"What? What? Yet another feckless cut??"
Posted on 06/29/2018 6:38:34 PM PDT by Libloather
That is good news. Thank you DD.
The economy is in the best shape it's been probably since before I was born and we're on track for a trillion dollar deficit. And you want to increase that? Double it? Triple it? Really?
I don't disagree with you at all that tax cuts have to be married with spending cuts. But that's not happening. How about Congress show that they can reign in spending before reducing revenue even more?
Thank you !
“...I NEVER got a paycheck signed by a POOR MAN.”
Beautiful.
That would make a great bumper sticker...
Yeah, the tax cut “revenue enhancement” factor better be unprecedented...national debt is up $2.17 trillion under Mr. Trump. He should try for at least ONE balanced budget during his first 4 years.
"What? What? Yet another feckless cut??"
If we cannot balance the budget under these economic conditions then we will never be able to balance it.
So I guess a budget surplus is out of the question?!? ;-)
This SHOULD make you happy, if you have the ability to realize what it means...
Tax Revenues Jump 13% To Record High In April
I'll try to keep this simple...
1. The tax rate cuts allow the government to take in MORE money, not less.
2. That means we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve. (Google it, or read below)
3. That means that more cuts will CONTINUE to increase revenues.
4. If maximizing revenues is your goal, you keep cutting tax rates until it no longer increases revenues.
5. The ONLY other thing that can make ANY possible positive impact on the deficit is cutting spending.
I cannot make it any simpler than that. Hope it helps.
-------------------------------------------------------
Now... The Laffer Curve explained... to help obtain a deeper understanding.
A. If tax rates are 0%.... the government takes in zero.
B. If tax rates are 100%... the government takes in zero. Who would work?
C. At some tax rate, that we do not know yet, the government takes in a maximum amount of revenue. See graph.
D.
E. Since the Trump Tax Cuts increased revenue, the one thing we do know, beyond all doubt, is that we are on the right side of that graph, and not yet at the peak.
F. The only way to find the peak is to keep cutting taxes until revenues no longer increase.
Did that help? It's quite simple, really.
Amen
However you used a graph and that makes it too complicated for some to comprehend
I would say that the odds of it hover somewhere between zilch and none.
Not sure where you got that figure from, but let's pretend it is accurate. President Trump has been in office for exactly one full fiscal cycle. ONE. And it is CONGRESS that has the largest part to play in the budget process, NOT the Executive Branch.
I understand that you want him to do more than God, and in less time, but try to take a deep breath, and understand the reality that he didn't cause this problem, he isn't the biggest player in the solution to this problem, and that he has only had one full cycle to operate in, while doing 100 other amazing things for our nation, while being attacked in all sides, including the feckless RNC... and yet he STILL has had a massive positive impact on the ONLY real solution - cut taxes, cut spending, cut fraud/waste.
So, lighten the f*** up, Francis.
So will I. I think you are misreading the Laffer Curve.
1. The tax rate cuts allow the government to take in MORE money, not less.
Only if your current tax rate lies to the right of the point of maximum revenue and not to the left.
2. That means we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve. (Google it, or read below)
Not necessarily. Business conditions have a lot to do with revenue. You would be correct only if you can show that under the current economy the old tax rates would have resulted in lower revenue than the current rates.
3. That means that more cuts will CONTINUE to increase revenues.
The Laffer curve does not show that. There is a point where lowering tax rates results in lower revenue. The question is what the rate showed by the question mark on the graph and whether we currently lie to the left or right of it.
4. If maximizing revenues is your goal, you keep cutting tax rates until it no longer increases revenues.
And again. How do you know we're not already at or past that point?
5. The ONLY other thing that can make ANY possible positive impact on the deficit is cutting spending.
Agreed. And what are the chances of that happening?
We are not even close to the point of diminishing returns.
Regulations and Taxes from all levels are still very high.
TAX CUTS WILL INCREASE REVENUE !!
So you say. But again, how do you know we were not to the left of the point of maximum revenue before the tax cuts?
April huh?
Can you think of anything that's unique about that month?
Do you think that's the month that many, many taxpayers remit a big chunk of their owed taxes from the previous year?
