Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 176

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

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If spending is the tax, then income tax cuts do nothing. They have no effect.
    If they have no effect, then why bother criticizing or opposing them?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Jeffrey Tucker has a nice article that rightly praises the merits of this tax cut proposal. He doesn't get into the question of spending cuts. Nor does he need to in order to make the points he makes.
    https://fee.org/articles/trump-s-tax...ter-economics/
    While many of his points are good, I also see some faults. As he rightly states, private investment is a primary source of economic growth, however in that article he advocates the advantages of encouraging investment while at the same time ignoring the crowding-out effects that increased deficit spending by the government will have on the exact same capital markets seems to me to only be looking at one half of the picture. If you encourage the public to invest that money by fiddling with capital gains taxes, and then promptly consume that new capital with deficit spending, what will you have accomplished?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  4. #93
    These are two separate issues. Each Tax cut should stand on its own merits as should each expenditure of taxpayer resources

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    If they have no effect, then why bother criticizing or opposing them?
    Because some people are deceived into believing that they are beneficial. Also, the net effect will be negative in the long run, as we pay interest on the debt but not on taxes. The problem compounds itself over time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Because some people are deceived into believing that they are beneficial. Also, the net effect will be negative in the long run, as we pay interest on the debt but not on taxes. The problem compounds itself over time.
    SMDH ... First you insist that there are no differential effects at all - and then you turn around and say that there are net effects and differences ...

    I'm done here.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    While many of his points are good, I also see some faults. As he rightly states, private investment is a primary source of economic growth, however in that article he advocates the advantages of encouraging investment while at the same time ignoring the crowding-out effects that increased deficit spending by the government will have on the exact same capital markets seems to me to only be looking at one half of the picture. If you encourage the public to invest that money by fiddling with capital gains taxes, and then promptly consume that new capital with deficit spending, what will you have accomplished?
    Crowding out theory hasn't really worked out in practice. High deficit spending and low interest rates from 2008 to 2013, for example. I think there is some misunderstanding as to how capital markets work.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    Crowding out theory hasn't really worked out in practice. High deficit spending and low interest rates from 2008 to 2013, for example.
    Thanks to expansionary monetary policy by the Fed.

    As with all things in economics, crowding out assumes that all else remaining equal, government consumption of capital will crowd out private uses. In the case of 2008-2013, all else was not equal. In that case, you're trading out increases in interest rates for increases in inflation rates. Either one will have detrimental effects on the economy.
    Last edited by TheCount; 04-28-2017 at 04:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    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.
    What kind of rambling, nonsensical, garbage are you even spouting?

    Thinking that you have to actually pay for what you're doing isn't "progressive." No less a luminary than Dr. Ron Paul has said exactly what The Count is saying.




    If you even bothered to pay attention you will notice that Ron Paul said that unless you cut spending you are not cutting taxes because the government either borrows to make up the difference or prints more money, both situations which end up costing the taxpayer. "You cannot have a true tax cut without cutting spending....It won't work unless you cut spending," Ron Paul says.

    So, unless you're about to call Ron friggin' Paul a liberal, which he is not, then you need to face some facts. You're wrong being at the top.

    Also, the irony of someone calling for massive government intervention and regulation of the border in order to limit the free exchange of human capital is calling someone else a progressive when they are the one promoting a progressive agenda and policy is both rich and disappointing all at the same time.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    What kind of rambling, nonsensical, garbage are you even spouting?

    Thinking that you have to actually pay for what you're doing isn't "progressive." No less a luminary than Dr. Ron Paul has said exactly what The Count is saying.




    If you even bothered to pay attention you will notice that Ron Paul said that unless you cut spending you are not cutting taxes because the government either borrows to make up the difference or prints more money, both situations which end up costing the taxpayer. "You cannot have a true tax cut without cutting spending....It won't work unless you cut spending," Ron Paul says.

    So, unless you're about to call Ron friggin' Paul a liberal, which he is not, then you need to face some facts. You're wrong being at the top.

    Also, the irony of someone calling for massive government intervention and regulation of the border in order to limit the free exchange of human capital is calling someone else a progressive when they are the one promoting a progressive agenda and policy is both rich and disappointing all at the same time.
    So you advocate a tax increase to match federal spending.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    it is being jeopardized by SPENDING and NOT TAX CUTTING.
    Actually, as Ron Paul points out here, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result.

    Which means you need BOTH for it to work. Now, in the short term, before the effects of borrowing and fiat inflation take hold, you'll have a bubble increase in spending and apparent wealth. But soon enough the check comes due and that bubble bursts. And everyone is worse off. They aren't separate issues, everything, especially income and spending, are interrelated.

