how-to block ads
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to pnh102
Re: Wow
said by pnh102  :said by quatrix :Do you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? I certainly think that. Every tax cut is always good, no matter what. The more money we have to spend for ourselves, the better the economy is. Reagan proved this in the 1980s and we are still running on those same principles to this very day. Even the government makes out like a bandit under this system in that it collects more money under lower tax rates than it does under higher tax rates. As for keeping spending under wraps, that's a whole different animal. Personally, I hope for massive gridlock under this congress. Whew. Can you explain to me how the government "collects more money with lower tax rates" -- What are their other sources of revenue? Because I'm telling you, the sh*t doesn't trickle down and Ronnie proved that as well. Even he raised taxes in the final years of his term to try and turn his ridiculous deficit spending into something not so butt-ugly.
I do, however, agree with the 'bandit' part 
As for supply side econ under Reagan and in the present, anyone that has studied economics knows that supply side is no better an economic device than any other; unless you print money that money has to come from somewhere at some point if you're going to spend more than you bring in. Reagan cut taxes but raised social security while running up huge deficits with his supply side crap that made the military industrials richer (as well as the top 10%). If the 'trickle down' theory of supply side works so well, and is what we've been running on since Bush, why is most of our production now overseas? Why have wages been stagnant so long? Why is job growth so tepid? Why so many bubbles to sustain a produce-nothing economy? Why not raise the minimum wage (it's trickling, right? Where's the trickle?)?
All capitalist systems benefit the ruling class. Period. You'll probably feel an urge to bash Clinton. Go ahead, But remember that Clinton balanced the budget while the stock market hit 10k (before it burst) and raised the minimum wage and also signed that crawling abortion of legislation named NAFTA. No system is to the peoples benefit, really, other than to keep the game in play. Some are better and some are worse. Supply side is easily one of the worst, right up there with trade policies like NAFTA.
As for tax cuts, sure they can be good. But only when done sensibly. When is the last time your government did anything sensible? Here in VA not long ago, a governor ran on cutting taxes, the car tax specifically. Guess what? The car tax was a huge source of state revenue, and without that revenue services had to be cut to squeeze out a budget. The battle becomes which services to cut, and that ends up a political battle rather than one based on common sense. So this gets cut and that gets cut, and pretty soon sh*t doesn't look so good anymore. Weeds are growing all over on the low end of the scale, and people are being denied more emergency services on the danger end of the scale. Poor people aren't getting help to attend community colleges and people's lives are ruined because teaching hospitals don't have the funding to provide operations to those without insurance -- another person lost in the tax cut game. And it is a game. The right hates entitlements (love how words become pejorative with spin and ignorance) and the left hates good business sense. Somewhere there's a sensible middle, but I fear it's lost in the hands of corporate controlled consumerism and brainwashed ideologues.
rant off
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | The gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them.
That is what happened during the 1980's. Unfortunately Congress being the drunken sailors they are, spent all of that increase in revenue and then some. The last Congress did the same. The tax cuts resulted in significant economic growth and thus increased tax revenue, but the pseudo-Republicans spent it all on bridges to no where, farm aid to super corps like ADM, the war and the huge mistake of a prescription drug program. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget.
The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| said by ColorBASIC :The gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget. The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. Logically true to a fault, but rarely -- if ever -- realized in this day and age, and that was my point. Also, reduced taxes leads to a reduction in services which serves to mitigate net job growth from any economic growth since most of this so called 'growth' is vapor money in the form of finance capital in our economy while real jobs go elsewhere when capital investment occurs in earnest. And again, many people don't acknowledge (or accept) that social security taxes went up while general tax rates went down in the 80s. Reagan's deficits were obscene (though Bush 2's are triple x rated) and would have been worse if not for robbing the till of SS. Hell, when he needed currency for really underhanded sh*t he simply traded guns and then forgot about it.
Our elected musketeers are the bidders for their corporate masters, so it's no wonder they spend money on roads to nowhere. Our departed leader of the House earmarked money for just such a road on a vast parcel of property HE owned in nowhere, increasing its value by untold amounts.
As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :Whew. Can you explain to me how the government "collects more money with lower tax rates" -- What are their other sources of revenue? Go look at the amount of money the government collected in taxes from 1981 to today. You can even look at what happened when JFK pushed for lower taxes in the early 1960s. Look at all the years in which there were tax cuts and see how it impacted revenue. The principle that lower taxes brings in more revenue to the government is an irrefutable fact.
Now, even with enhanced revenues, whether by Reaganomics or some other means, it does not change the fact that no government can spend more money than it has. Had the Republican party not expanded entitlements, farm subsidies and education spending from 2001 to 2006, we could have enjoyed balanced budgets during that time.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
rgillis70
Premium
join:2002-12-30
Herndon, VA
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection That may be, but that is an issue with SPENDING not with TAXES. It is a fact that tax cuts lead to increased revenue. That was what you asked. Look at the figures for collection, not the spending figures, and you will see it always works this way.
Spending is ridiculous no mater who is in office.
By the way - for reference, the country had record growth quarter after quarter during Reagan years...and it did so under Clinton as well. But lower taxes do lead to increased revenue. Just got to teach people not to spend it, and 2x more than it, every second of the day. | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to pnh102
That's only part of the picture; there's this little budget item called "Iraq."
Education spending and Entitlements? You mean No child left behind and enriching drug companies? Please  don't insult us all! It would appear to me that the current admin is taking Ronnie Raygun's nonsense to new heights:
From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained
"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992.These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." (emphasis added)
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26 | reply to rgillis70
I recall some inflationary issues during those great years of growth as well. I also remember something in Econ class about 'chasing dollars' ...
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
rgillis70
Premium
join:2002-12-30
Herndon, VA
| I agree inflation played a role. As did the artificial growth caused by the "dot-com" during Clinton's growth.
But I was just looking at numbers...as the statement was - lower taxes do not lead to higher revenue - they do...however, there are always outside influences that can play havoc on a system, like a war, inflation, unexpected market crash, artificially high energy pricing, speculation...etc.
If - and this is the IF that is so huge it will never happen - if the government could hold spending to the inflationary rate for just a year or 2 while revenue increased, we would see surplus. But that I doubt will happen as everyone has a special "project" they'd like to get done. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :That's only part of the picture; there's this little budget item called "Iraq." The war spending is a small part of the budget. The Federal government spends about $2.5 trillion a year. So far, the entire Iraq war has cost $300 billion since 2003. Out of almost $7.5 trillion dollars, $300 billion is not a lot of money.
said by Titus Pullo :Education spending and Entitlements? You mean No child left behind and enriching drug companies? Please don't insult us all! How is it an insult to state the fact that this country is spending more on entitlements than at any other time in history.
said by Titus Pullo : It would appear to me that the current admin is taking Ronnie Raygun's nonsense to new heights: And again, you are not separating spending from taxation. Reagan's model of lowering taxes to increase revenues worked in the 1980s, and it works now. This undisputed, irrefutable fact does not in anyway absolve the Reagan administration and the then Democratic Congress, as well as the Bush administration and the then Republican Congress, from keeping spending under control.
Clinton was able to achieve a balanced budget in part due to a Republican congress. I am hoping that the same gridlock created in that relationship can also happen in this Congress, since Republicans, when left to their own devices, cannot keep spending under control.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