As I'm sure you know, the federal government operates on a cash basis so most of the April revenue is actually tax payments from last year when the stock market boomed and lots of investors realized lots of investment income.
2018 tax revenues may be increasing but compared to the 2017 revenue collected in April that increase is noise.
At some tax rate, that we do not know yet, the government takes in a maximum amount of revenue
No kidding.
Laffer drew his curve on a napkin in 1974.
Don't you think 44 years is long enough to calculate the optimum rate?
I haven't reasearched it independently but acording to Wikipedia many economic studies have been done and while the tax rate that maximizes revenue varies between studies the lowest is in the mid 30%s and most results cluster around 70%.
If maximizing revenues is your goal, you keep cutting tax rates until it no longer increases revenues.
There's your problem right there.
The goal isn't just to increase revenues, it's to maximize that increase.
The question isn't whether revenues increase after the tax cut - as long as there's economic growth they likely will - the question is would they have increased more absent the tax cut.
That's what economists have been debating for a very long time and the answer is far more complicated than your simplistic presentation.
Of course.
Unfortunately, we citizens seem to like some of the things that spending brings.
That's why we don't reelect politicians who take those things away from us.
A responsible policy is to recognize that reality and generate revenues that match the spending the politicians (and citizens) authorize.
An irresponsible policy is to take what you want - tax cuts - and blame someone else for the spending that you know is taking place.
“The economy is in the best shape it’s been probably since before I was born and we’re on track for a trillion dollar deficit. And you want to increase that? Double it? Triple it? Really?”
There are four basic ways that the government can redistribute private sector wealth: 1) taxation. 2) debt. 3) currency devaluation, and 4) regulation.
Taxation may be the most direct and “honest” way, but it’s no better or worse than the other three ways. Regulation is the least direct way, because instead of spending, the government uses law to force the private sector to spend or otherwise subsidize according to its redistributive agenda. Currency devaluation is the least honest form of government wealth redistribution because most private citizens aren’t even aware of how it happens.
The best way to compare these various policy options is to think of them all as taxes, because they are. They all “tax” the private sector equally, because none of them are causes of a problem, they are simply alternative effects of the same problem: excessive government redistribution of wealth.
So, if excessive taxation is no better or worse than deficit spending, why bother cutting taxes?
Well, first of all, since taxation is the most “honest” and “straightforward” way the government has of funding it’s redistributive agenda, we have been programmed to view raising taxes as “responsible” and cutting taxes as “irresponsible”. But this is a false choice.
I’ll use the dog poop analogy:
1) Dogs poop on the sidewalk all the time and all that poop needs to be picked up or people will step in it, and that is bad. Think of the dog poop as government spending. Think of people picking it up as paying their taxes. Think of everyone picking up dog shit whenever they see it, and the resulting clean sidewalks, as a balanced budget. Think of any dog poop not picked up as being the deficit. Obviously, the deficit is bad and the balanced budget is good. Why would anyone argue for the deficit, i.e., leaving dog poop on the sidewalk that people might step in?
2) But wait a minute - I don’t even own a dog, why should I pick up your dog’s poop? Think of my refusal to pick up dog poop as me demanding a tax cut.
3) An objective observer might observe that if some of us refuse to pick up dog poop when we see it, there will be dog poop left on the sidewalk, and that is bad. That same observer might see me walk right by a dog poop and accuse me of selfishly leaving it there for someone else to step in, i.e., they might accuse me of demanding a tax cut even though it results in a deficit. They might ask me why I would knowingly cause a deficit when I could balance the budget by just bending over and paying my taxes.
4) Of course, the real solution is for dog owners to pick up their own dog’s poop. Non dog owners should not be presented with the false choice of having to either pick up other people’s poop or endure (and share the blame for) poopy sidewalks.
When you ask me if I care that cutting taxes will cause a deficit - you are offering me a false choice every bit as unfair as the dog poop choice.
Sure, I could just pay the taxes and avoid the deficits, just as I could just bend over and pick up other people’s dog poop and have clean sidewalks. But all that does is mask the real problem and enable those responsible for it to escape responsibility. If you clean up other people’s messes for them you are enabling their bad behavior by avoiding a needed confrontation.
