Posted on 08/20/2005 11:03:54 AM PDT by george76
Now if we could the President to veto a spending bill or two. Raising all the revenue in the world will do no good at all if we could spending more than we raise.
Funny, how a labor dispute morphs into an offshoring argument . . . everything I've heard about the NW Airlines dispute revolves around other issues. Got anything to support your assertion?
Hey folks a tax deferral to future periods is not a tax cut. Any more than not paying off your credit cards this month is a cut in expenses. The only way taxes to cut taxes is to cut government costs [can you say veto].
I don't think anybody even campaigns on that anymore. I imagine it would help if the media wouldn't immediately demonize people who suggest it.
As much as I applaud and support cutting taxes, I'd rather see the govt. (fed, state, and local) cut these goofy regulations and paperwork, such as the type in which a business (prior) to starting has to file numerous reports on traffic impact, environmental impact, cultural impacts, etc.
I'd also rather see the feds pass the type of tort reform to prevent (or lessen) these crazy class action types of lawsuits, you know, the type in which anyone who has ever tried said company's product or service simply jumps on the gravy train regardless of whether or not there was any "damage" or liability.
In reality, a companies today would save much more in lowered liability insurance than they would by getting a five or ten percent tax decrease.
Put huge tariffs on all foreign goods and services, no doubt. Of course he already tried that with steel, and it nearly devastated the jobs of people in domestic industries that relied on steel.
Bottom line is that we don't need to be protected from cheap goods.
So if business has no loyalty for employees why are people surprised when employees have no loyalty for the business?
BTW, last time I checked unemployment it was probably the lowest for any President. So much for the unemployment lines...
It was lower under Clinton but regardless, my job was offshored in 2003. I took another job outside of my field paying about 40% of what I made before just to make ends meet. By your way of thinking, since I wasn't unemployed, then everything was hunky-dory.
How about not signing on the NAFTA and CAFTA and every other idiot trade agreement?
What would you do about it if you were president?
I'm not doubting that this was a difficult time for you, and you have my sympathies.
But the fact is, it never was "your job" in the sense that you were ever entitled to it. And I am unable to lay my finger on that section of the Constitution that guarantees any American a job in his field.
Moreover, I reject the idea that legally forcing some Americans to pay higher prices so that other Americans can be employed. That is an outright job subsidy, and is always bad economic policy.
Now if we could get congress to take it further. Cut more taxes, create more growth.
Or even make the current cuts permanent instead of phasing them out by 2010 and reversing the gains.
Another thing that would help would be to pass the FairTax which, at the present looks like it would have a rate drop from 23% to something like 19% ... due to W's tax cuts.
Wrong. If the government gives $100 billion in tax cuts to people whose cost of capital is 8% and the government borrows at 4%, that's a tax cut of $4 billion a year. Not even counting the added growth due to the incentive of keeping more of your own money.
The only way taxes to cut taxes is to cut government costs [can you say veto].
Cutting spending would be an added bonus of course.
Wrong. If the government gives $100 billion in tax cuts to people whose cost of capital is 8% and the government borrows at 4%, that's a tax cut of $4 billion a year. Not even counting the added growth due to the incentive of keeping more of your own money.
That $100 billion tax cut will not help the future taxpayers who will have to service the extra debt unless those who receive the tax cut use it to pay down their mortgages or otherwise lessen their debt and leave all of the savings to the next generation. What happens if they just increase their consumption and spend it? The one way to guarantee that that doesn't happen would be to require all taxpayers to repay the tax cut, plus the 4% that it's costing the government to carry the debt, when they retire. Then they can pocket the $4 billion savings that you mention and leave the next generation with no greater burden. Do you favor that?
Even if those who receive the tax cuts DO leave all of that savings to the next generation, the burden will not be evenly distributed. Person A may receive a portion of the savings in inheritance and Person B may receive nothing. However, both will have to pay the higher taxes to service the additional debt. Hence, unless the U.S. becomes one big hippie commune, the benefits and burdens will not be divided evenly, even if the current generation does pass the savings on.
