Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Toddsterpatriot; ex-snook; george76
Hey folks a tax deferral to future periods is not a tax cut.

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.

34 posted on 08/24/2005 10:52:11 PM PDT by remember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: remember; expat_panama
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?

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?

35 posted on 08/25/2005 6:59:49 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: remember
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.

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.

36 posted on 08/25/2005 7:11:16 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson