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.
My "stunning proposal" was in response to ex-snooks comment that the tax cuts were simply a "tax deferral to future periods" and were therefore of no benefit to us. If we took your non serious proposal, you yourself admit that the tax deferral is an net actual benefit of $4 billion a year in my example. Are you saying that cutting parent's taxes by $100 billion doesn't benefit their children? It'll help me pay for college tuition, that's not a benefit, is it?
Your claim that the tax cut does not benefit our children seems to be another Concord Coalition type position. If lower taxes contribute to the economy doubling in the next 20 years then they obviously benefit our children.
Did you think the Clinton tax hikes benefited our children? I suppose we should roll back the Reagan tax cuts? The top rate should be 70%, for the children!!
Likewise, my worry is that the intention of supply-side theory is much worse than a misguided attempt to create a free lunch.
That's right. When Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 28% there was no free lunch. The 60% reduction in rates led to a 60% drop in government revenue. No free lunch there. Wait, you mean government revenues doubled over the 8 years of the Reagan presidency? Maybe there was a free lunch. Or at least a deeply discounted lunch.
I'm just one of those old-time fiscal conservatives!
What was Newt's phrase? A tax collector for the welfare state.
The idea of paying back a reduction of payment was less than not serious, it's not even intelligible. We're digressing; let's focus on the thrust of the article that started this thread (get back on topic). The question is whether we should cheer the tax-cuts.
Four years ago when I got to keep money that I'd worked for and that the big government types had wanted to spend on themselves, I cheered. At the time, a bunch of sore looser tax'n'spenders warned us all that if they didn't get more of our money, that America would be worse off.
It's now four years later and both the tax-payers and the tax receivers are richer than ever. Anyone who is still worried about possible adverse consequences of smaller government needs to remember the double digit inflation and unemployment that was the legacy of decades of over taxing and regulation. In short, the best way to avoid any possible future 'adverse consequences' is obviously with more freedom, not less.