Only if the government pays back all the Social Security contributions plus the 10% the contributions would have earned in the stock market. Do you favor that?
Even if those who receive the tax cuts DO leave all of that savings to the next generation, the burden will not be evenly distributed.
That's a great argument to not cut taxes. Don't cut taxes because everyone doesn't earn the same income. Sounds vaguely like from each according to his ability....
Person A may receive a portion of the savings in inheritance and Person B may receive nothing.
Well, what if Person B's Dad was on welfare his entire life?
So, you're upset that someone who received no tax cut (because they paid no taxes) may have a child who has a tax burden? Are you upset that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay about 33% of all taxes? Their burden is not evenly distributed.
Sure, no problem. A tax-cut is the government taking less of my money from me, so if I were to return the favor all I have to do is tell the government to give me less social security, farm subsidies, and other similar welfare payments.
OK, this isn't the intent of post 34. I worry that the intent is a lot worse. I hate to think that the phrase "repay the tax cut" assumes that all wealth belongs to the public and any tax-cut is a gift from the government to the tax payer. My position is that wealth belongs to those who create it, and it is the tax that is the gift --from the individual to the government.
You can't "repay the tax cut" to the government any more than you can "repay a discount price" on a bargain at Wal-Mart.
Remember, I'm curious what you do for a living. With your concern for the government's revenue I wonder if you are a government economist.
Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.
Sure, no problem. A tax-cut is the government taking less of my money from me, so if I were to return the favor all I have to do is tell the government to give me less social security, farm subsidies, and other similar welfare payments.
OK, this isn't the intent of post 34. I worry that the intent is a lot worse. I hate to think that the phrase "repay the tax cut" assumes that all wealth belongs to the public and any tax-cut is a gift from the government to the tax payer.
The repayment of the tax cut was not a serious proposal. I simply said that it is the only way to guarantee that the next generation does not get burdened by the additional debt. It was in response to Toddsterpatriot's stunning proposal that, because the government can borrow money at 4% whereas regular people must borrow it at 8%, a $100 billion tax cut represents a yearly $4 billion tax cut that will benefit our children as well as ourselves. That is unless we spend it all! HAHAHA, the next generation are such suckers!
You say that you worry that my intent is a lot worse. Likewise, my worry is that the intention of supply-side theory is much worse than a misguided attempt to create a free lunch. I worry that it is purposely intended as cover for being fiscally irresponsible and passing the check to the next generation.
My position is that wealth belongs to those who create it, and it is the tax that is the gift --from the individual to the government.
Yes, and the services provided by the government, including our military, police, firemen, and courts, are gifts from the government to the individual. It is valid to debate what services the government should provide and exactly how they should be funded. But to suggest that all taxes are "a gift" is pointless.
Only if the government pays back all the Social Security contributions plus the 10% the contributions would have earned in the stock market. Do you favor that?
As I replied to expat_panama, that was not a serious suggestion. I simply said that it is the only way to guarantee that the next generation does not get burdened by the additional debt. It was in response to your stunning proposal that, because the government can borrow money at 4% whereas regular people must borrow it at 8%, a $100 billion tax cut represents a yearly $4 billion tax cut that will benefit our children as well as ourselves. Where will the next generation get their yearly $4 billion tax cut if we spend it all now?
It's fine to argue that technology will once again bail us out and that our children will be prosperous enough to handle the extra debt that we leave them. Or you can argue that the exploding debt burden projected by the most recent budget (see http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/pro2006.html) is incorrect. But to suggest that our current tax cut represents some magical tax cut to them is just plain dishonest. It represents a tax cut to us and additional debt in the short term. What it means in the long term is yet to be seen.
Remember, I'm curious what you do for a living. With your concern for the government's revenue I wonder if you are a government economist.
No, my work has nothing to do with the government. I'm just one of those old-time fiscal conservatives!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.