    Therefore, a tax cut without a spending cut is dangerous. Because it only encourages the government to continue to live way beyond its means instead of reining in costs and spending. It is like someone quitting their second job and instead taking out another credit line. All the free time at home with the family may be nice, but in the long run you're destroying your future.

    Now, is that an endorsement of taxation? Certainly not. Taxation is theft. But is it an argument that tax cuts have to be done the right way? Absolutely.


  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    So you advocate a tax increase to match federal spending.
    Did I say that? No.

    As Ron Paul points out in the video, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result.

    Which means you need BOTH for it to work.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Did I say that? No.

    As Ron Paul points out in the video, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result.

    Which means you need BOTH for it to work.
    I get that.
    In your opinion, what is the difference between tax cuts with current federal spending, or keeping taxes the same with increased federal spending?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Actually, as Ron Paul points out here, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result.

    Which means you need BOTH for it to work. Now, in the short term, before the effects of borrowing and fiat inflation take hold, you'll have a bubble increase in spending and apparent wealth. But soon enough the check comes due and that bubble bursts. And everyone is worse off. They aren't separate issues, everything, especially income and spending, are interrelated.

    Therefore, a tax cut without a spending cut is dangerous. Because it only encourages the government to continue to live way beyond its means instead of reining in costs and spending. It is like someone quitting their second job and instead taking out another credit line. All the free time at home with the family may be nice, but in the long run you're destroying your future.

    Now, is that an endorsement of taxation? Certainly not. Taxation is theft. But is it an argument that tax cuts have to be done the right way? Absolutely.

    I am fully aware of everything you point out here. None of it rebuts or refutes anything I have said.

    I repeat: Futurity is being jeopardized by SPENDING, NOT BY TAX CUTTING.

    The government will continue to live way beyond its means regardless of whether taxes are cut or not.

    I have already identified and repeated some of the differences between taxes and inflationary deficit borrowing THREE TIMES in this thread alone. only to be ignored every time.

    I also find it strange that you and others quite correctly cite Ron Paul as authoritative on this subject, yet you all ignore the fact that he said, "I would certainly vote for it, I want the biggest tax cut ever ...."

    So hows about you go lecture Ron about how foolishly and "dangerous[ly]" wrong-headed he is being ... ? (And while you're at it, perhaps @CaptUSA; can join you - he may want to inform Ron that he is being a moral deficient who wants to "screw" his children by "mortgaging [their] lives" - the way he did to me.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-28-2017 at 06:07 PM.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    What kind of rambling, nonsensical, garbage are you even spouting?

    No less a luminary than Dr. Ron Paul has said exactly what The Count is saying.


    If you even bothered to pay attention...

    LOL. More eggheaded rambling from yet another person who can't even pay attention to what's happening in front of him.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-28-2017 at 05:49 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



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Your response was disingenuous.

    ***
    The entire rest of your post is an attempt to continue to derail the topic of the thread,...
    LOL. The derailer of this entire forum crying again and accusing someone of derailing. He used to just claim that people like me would derail him, but now he's whining when someone just disagrees with him. Neg rep for whining.

    I nominate this for hilarious post of the month.
    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. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Thanks to expansionary monetary policy by the Fed.

    As with all things in economics, crowding out assumes that all else remaining equal, government consumption of capital will crowd out private uses. In the case of 2008-2013, all else was not equal. In that case, you're trading out increases in interest rates for increases in inflation rates. Either one will have detrimental effects on the economy.
    But inflation wasn't high either.

    And prior to the great recession, you can see how between Reagan/Clinton/Bush, there wasn't much connection between deficits and interest rates.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    SMDH ... First you [TheCount] insist that there are no differential effects at all - and then you turn around and say that there are net effects and differences ...

    I'm done here.

    This pretty much sums up TheCount's baiting baloney right here. PRB used to play the same type of chicanerous game on this board. Occam repeated his point no less than four times and TheCount still played his game.

    The other person on here who said he is acting "civil" to TheCount is being far too generous. This whole thread creation is just shrewdly disguised baiting disguised as some kind of intelligent discussion. Intellectual incivility.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-28-2017 at 07:12 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

  21. #108
    Ron Paul aways says get rid of the Income Tax and IRS regardless of spending.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If spending is the tax, then income tax cuts do nothing. They have no effect.
    Incentives matter. Income is production. A tax is a disincentive to production. Lowering rates should raise production by incentivizing people to produce more.

    Tax cuts as a stimulus is a Keynesian idea and I doubt that works. That is a separate idea from the incentive effect.

    My favorite book is the Economic Way of Thinking and it covers this topic. There is an entire chapter on supply side ideas.

    "And right there is the most important problem created by budget deficits. Treasury bonds put the federal government into competition with every other potential borrower for the available flow of loanable funds."

    "However, it doesn't follow that tax rates should be increased to close a deficit. If higher tax rates were to reduce the government deficit by $50 billion and private-sector saving by $100 billion the tax increase would have aggravated rather than alleviated the crowding-out problem."

    I think the implication is a broad based flat tax would be best so you don't have the negative incentive effects. And maybe even better a consumption tax.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Which programs would you cut out of the budget, TheCount?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post

    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.


    Read between the lines. TheCount thinks that government is going to somehow gut itself. He thinks that states and locales should spend their time writing reports "and such" to the federal government. The US Dept of Education telling your grade school what to do is what TheCount calls "coordination." He thinks your local high school principal doing federal paperwork is a way to "nuke" the Dept of Education. That "magic wand" he cited says that report writing is going to reduce an agency to 1% of what it is now. His "primarily [sic] interests" is military cutting, even though welfare spending far outpaces it and has grown the most dramatically.

    This guy presents today's mundane liberal view. He adds some vague and eggheaded nonsense to sell it on this forum, and some here think he is in lockstep with Ron Paul.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-28-2017 at 07:06 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

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Who cares about that stupid budget zippy we are talking about spending not budget. How many trillions of dollars has our debt gone up over the years? Can we just not budget any of our spending and then we can not have any shortfalls? We'll just have 100 trillion in debt per year just not "budget" the spending put it into programs that can't be cut because our economy is $#@!ing broken and our economy is broken because we spend too much?
    The debt has been going up by a trillion a year the last few years. As I wrote earlier the deficit is bogus. To get the real number you need to take the delta between the total debt each year. And I agree that the debt is probably the most dangerous thing we do. We've passed a dangerous milestone over the last few years. We CAN'T raise interest rates to anything close to a historical average. Nobody's talking about it because rates have been so low for so long but it's suddenly going to become a huge emergency (like Greece) when inflation starts spiking and the only way to stop it is to raise rates.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Incentives matter. Income is production. A tax is a disincentive to production. Lowering rates should raise production by incentivizing people to produce more.
    You don't understand ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    [I]ncome tax cuts do nothing. They have no effect.
    Because ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    [T]he government could create that exact same temporary benefit by printing some money and giving it away [...]
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-28-2017 at 07:49 PM.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    And I agree that the debt is probably the most dangerous thing we do. We've passed a dangerous milestone over the last few years. We CAN'T raise interest rates to anything close to a historical average. Nobody's talking about it because rates have been so low for so long but it's suddenly going to become a huge emergency (like Greece) when inflation starts spiking and the only way to stop it is to raise rates.
    The only problem with the debt is that it will slow growth. The problem isn't doomsday. Inflationcan always be stopped by contracting the money supply. Tight monetary policy will mean slower growth but it isn't the end of the world. Greece has a problem because most of the people in the country work for the government and they won't do the right thing and fire 90% of those people.

    Here is a guy who is a big Austrian in the Mises tradition lucidly explaining why the debt in not a danger. Amash/Ron/Rand/Schiff are just wrong on this and will probably always be wrong no matter how much evidence is shown to them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam.../#27308c093373

    "Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.


    The predictable reply to the above is that default would greatly increase borrowing costs for the rest of us. Really? Apple AAPL -0.14%, Google GOOG +3.62% and Facebook are based in California, California’s government debts are legendary, but does anyone think that Apple would suddenly face financing difficulty if California were to default?


    The reality is that if we ever reach the day that never seems to come, and that market signals historically embraced by conservatives and libertarians say isn't coming, government alone would be brought to its knees. As for the rest of us, the relative unattractiveness of U.S. Treasuries would redound to the real economy through a reorientation of investment away from politicians. Money saved never lays idle despite what the economic punditry would have us believe.
    econd, while deficits aren’t the burden we’re leaving our grandchildren, a less evolved economy is. Deficits are finance, and as evidenced by the willingness of investors to line up in order to buy U.S. Treasuries, they’re an easy form of finance.

    The burden that deficits signal in not always vivid color is all the investment in real economic ideas that is not taking place thanks to all the government spending vacuuming up limited capital. Our grandchildren will inherit a much less evolved world in terms of technology, healthcare, and transportation advances precisely due to government waste occurring in the present."

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    But inflation wasn't high either.
    It was higher than it would have been had the monetary policy not been expansionist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The only problem with the debt is that it will slow growth. The problem isn't doomsday. Inflationcan always be stopped by contracting the money supply. Tight monetary policy will mean slower growth but it isn't the end of the world. Greece has a problem because most of the people in the country work for the government and they won't do the right thing and fire 90% of those people.

    Here is a guy who is a big Austrian in the Mises tradition lucidly explaining why the debt in not a danger. Amash/Ron/Rand/Schiff are just wrong on this and will probably always be wrong no matter how much evidence is shown to them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam.../#27308c093373

    "Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.


    The predictable reply to the above is that default would greatly increase borrowing costs for the rest of us. Really? Apple AAPL -0.14%, Google GOOG +3.62% and Facebook are based in California, California’s government debts are legendary, but does anyone think that Apple would suddenly face financing difficulty if California were to default?


    The reality is that if we ever reach the day that never seems to come, and that market signals historically embraced by conservatives and libertarians say isn't coming, government alone would be brought to its knees. As for the rest of us, the relative unattractiveness of U.S. Treasuries would redound to the real economy through a reorientation of investment away from politicians. Money saved never lays idle despite what the economic punditry would have us believe.
    econd, while deficits aren’t the burden we’re leaving our grandchildren, a less evolved economy is. Deficits are finance, and as evidenced by the willingness of investors to line up in order to buy U.S. Treasuries, they’re an easy form of finance.

    The burden that deficits signal in not always vivid color is all the investment in real economic ideas that is not taking place thanks to all the government spending vacuuming up limited capital. Our grandchildren will inherit a much less evolved world in terms of technology, healthcare, and transportation advances precisely due to government waste occurring in the present."
    California doesnt control our money, but the Federal Government does. Bad analogy.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If you encourage the public to invest that money by fiddling with capital gains taxes, and then promptly consume that new capital with deficit spending, what will you have accomplished?
    You have made it harder for the Congress to keep increasing spending and easier for it to cut it, as it approaches unsustainable deficits.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    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.


    I think this is a good springboard post. The phrase "productive assets" is interesting.

    So, who is going to pay for some of these assets that some have recognized no longer productive in a declining America? The sucker tax payer or the global investor? Lower taxes means that the risk of investing (through deficits) falls more upon the global investor.

    Furthermore, the global investor certainly doesn't discourage sloppy spending from the pleb. In fact, he encourages it through concepts like the "cashless society." No cash means more credit spending, which means interest, which means more income for the creditor (e.g., a credit card costs the merchant money in fees to the bank).

    So then, who is one typical global investor? He is one pushing all credit for plebs, or the rest of society. He pushes for centralization. He also pushes for all the social programs administered by government. He is not foolish enough to think any of these social programs will go away.

    Combine all the investor's aims with the idea of thinking tax cuts are a bad thing, and it's fairly easy to see the idea being pushed by the OP.
    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

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    I don't care how much they borrow, as long as they (the government) are responsible for paying it back. Maybe they will go bankrupt and go out of business. Leave those who don't want to support government alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So where will the government get money to pay it back? From taxes. Etc., etc.


    Oh, and what a surprise. Who else would contest the good doctor's (Dr. 3D) hope that the government would go out of business? None other than this forum's other prolific globalist, ZippyJuan. He and TheCount look to be on the same page here. Imagine that.
    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

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    It was higher than it would have been had the monetary policy not been expansionist.
    Not what the maths shows, but it seems like you'll never be convinced...

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The only problem with the debt is that it will slow growth. The problem isn't doomsday. Inflationcan always be stopped by contracting the money supply. Tight monetary policy will mean slower growth but it isn't the end of the world. Greece has a problem because most of the people in the country work for the government and they won't do the right thing and fire 90% of those people.

    Here is a guy who is a big Austrian in the Mises tradition lucidly explaining why the debt in not a danger. Amash/Ron/Rand/Schiff are just wrong on this and will probably always be wrong no matter how much evidence is shown to them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam.../#27308c093373

    "Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.


    The predictable reply to the above is that default would greatly increase borrowing costs for the rest of us. Really? Apple AAPL -0.14%, Google GOOG +3.62% and Facebook are based in California, California’s government debts are legendary, but does anyone think that Apple would suddenly face financing difficulty if California were to default?


    The reality is that if we ever reach the day that never seems to come, and that market signals historically embraced by conservatives and libertarians say isn't coming, government alone would be brought to its knees. As for the rest of us, the relative unattractiveness of U.S. Treasuries would redound to the real economy through a reorientation of investment away from politicians. Money saved never lays idle despite what the economic punditry would have us believe.
    econd, while deficits aren’t the burden we’re leaving our grandchildren, a less evolved economy is. Deficits are finance, and as evidenced by the willingness of investors to line up in order to buy U.S. Treasuries, they’re an easy form of finance.

    The burden that deficits signal in not always vivid color is all the investment in real economic ideas that is not taking place thanks to all the government spending vacuuming up limited capital. Our grandchildren will inherit a much less evolved world in terms of technology, healthcare, and transportation advances precisely due to government waste occurring in the present."
    I agree that there are benefits to a currency crisis, because it chokes off government growth. But it will have a dramatic effect on the economy, probably worse than the great depression.

    Anyway I'm for reducing taxes and bringing on the crash and getting it over with.
    Last edited by Madison320; 04-29-2017 at 08:55 AM.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •