Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every time someone suggests that we cut taxes, someone else eventually asks, "How are you going to pay for that cut?".
Excuse me?
If we have to "pay for" a tax cut by increasing taxes on someone else or for some other program, then it isn't a tax cut at all. It's merely robbing Peter to pay Paul, with the goal of making sure the govt winds up with as much tax money as before. How is this a tax cut at all?
The purpose of a tax cut, is to take less from the people to turn over to government. Government should wind up with LESS. Tax cuts, by their nature, shouldn't be "paid for". Instead, government must do with less.
If this results in the economy accelerating, more business being done, and more tax money being paid on more transactions (even at lower tax rates), that's fine. Maybe the government doesn't have to do with less.
But the purpose of a tax cut is, exactly, to give less tax money to government. It should not be "paid for" at all.
Where is it written that government revenue must always go up, even in the face of tax cuts?
If the govt is worried about deficits expanding (that would be a switch!), the solution is obvious, especially when people are insisting on tax cuts: Spend less. Then you don't have to borrow as much to make ends meet.
A call for tax cuts, is obviously a parallel call for spending cuts. You can't have one without the other. In what bizarro world do govt officials live in, where they can reduce govt revenues WITHOUT also reducing govt spending? Except in a world where you can borrow as much as you like, year after year without end, and never worry about paying it back? You can't get much more bizarre than that.
You don't really ever "pay down debt" in a fractional reserve debt based banking system. You can keep talking about it as though it will happen but the reality is the federal debt will never decrease for an extended period of time.
The best we can hope to do is have inflation to water down the burden. Worry about your own personal debt, not the federal government's or global debt for that matter. Almost all nations in the world have similar debt based banking systems.
They have to be paid for because Americans need to pay their bills instead of insisting on tax cuts. We are currently running up a huge debt to pay for wars (that the American people obviously like) and a plethora of social programs (that they also want even when they pretend that they don’t), and those things cost money.
And before anyone starts with the nonsense about tax cuts fattening the treasury over the long term, miss me with it. That’s a canard.
It’s that simple. If you’re gonna cut the amount of money people pay in taxes when you’re running up huge debts, then you’d better figure out how you’re gonna pay the bills.
Bottom line: there should be NO tax cuts at all. Americans don’t deserve a tax cut nor do they need one. Corporate taxes included.
I look at this claim of tax reform more like a loan that will be paid off in the future and the taxpayers are cosigners. Aside from that this just a rearrangement of who pays how much. Someone 10 years from no will be stuck with the tab.
It’s that simple. If you’re gonna cut the amount of money people pay in taxes when you’re running up huge debts, then you’d better figure out how you’re gonna pay the bills.
Yet again, no suggestion of running up less bills. Only paying the huge ones we keep spending money on.
Tax cuts don't have to be "paid for".
Spending must be paid for.
So why do politicians keep asking how tax cuts "will be paid for"?
First of all, the question is asked to Liberals. So you need to understand that logic doesn't matter here.
Liberal economic construct only deals with static economic theory.
In other words they see the economy as a thing. if its a certain size today, then that's its size. cutting taxes creates a reduction in dollars flowing to government. There is no room for thinking that leaving money in the economy will cause the size of the economy to grow, thus causing the total dollars to increase even though the percentage taken out of the economy is smaller.
Plus they also believe in government control. the larger portion of the economy the government controls, the better they like it. so cutting taxes reduces the percentage of the economy government controls.
The Progressives, and Democrats never worried about the huge deficits, and debt when Obama wasted several Trillions on Union bailouts, and Wall Street bailouts. If we grow the economy we will grow Tax revenue, even with Tax RATE cuts.
OP clearly doesn't understand burdens of taxation or macroeconomics whatsoever.
Newsflash: Tax cuts are never without a corollary coat. The tax burden is then foisted on other sectors or peoples, but never eliminated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
