Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 176

Thread: Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing?

  1. #1

    Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing?

    Inspired by Madison320's thread, I was thinking about this topic today. My argument is that the greater the disconnect is between the American people and the actual cost of government, the less likely that the country will be to ever reign in the cost and therefore scope and power of government. In other words, I believe that Americans are more likely to tolerate government programs with which they disagree so long as they do not have to pay for them (see also the thread about exempting taxes from war spending), or at least do not directly feel the burden of them, and as such the greater the percentage of government spending that is deficit spent rather than being directly borne, year-to-year, by the taxpayer, the less motivated the taxpayers will be to work towards a reduction in that spending.

    Some quick-and-dirty googling shows that government spending for 2016 was about $587 billion or 18% over its tax revenue. If the government were forced to tax the American people the exact amount of its yearly spending and increased taxes to cover that gap, I think we would see far more emphasis put on fiscal conservatism by the American people.


    I suppose my conclusion would be that tax cuts without reduced spending may be a short-term benefit to people and corporations, but is to their detriment in the long term.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    The spending will never be paid off. I'm assured of this. May as well lighten the load before the host dies. Right now, our zombie economy is dependent on bubbles of economic activity being created. I speculate that this type of aggressive tax cut would spur on such a bubble.
    Last edited by AuH20; 04-26-2017 at 07:07 PM.

  4. #3
    I guess there are two ways too look at it . Less debt better to prolong the status quo as is or slightly worse . Or just screw it and bring the collapse a little sooner .

  5. #4
    You'd probably be right, but, eesh, would you want to? People can be pretty damned dense and I don't know how long I could tolerate a 50% tax rate while waiting for my neighbor to wake the F up.

    That's kind of like saying bringing back the draft would stop the wars, maybe not quite as drastic since we're dealing with taxes and not something that could get you killed.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    You'd probably be right, but, eesh, would you want to? People can be pretty damned dense and I don't know how long I could tolerate a 50% tax rate while waiting for my neighbor to wake the F up.
    I'm not recommending a tax hike. I'm saying that even though lower tax rates are a good thing, the fact that the discussion of lower taxes is happening without any consideration whatsoever being paid to spending - and in fact it seems that spending is increasing - that it highly concerning to me and in my opinion a reduction in taxes without a reduction in net spending is ultimately a net negative.

    If a serious discussion about balancing the federal budget began, I think the natural tendency of people would be to lean towards a reduction in spending rather than an increase in tax rates, as it would be immediately obvious that the necessary tax rate to continue the current level of federal spending without a deficit would be detrimental to the economy. On the flip side, though, it seems to me that not many people bring up spending when discussing a tax cut. Yes, people mention the national debt, but that's not quite the same, especially because there are a number of people who claim that the debt is essentially unimportant and shouldn't be paid attention to.

    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    That's kind of like saying bringing back the draft would stop the wars, maybe not quite as drastic since we're dealing with taxes and not something that could get you killed.
    The comparison here to the above would be - does the discussion of a draft also bring up a discussion of 'should we have all of these wars?'

    Of course, the better discussion would be 'would we have all of these wars if we did not have a large standing army contrary to the intent of the founders' to which the answer is clearly no. This is another case wherein whenever the government has the ability to do a thing, it will almost certainly do that thing.
    Last edited by TheCount; 04-26-2017 at 08:41 PM. Reason: Addicted to editing
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  7. #6
    If you pay for spending with higher taxes or through deficit spending you are pulling the same amount of money out of the private economy short term. However the deficit spending with lower taxes should get the whole supply side benefit of improved incentives so you should get more growth. And theoretically deficits can't go on forever. So cutting taxes should always be a good thing in theory. You should get a better economy and smaller government.

    In practice, lower taxes probably encourage taxpayers to spend more because they don't feel any pain from deficit spending. It is one of the reasons why I would like to see an across the board flat tax where there isn't an exemption, which would be an increase for a lot of people.

    I haven't read this paper in a while but it addresses the original post. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

  8. #7
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  9. #8
    I do not support any flat tax plan I have seen . Most increase taxes to cover the current out of control spending . Personally , I would never pay more tax without spending cuts because I can control my income and taxes .



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    If you pay for spending with higher taxes or through deficit spending you are pulling the same amount of money out of the private economy short term. However the deficit spending with lower taxes should get the whole supply side benefit of improved incentives so you should get more growth. And theoretically deficits can't go on forever. So cutting taxes should always be a good thing in theory. You should get a better economy and smaller government.

    In practice, lower taxes probably encourage taxpayers to spend more because they don't feel any pain from deficit spending. It is one of the reasons why I would like to see an across the board flat tax where there isn't an exemption, which would be an increase for a lot of people.

    I haven't read this paper in a while but it addresses the original post. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
    I think the opposite is true. You just have to look where the money the government is spending is coming from. They are either receiving their money from the plebs (through taxation) or investors (through deficits). Investors are generally better at investing in productive assets where many plebs spend their money about as productively as the government.

    But I weigh individual liberty higher than economic prosperity. Taxation is aggressive whereas contracting government bonds is a voluntary exchange. Theoretically the bonds will be repaid and the money to repay the bonds will come from taxation but that is not set in stone. Tax cuts are always good imo.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I
    If the government were forced to tax the American people the exact amount of its yearly spending and increased taxes to cover that gap, I think we would see far more emphasis put on fiscal conservatism by the American people.
    Does your baloney never cease? You've spent the last few months talking about how Donny's policies of more government are never a way to liberty. You've shilled people here on the immigration issues by accusing them of wanting more government for eventual liberty, and now you suggest the same thing with the different issue of taxes.

    Do progressive wonders never cease?

    Here's the deal, Count. People on this forum promote reduced spending regardless of the president in office. People don't follow the DU way or DU sentiment. Maybe try to be a little more consistent with your posting. Liberty does not follow your form of blue progressive ways by only attacking the red guy.

    Consider less baloney on your BS sandwich threads.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-27-2017 at 01:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    You've spent the last few months talking about how Donny's policies of more government are never a way to liberty. You've shilled people here on the immigration issues by accusing them of wanting more government for eventual liberty, and now you suggest the same thing with the different issue of taxes.
    I don't know how or where you found what you're talking about in my post. In fact, it's the complete opposite of what I suggested.

    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I.


    I suppose my conclusion would be that tax cuts without reduced spending may be a short-term benefit to people and corporations, but is to their detriment in the long term.
    Keeping more money in the pockets of the rightful owners is never a bad thing.

    Corporations are nothing more than large groups of people, and their profits are taxed twice.

  15. #13
    Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing?
    Is this a trick question?... heaven forbid we should reduce both.


    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by shakey1 View Post
    Is this a trick question?... heaven forbid we should reduce both.
    We should, but that is not actually what is being proposed. Therefore, the question is: Is the current suggestion, which is to reduce taxes but not spending, a good thing?
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post

    I suppose my conclusion would be that tax cuts without reduced spending may be a short-term benefit to people and corporations, but is to their detriment in the long term.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Keeping more money in the pockets of the rightful owners is never a bad thing.

    Corporations are nothing more than large groups of people, and their profits are taxed twice.
    Yep; there ya go. TheCount however, keeps giving himself away.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  18. #16
    Oh look; it's the guy who thinks he's slicker than snot on a doorknob.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I don't know how or where you found what you're talking about in my post. In fact, it's the complete opposite of what I suggested.

    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-27-2017 at 12:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    OP/TheCount should just rephrase the thread:

    I ran out of ways to rail on Donny T. I don't actually want to discuss anything substantial, but what do you think of my 8 millionth post against Donny and/or the people of RPF?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by shakey1 View Post
    Is this a trick question?... heaven forbid we should reduce both.

    Wrong.
    Interest on the debt FY 2016: $432 billion. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ir_expense.htm

    Individual Income Tax Revenues 2016: $1.6 trillion. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stati...revenue-source

    "But the quote is about 1984". OK. 1984 personal income tax revenues were $541 billion http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/87/1984 and interest on the debt that year was $201 billion (interest rates were higher back then). Still incorrect. The quote is incomplete. It leaves off that it includes estimated waste in ADDITION to income tax revenues.

    The report said that one-third of all income taxes are consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and another one-third escapes collection owing to the underground economy. “With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government."
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 12:52 PM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    government spending for 2016 was about $587 billion or 18% over its tax revenue.

    ...tax cuts without reduced spending...
    Which programs would you cut out of the budget, TheCount?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Which programs would you cut out of the budget, TheCount?
    He would probably say "the executive branch" because he thinks that Donald Trump is the biggest problem with the government, lol.....
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Which programs would you cut out of the budget, TheCount?
    Are we talking realistically or with a magic wand?

    My primarily interests in this regard are foreign policy and the military. As I said above, I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will. In that area, spending on nuclear weapons would be my number one target - cut modernization and maintenance programs and reduce the arsenal to perhaps 300 weapons at the most. Likewise axe the vast majority of our military bases located overseas and associated spending. After that, the Marine Corps, quantity of aircraft carriers, and the like. I'd need a map and a compass to puzzle my way through all of the intelligence agencies and un$#@! them into something reasonable.

    Other departments I'd have to go through one by one. Many of them I think should continue to exist but in a dramatically reduced capacity. As an example, a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches. Would such a thing still be named a department? I suppose. Regardless, it would be a hundredth of its current size. The nuke changes I mentioned above would sure cut a lot of the DoE. So on through the rest of them.

    Realistically, entitlement programs and in particular social security would need a phased rather than immediate end end.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Wrong.

    Wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Are we talking realistically or with a magic wand?
    Oh I don't know, whatever you want!

    My primary interests in this regard are foreign policy and the military.
    Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for being honest.

    My primary interest would be ALL OF IT!

    Especially domestic stuff. Some of the military stuff is, in a way, just hauling money across the ocean, throwing it in a pit and burning it. The theft is bad, but at least the way it's spent is not actively destroying and corroding everything beautiful and good in our country.

    The disgusting, mammoth dole, on the other hand, is. Subsidizing whores is. Brainwashing children is. The trillion-dollar project to destroy the family is.

    Other departments I'd have to go through one by one. Many of them I think should continue to exist but in a dramatically reduced capacity.
    It's hard to just "shrink" a cyst. Usually much easier and better to cut the cyst out.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Some quick-and-dirty googling shows that government spending for 2016 was about $587 billion or 18% over its tax revenue.
    Hummm?

    That's just the deficit, total federal government spending in 2016 is projected to be 3.5 TRILLION dollars.

    And that is not including the TRILLIONS more in taxes collected at the state, local and county levels.

    If the government were forced to tax the American people the exact amount of its yearly spending and increased taxes to cover that gap, I think we would see far more emphasis put on fiscal conservatism by the American people.
    It does, for the most part, the average family of four pays over 50% of it's yearly income in direct and indirect taxation.

    You'd make a valid point though, especially for those who don't directly pay income tax, but for one problem:

    AmeriKunts are, by and large idiots, that hate freedom, hate liberty and want more free goodies from Uncle Sucker.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount
    Some quick-and-dirty googling shows that government spending for 2016 was about $587 billion or 18% over its tax revenue.
    Hummm?

    That's just the deficit, total federal government spending in 2016 is projected to be 3.5 TRILLION dollars.

    And that is not including the TRILLIONS more in taxes collected at the state, local and county levels.



    It does, for the most part, the average family of four pays over 50% of it's yearly income in direct and indirect taxation.

    You'd make a valid point though, especially for those who don't directly pay income tax, but for one problem:

    AmeriKunts are, by and large idiots, that hate freedom, hate liberty and want more free goodies from Uncle Sucker.
    I think he met deficit spending (the budget shortfall) was $587 billion "or 18% over its tax revenue", not total spending.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-...tax-2016-02-24

    45% of Americans pay no federal income tax


    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 05:29 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I think he met deficit spending (the budget shortfall) was $587 billion "or 18% over its tax revenue", not total spending.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-...tax-2016-02-24
    Yes, I'm quite sure that is what he meant, but that is not what he typed:

    that government spending for 2016 was about $587 billion

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Hummm?

    That's just the deficit, total federal government spending in 2016 is projected to be 3.5 TRILLION dollars.
    I can see how the wording of the sentence might have been confusing, but yes, that is the deficit. I was trying to illustrate how much higher the tax rate would have to go in order to cover current spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    And that is not including the TRILLIONS more in taxes collected at the state, local and county levels.
    I'm less concerned about that at the state level. Let the states compete in that regard; some will have higher tax rates and more government, others less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    AmeriKunts are, by and large idiots, that hate freedom, hate liberty and want more free goodies from Uncle Sucker.
    They're idiots but greedy idiots. I think they'd be less excited about expensive goodies rather than free goodies. Studies in behavioral economics have shown that the human brain makes bad decisions when things are free or apparently free, such as free government services or a free meal so long as you sit through a sales pitch for a timeshare.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yes, I'm quite sure that is what he meant, but that is not what he typed:
    I had troubles with that too until I read the rest of the sentence.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    [T]he question is: Is the current suggestion, which is to reduce taxes but not spending, a good thing?
    Of course it is.

    Is it a good thing if a mugger steals less of your money, even if he doesn't spend any less on hookers and blow?

    How is this even a question?


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for being honest.

    My primary interest would be ALL OF IT!
    Yeah, that's nice. I thought you wanted an intelligent response rather than some ideological dickwagging. It seems I was wrong.

    Also, "ALL OF IT" is clearly not your primary interest, as you have repeatedly argued for more government control in some areas. "ALL OF IT" would preclude all federal control over immigration, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Especially domestic stuff. Some of the military stuff is, in a way, just hauling money across the ocean, throwing it in a pit and burning it. The theft is bad, but at least the way it's spent is not actively destroying and corroding everything beautiful and good in our country.
    Couldn't disagree more. We will never be able to focus on our own affairs so long as the resources of our country are going to $#@!ing with other peoples' lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    It's hard to just "shrink" a cyst. Usually much easier and better to cut the cyst out.
    See my first comment above.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Neutering my Boxer Monday - good thing or bad thing?
    By Dianne in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-04-2015, 09:28 AM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-21-2014, 04:10 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 08:39 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 04:46 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •