Across the board tax cuts increase revenue, prove me wrong

"One thing that is indisputable is that tax cuts increase the deficit." - That line I absolutely disagree with. Whatever side yuo are on, it is definitely disputable.

As for your chart, I look at it and I see the tax cuts (both of them) decrease the deficit. In both cases, the cuts were implemented in response to a problem. Within about 1 year after the tax cuts, the economy began to recover and the deficit began decreasing.

 

How is it even possible to not increase the deficit by taking in less money? What you are saying is that eventually revenue increases. However, as the economy gets better, revenue will increase certainly but pinning the increase to the tax cuts isn't as straight forward and direct as you pretend it to be. How can you be for stimulating the economy with tax cuts but be against a stimulus package? Millionaires and billionaires do not create jobs, small businesses create the majority of jobs. Right now small business after small business is crying for credit to expand and the big banks are not responding. Who is really holding back this economy, the millionaire bankers or the small businesses that have the room to grow if they can get the credit? I just don't feel like being held hostage to the wealthy anymore. You're welcome to play their game if you want to.

 

Ooo, oooo!! I know.....SPEND LESS??


Does anyone agree that it may be time to further explore the FairTax? BO had promised to look into it but I haven't heard anything else over these last 2 years.

 

Possible? With the right circumstances, I would say likely. First spend less. Second, reducing the tax rate in MANY cases means the company (mostly small businesses) and people will wind up making money instead of losing it. People/companies making money actually pay taxes. When not making money, you would be surprised how many receive money from the government

You said "One thing that is indisputable is that tax cuts increase the deficit." I said that it was disputable. Now you say "but pinning the increase to the tax cuts isn't as straight forward and direct as you pretend it to be." Make up your mind.

"Millionaires and billionaires do not create jobs" followed by "Who is really holding back this economy, the millionaire bankers...." BTW, please name one millionaire banker. As for Millionaires and billionaires small businesses, how about Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, Boone Pickens, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc. Every one of those is/was a small business

 

It may be just me; but I dont see Gates and Jobs as running SMALL businesses. But it was funny to read. BTW, what do you consider a big business?

 

Large businesses do create jobs, about 1/3 of them. Small businesses create the rest. Think about it, how many people do you know that work for large corporations as opposed to those that work in small businesses.

You can't possibly cut enough spending to make a dent in the deficit. Where do you cut? The military? Entitlements? Roads and bridges? Veterans? The only option is to tax those who actually have the money. It sure isn’t the middle class. Cut spending is what Republicans say when Democrats are in office. The rest of the time they spend like drunken sailors.

 

It's funny that your two examples are of Democrats.

 

Absolutely you have to cut entitlements. Otherwise, we will tax / spend ourselves into the grave - literally and figuratively.

Cut spending is what Democrats say when Republicans are in office. The rest of the time they spend like drunken sailors. And the hell of it is that I agree with you last two lines also. That is why I have some hope with the tea party. It is the only thing left.

 

Neither party is going to cut their favorite pet spending projects and you and I both know that. When I see Republicans cut the bloated military budget or when I see Democrats cut social security benefits for the elderly, I'll know that we have finally reached Armageddon. Face it, the only cutting that is ever going to happen is a ribbon on some new VA facilities or one on the latest warship and they'll probably waste a good bottle of Champagne on that too.
So if we agree that neither party is going to allow the other to cut spending, what is the point of even suggesting it? We haven’t had a tax increase in over a decade. Maybe it’s time that the people who made out like bandits over the last ten years finally be made to pony up some of that cash and help out the middle class a little bit. A tax increase on the wealthiest Americans is just what the doctor ordered for this ailing economy in my opinion. Use the money to grow the economic engine of this country, the small businesses. You are aware that if the tax cuts expire as they were designed to do, 2% of small businesses will be affected on average of $5,000 a year. The other 98% will come from the wealthiest Americans. I can live with that until I’m finally in the upper 2% of wealthy Americans.

 

Hey how come you didnt called moen a liar he referred to you as rim's too

 

Maybe that is why I support the tea party where ever I can and my representatives (both senate and house) also support cutting entitlements.

BTW, yes, we have had a tax increase - a very large one. It passed congress Christmas Eve last year.
FWIW, @$5,000 per taxpayer on the upper 2% means that there are more taxpayers than there are people in the USA.

 

Not my examples. They belong to the guy that if I print his name I will be called a liar. Pssst it from post #64

 

Hey Moen. Could you please show me just where you called me rim? I cannot seem to find it. Even a search does not show it.

 

What do you mean by entitlements?

 

Interesting read Moen. One thing that cannot be disputed is the fact the W inherited a budget surplus for Clinton and totaly blew it

I dont know where you chart came from, ( it says CBO but altered )so the USGOV charts I used still prove revenue to the treasury increases as taxes are lowered.

 

I don't know what you two are talking about. Your ID is "rlm cents", Maybe craig has some crap on his monitor right over the "l".

 

I've heard that for every dollar the US government gives away in tax breaks, only something like about 70 cents comes back. I'll have to find that article again.

 

Jack, I think you're asking the wrong question or at least you're asking to be proved wrong under a false set of assumptions. Whether or not tax cuts increase or decrease revenue is not nearly as important as whether tax cuts create jobs which is after all what is actually being implied here.

The very first legislative act Bush pushed through his Republican controlled congress was a massive tax cut for the wealthy. He did the same thing a couple of years later with yet another massive tax cut for the wealthy and made them continue through the end of 2010.

Now if your assumption that tax cuts increase revenue, even if spending was relatively stable, we should be swimming in surpluses after almost 10 years. We are not. If pooring money back into the hands of those that create the jobs for 10 years is true, then we should be in a situation that has employers begging for more workers. We are not in that situation.

By any other name, this is more trickle down economics that has failed miserably yet again and concentrated the wealth at the top of the ladder and ballooned the number of those in poverty. 1 in 7 people in this country now live in poverty.

I'm just going to go out a limb here and say that the tax cuts for the wealthy over the last 10 years have done nothing for the average person in this country, nothing to create jobs, and nothing to reduce the deficit. Why continue them?

 

But BO's unspent trillions for stimulus have just kept us from being much worse - and those are the BO administrations words, not mine. So you are saying increasing taxes and spending more money than we have does not work; Cutting taxes does not work. Despite all this that is not working today, we grew faster than any other country in the world during our beginning. I guess that leaves returning to the first 150 years where we had minimal taxes and virtually no Federal government interference.

 

First of all, the stimulus as only $787 billion. Maybe the trillions you speak of were for Bush's wars that were kept off the books so Republicans can believe that Obama ran up the debt instead of Bush. I just don't have the ability to fool myself that easily. Secondly, I said nothing about increasing taxes much less spending more money that increases the deficit. I think spending cuts have to be made and they need to be across the board. Entitlements, military and civilian, medicare needs to be tightened up, Social security needs to be adjusted, and tax cuts for the wealthy need to expire along with a lot of other changes. Lastly, tax rates were far higher in the past than they are today. Look it up.