So no, I don’t want dog poop on the sidewalk, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to bend over and pick up other people’s dog poop when I don’t even have a dog. I’ll be happy to clean up my share of bird shit or bear shit or coyote shit when I see it, because that is the result of nature and therefore a shared problem - not the direct result of lifestyle choices that individuals make, such as the decision to own a dog.
Cut the taxes now, and when deficits go up we’ll have to have a confrontation with Leftists about whose fault that is. We shouldn’t keep putting off that confrontation by taxing EVERYONE to cover the irresponsible spending of Leftists.
By the way, I can anticipate a legitimate argument: what about a safety net for the poor? What about roads, bridges and other infrastructure? What about law enforcement and national defense? Isn’t there government spending that is for the commen good, and for which we should all pay our share of taxes?
Yes, of course. And as I said, I’m happy to clean up my share of bird shit, bear shit or coyote shit. But we are way, way, way, way past that legitimate level of wealth redistribution that is for the common good. The federal government is twenty or thirty times the size it needs to be in order to serve its limited roles as enumerated in the Constitution.
We need to continue to cut taxes and force the conversation to turn to the obvious elephant in the room: massively bloated government. Then as we reign back the government, this will force the conversation to the next elephant in the room: guns vs butter, i.e., what is the proper scope and role of the government per the constitution? We need to confront these questions, not avoid them by dutifully letting ourselves be guilted into bending over and paying our taxes like a bunch of schmucks.
“That’s why we don’t reelect politicians who take those things away from us.”
If the USA was a democracy you’d be right, but the founders gave us a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
It’s true that we elect politicians, who create spending and tax bills, but that was never meant to be the extent of our control over the government.
The founders also gave us the constitution, which enumerates (limits) the legitimate roles and functions of the government, and seperates it into three coequal branches.
The way is supposed to work, is that 1) the legislature writes spending and tax bills, 2) the executive branch carries them out, and 3) the judicial branch assures that they are within the limited scope of the constitution.
For a century, all three branches have been increasingly corrupted by Leftists whose socialist agenda is to carry out massive wealth redistribution that is entirely unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court and other higher courts, dominated by leftists, refuse to enforce the constitution, and thereby allow blatantly unconstitutional spending, taxation and regulatory legislation to stand. The executive branch carries out these ever-expanding and unconstitutional laws and programs, and routinely oversteps its authority with gross invasions of privacy and violations of individual liberties.
Ironically, the only time there is any push back from the other two branches is when there is an attempt by an administration to riegn in the federal government!
This is the state we find ourselves in, and as you point out, electing different politicians to the legislature has not offered a solution.
So, we elected Trump, an agent of change, to restore the three branches to their proper coequal roles. To do that, he promised to fix the executive branch by draining the swamp. He promised to fix the judicial branch by appointing originalist justices. He promised to fix the legislature by leading a tax and regulatory revolt.
Trump is making good on all three promises.
Taxes are way too high, but it’s not for the reason you say - that “we” like the spending and reelect politicians who authorize more spending. It’s because for 100 years the judicial branch has been thoroughly corrupted by Leftists and refuses to enforce the limitations of the constitution on the other two branches of government.
That balance of the three coequal branches has to be restored in order to rein in government spending. Trump is working on that long term solution. Meanwhile, a tax and regulatory revolt is our only recourse.
Besides, it is a myth that tax rate cuts result in deficits - instead, the economy booms and due to increase in volume, the government takes in record revenues despite the lower rates.
Spending cuts where? Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Defense spending, and interest on the debt take up 83% of federal spending. You could cut everything else but those and we would still have a deficit.
Republicans always like to talk about being fiscally responsible but they are just as bad as democrats. All they ever talk about is cutting taxes. Under Bush Jr not only did we cut taxes we increased spending!
We did not need a tax cut, we do not need another tax cut. If the American people want these programs then the conservative thing to do is to pay for them, not continue to go into debt.
I believe that the deficit and the debt poses the most danger to our countries future well being, and having two teenagers means I want to see it taken care of. I don’t care if that is through raising revenue(i.e tax increases, tariffs, etc.), cutting government programs, or a combination of the two. But there is no party that will speak this truth to Americans.
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.