Bush and Obama have over spent by a lot. However, republicans still seem to think cutting taxes is a viable solution for anything. If you actually broke down the debt under Obama, you would see the trillions that have accumulated under him are because of a surge in defense spending and extending Bush's tax cuts.

Why is it that republicans will bitch and whine about spending yet don't see the error in believing tax cuts contribute to our national debt just as much?

US Debt by President

You must be paying attention. We have always said lower taxes and stop spending so damn much.

It is interesting though that you think one action is counter to the other. High tax rates don't deliver prosperity because the government can keep on spending. Spending more than you have doesn't promote prosperity either.

Where you go wrong in your comparison is most people would be willing to keep paying higher taxes for a short time to pay off the debt if, and that's a giant fucking if, the government would actually cut their spending to levels below what they are bringing in. Nobody believes that would actually happen though. Until it does happen though there is no tax rate high enough to keep supporting this level of spending.

No you misunderstand. Paying taxes has always been important. Republicans have always been against it.

Another Billy Zippo troll thread.
Hey, Billy. Please post where Republicans are against paying taxes. We'll wait.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Awww, too fucking bad.
Consumption taxes are much fairer because you can control whether you pay them or not. Dont want to pay? Don't consume. Hold on to that car an extra year or two. Don't buy that motorcycle. It's pretty easy.

 

[martybegan]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Not if you exclude food and housing. Lower income people spend far more as a percentage on that stuff than rich people.

 

[Skylar]

You are correct you have to have a combination of increased taxes and spending cuts to reduce the debt but as you feel Republicans won't increase revenue I feel the same way about Democrats not wanting to cut spending both sides might agree to minor tax increases and spending cuts but nothing substantial which is why neither is serious about balancing the budget.

On issues of deficit reduction, I'd say you're right. My criticism of republicans is that they make fiscal responsibility a core tenet of their platform. But as you pointed out, have little commitment to it. While democrats hold budget balancing as a lower priority. Meaning that the proportion of empty lip service to the idea is skewed toward the right.

My solution is pretty simple: a spending freeze. Don't cut any program or agency. Just freeze their budgets. They get the same next year as they did this year. That will require about a 4% decrease per year as inflation cuts into the value of their funding. And that's slow enough and incremental enough to prevent any truly jarring cuts to social services. I say make it a freeze across the board. Including military pensions, social security, medicare, everything. Just cap government spending at its current rates until our budget is under control.

To speed that process along, I also suggest modest tax increases. Essentially bringing taxation levels to say, the 50 year average. Nothing bizarre. Nothing grotesque. Just the average taxation level over the last 50 years.

We'd have our budget balanced in half a decade. And could use the surplus to start paying down the national debt.

 

[Dan Daly]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Oh bullshit. Consumption taxes can easily be structured to ensure that they are not overly burdensome on the poor. You do realize that there are a counties and communities in this country where there are no income taxes and consumption taxes are the lions share of their revenue, right?

FYI, the "wealthy" are some of the biggest opponents of consumption taxes because they can't avoid them as easily as income taxes.

 

[Skylar]

Awww, too fucking bad.
Consumption taxes are much fairer because you can control whether you pay them or not. Dont want to pay? Don't consume. Hold on to that car an extra year or two. Don't buy that motorcycle. It's pretty easy.

We're not doing a consumption tax or a flat tax because they're regressive. They disproportionally burden those with the least and disproportionally free from taxation those with the most. You don't like it?

Too bad.

A great rule of thumb is this: if the rich are for it, it will fuck the middle class and poor. And the rich *love* the idea of a flat tax and consumption taxes.

 

[Dan Daly]

No you misunderstand. Paying taxes has always been important. Republicans have always been against it.

Oh for chris' sake read a history book. This notion of directly taxing peoples income was taboo until ~100 years ago.

Yeah when It became necessary. Government expenses get big whether you like it or not.

You really don't have a clue, do you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Awww, too fucking bad.
Consumption taxes are much fairer because you can control whether you pay them or not. Dont want to pay? Don't consume. Hold on to that car an extra year or two. Don't buy that motorcycle. It's pretty easy.

We're not doing a consumption tax or a flat tax because they're regressive. They disproportionally burden those with the least and disproportionally free from taxation those with the most. You don't like it?

Too bad.

A great rule of thumb is this: if the rich are for it, it will fuck the middle class and poor. And the rich *love* the idea of a flat tax and consumption taxes.

There ya go again.
Yeah, the middle class hates a flat tax because then they'd actually have to pay taxes. Now they can just let the rich pay them.

 

[Skylar]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Oh bullshit. Consumption taxes can easily be structured to ensure that they are not overly burdensome on the poor. You do realize that there are a counties and communities in this country where there are no income taxes and consumption taxes are the lions share of their revenue, right?

FYI, the "wealthy" are some of the biggest opponents of consumption taxes because they can't avoid them as easily as income taxes.

If they rich are going to pay the exact same amount that they do now.....why are they so gung-ho on flat taxes and regressive taxes? Why would they spend money to promote a taxation scheme that wouldn't save them any money?

Its simple: they wouldn't. When Forbes is advocating a flat tax or a consumption tax is because he knows that his tax burden will plummet. And who would have to make up the difference? Everyone else. I'm not a big fan of a tax scheme that overwhelmingly benefits the fantastically rich while burdening the middle class and poor even further.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Oh bullshit. Consumption taxes can easily be structured to ensure that they are not overly burdensome on the poor. You do realize that there are a counties and communities in this country where there are no income taxes and consumption taxes are the lions share of their revenue, right?

FYI, the "wealthy" are some of the biggest opponents of consumption taxes because they can't avoid them as easily as income taxes.

If they rich are going to pay the exact same amount that they do now.....why are they so gung-ho on flat taxes and regressive taxes? Why would they spend money to promote a taxation scheme that wouldn't save them any money?

Its simple: they wouldn't. When Forbes is advocating a flat tax or a consumption tax is because he knows that his tax burden will plummet. And who would have to make up the difference? Everyone else. I'm not a big fan of a tax scheme that overwhelmingly benefits the fantastically rich while burdening the middle class and poor even further.

Link?

 

[Skylar]

There ya go again.
Yeah, the middle class hates a flat tax because then they'd actually have to pay taxes. Now they can just let the rich pay them.

Regressive taxes aren't particularly popular with the middle class. The upper middle class. The poor. Even the moderately wealthy would all pay more. A lot more. While the top 1% would see massive tax savings.

Undoubtedly, this is exactly what folks like yourself want to see. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of the electorate really doesn't. Which is why its not happening.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Dan Daly]

Awww, too fucking bad.
Consumption taxes are much fairer because you can control whether you pay them or not. Dont want to pay? Don't consume. Hold on to that car an extra year or two. Don't buy that motorcycle. It's pretty easy.

We're not doing a consumption tax or a flat tax because they're regressive. They disproportionally burden those with the least and disproportionally free from taxation those with the most. You don't like it?

Too bad.

A great rule of thumb is this: if the rich are for it, it will fuck the middle class and poor. And the rich *love* the idea of a flat tax and consumption taxes.

1. A consumption tax is not necessarily regressive, if you let people smarter than a rock design it.

2. The "rich" tend to oppose consumption taxes because they have a harder time avoiding them. I'm pretty sure that is why you oppose them as well...but keep up the facade that you give a crap about the poor, it is entertaining if nothing else.

3. You are marrying flat taxes and consumption taxes either because you are being willfully dishonest or you just don't know any better. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moderate Republicans understand basic economics; that we have to cut spending and raise taxes. However, the Tea Party grasp of economics comes out of Alice and Wonderland, which means that they don't have a clue. Since the republicans are stuck with the tea party under their tent, we, as a nation, get nowhere on this issue.

And just how many Democrats understand we can't continue spending at this rate? Well, gee, the Chinese are elated that we are selling our economic future to them by trillions of dollars at a time.

 

[Dan Daly]

There ya go again.
Yeah, the middle class hates a flat tax because then they'd actually have to pay taxes. Now they can just let the rich pay them.

Regressive taxes aren't particularly popular with the middle class. The upper middle class. The poor. Even the moderately wealthy would all pay more. A lot more. While the top 1% would see massive tax savings.

Undoubtedly, this is exactly what folks like yourself want to see. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of the electorate really doesn't. Which is why its not happening.

Get used to the idea.

You keep making the false assumption that consumption taxes must be regressive. I understand that you don't want to pay for what you consume, preferring other people to pay for it, but at least be honest about it.

 

[Skylar]

1. A consumption tax is not necessarily regressive, if you let people smarter than a rock design it.

Its inherently regressive. You've have to twist it into a knot to even begin mitigate it. Let alone prevent the regression. Virtually every consumption tax proposed by conservatives has massive savings for the super wealthy and that tax burden shifted to the middle class and poor.

Again, there's a reason that the wealthy advocate a flat tax and a consumption tax: because it saves them money.

2. The "rich" tend to oppose consumption taxes because they have a harder time avoiding them. I'm pretty sure that is why you oppose them as well...but keep up the facade that you give a crap about the poor, it is entertaining if nothing else.

Not since the mininim income tax laws passed by Reagan. There are minimum levels of income tax that have to be paid under our current system. Under a consumption tax, you don't have to pay anything until you spend money. All dividends are tax free, all income is tax free, all interest is tax free.

Which is why the wealthy support both a flat tax and a consumption tax.

3. You are marrying flat taxes and consumption taxes either because you are being willfully dishonest or you just don't know any better. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter.

I'm listing them both as they're both inherently regressive. And they're both quite popular with the wealthy.

 

[blackhawk]

You are correct you have to have a combination of increased taxes and spending cuts to reduce the debt but as you feel Republicans won't increase revenue I feel the same way about Democrats not wanting to cut spending both sides might agree to minor tax increases and spending cuts but nothing substantial which is why neither is serious about balancing the budget.

On issues of deficit reduction, I'd say you're right. My criticism of republicans is that they make fiscal responsibility a core tenet of their platform. But as you pointed out, have little commitment to it. While democrats hold budget balancing as a lower priority. Meaning that the proportion of empty lip service to the idea is skewed toward the right.

My solution is pretty simple: a spending freeze. Don't cut any program or agency. Just freeze their budgets. They get the same next year as they did this year. That will require about a 4% decrease per year as inflation cuts into the value of their funding. And that's slow enough and incremental enough to prevent any truly jarring cuts to social services. I say make it a freeze across the board. Including military pensions, social security, medicare, everything. Just cap government spending at its current rates until our budget is under control.

To speed that process along, I also suggest modest tax increases. Essentially bringing taxation levels to say, the 50 year average. Nothing bizarre. Nothing grotesque. Just the average taxation level over the last 50 years.

We'd have our budget balanced in half a decade. And could use the surplus to start paying down the national debt.

As you say Democrats hold balancing the budget as a lower priority which tells me lip service or not they are not really serious about it both sides have to be serious to do this and neither are. I agree with your suggestion but I highly doubt you could get a enough Democrats to agree with the spending freeze or Republicans with the tax increase. The main reason neither would go for it goes back to my previous post we the people as soon as anyone on either side tried it the odds are real good the voters would turn on them and vote them out. As easy and fun as it is to blame Congress, Democrats and Republicans and whoever the President happens to be at the moment they can't do much without the support of the people and for them to get that we all have to accept the fact there is no quick easy painless fix to this problem.

 

[Dan Daly]

Taxing income is idiocy...if you want to tax something, tax consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be qutie regressive, shifting more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class and shifting more away from the rich. Its one of the reasons that the wealthy are such huge fans of them.

Oh bullshit. Consumption taxes can easily be structured to ensure that they are not overly burdensome on the poor. You do realize that there are a counties and communities in this country where there are no income taxes and consumption taxes are the lions share of their revenue, right?

FYI, the "wealthy" are some of the biggest opponents of consumption taxes because they can't avoid them as easily as income taxes.

If they rich are going to pay the exact same amount that they do now.....why are they so gung-ho on flat taxes and regressive taxes? Why would they spend money to promote a taxation scheme that wouldn't save them any money?

Its simple: they wouldn't. When Forbes is advocating a flat tax or a consumption tax is because he knows that his tax burden will plummet. And who would have to make up the difference? Everyone else. I'm not a big fan of a tax scheme that overwhelmingly benefits the fantastically rich while burdening the middle class and poor even further.

The rich are gung ho on flat taxes, not so much on consumption taxes that they can't avoid as easily...but thanks for the false assumptions, they really help a lot when designing effective public policy.

 

[Skylar]

You keep making the false assumption that consumption taxes must be regressive. I understand that you don't want to pay for what you consume, preferring other people to pay for it, but at least be honest about it.

They're inhernetly regressive. As they make all dividends and interest and capital gains....the primary income source for the wealthy, completely tax free. The wealthy save, as they have mounds of dispoable income.

The poor and middle class spend. As they don't have nearly as much.

I know you're eager to impose a larger tax burden on the poor and middle class in the name of 'fairness' while at the same time relieving the extremely wealthy of a large portion of their tax burden. This you consider 'fair'.

The problem with your proposal is that the American people overwhelming don't want it. And I suspect its because they realize that any system of taxation the wealthy really want.....will benefit the wealthy. Not the poor or middle class

 

[Dan Daly]

1. A consumption tax is not necessarily regressive, if you let people smarter than a rock design it.

Its inherently regressive. You've have to twist it into a knot to even begin mitigate it. Let alone prevent the regression. Virtually every consumption tax proposed by conservatives has massive savings for the super wealthy and that tax burden shifted to the middle class and poor.

Again, there's a reason that the wealthy advocate a flat tax and a consumption tax: because it saves them money.

2. The "rich" tend to oppose consumption taxes because they have a harder time avoiding them. I'm pretty sure that is why you oppose them as well...but keep up the facade that you give a crap about the poor, it is entertaining if nothing else.

Not since the mininim income tax laws passed by Reagan. There are minimum levels of income tax that have to be paid under our current system. Under a consumption tax, you don't have to pay anything until you spend money. All dividends are tax free, all income is tax free, all interest is tax free.

Which is why the wealthy support both a flat tax and a consumption tax.

3. You are marrying flat taxes and consumption taxes either because you are being willfully dishonest or you just don't know any better. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter.

I'm listing them both as they're both inherently regressive. And they're both quite popular with the wealthy.

Oh please, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to design a consumption tax that ensures EVERYONE is not taxed on the basics for survival.

Your contention that the wealthy support consumption taxes is a myth not based on fact.

You are mixing them both because it makes it easier to do the old bait and switch. This isn't my first rodeo, cupcake.

 

[Skylar]

The rich are gung ho on flat taxes, not so much on consumption taxes that they can't avoid as easily...but thanks for the false assumptions, they really help a lot when designing effective public policy.

The wealthy are quite fond of both, though clearly they advocate the flat taxes more ardently. Either system is inherently regressive and thus beneficial to the rich as it lowers their tax burden. Alas, its up to the rest of us to make up the difference.