A busted argument for not raising taxes

[Genx87]

If that is true why did it not work in reverse for the last 8yrs? By your logic if we have revenue of x - 10 (bush tax cuts) we should have had spending -10. Good try, but BUSTED!!!

Huh? I made no argument govt shrinks.

 

[matt0611]

This is a trick question. They couldn't possibly care any less than they already do.

touché

 

[fskimospy]

Are you serious? How many times have we had a balanced budget in the past 60 years? Govt grows, new revenues are spent, not saved or utilized to reduce deficit or debt.

That's not the question. Can you show me that the amount of spending the government does is related to the amount of revenue it gets? Can you find any analysis that shows when revenues decrease that federal spending decreases along with it, and when revenues increase that spending increases correspondingly?

I know it SOUNDS like that's how things should work, but it doesn't. It's yet another reason why comparing federal budgets to personal budgets is silliness. They don't work the same way.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't care who's job you think it is, but as our system runs now that's why we need to pay taxes.

Who's job I THINK it is? Does printing money happen all by itself? Who's in charge of the presses?

HINT: It ain't the taxpayer.

If government can't be trusted to spend responsibly, then there isn't a damn reason on earth to give it more money.

 

[fskimospy]

Who's job I THINK it is? Does printing money happen all by itself? Who's in charge of the presses?

HINT: It ain't the taxpayer.

If government can't be trusted to spend responsibly, then there isn't a damn reason on earth to give it more money.

You've completely gone off the subject of the thread and are just repeating talking points now.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Huh? I made no argument govt shrinks.

Oh, so your argument is that if revenue increase spending will increase, but if revenue decreases spending won't decrease. In other words government is "the bad boogie man" and will increase or maintain spending regardless of what happens to revenue ?

Bullshit! You are dishonest and don't give a damn about the deficit and your whole argument boils down to you don't want to pay more taxes, period.

 

[Atreus21]

You've completely gone off the subject of the thread and are just repeating talking points now.

How did I go off topic?

The topic was that government is going to spend itself into oblivion anyway, so tax cuts don't matter. My counter was that by that logic tax increases don't either.

You then said spending and revenue aren't related.

I said that if they aren't related, why should we give it any taxes?

You said to counter inflation.

I said that's ridiculous. The government controls the printing of money. If they're going to just print money whenever they want it, why should we give them any of our money?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Who's job I THINK it is? Does printing money happen all by itself? Who's in charge of the presses?

HINT: It ain't the taxpayer.

If government can't be trusted to spend responsibly, then there isn't a damn reason on earth to give it more money.

You pretend as if the goverment is on a cash basis. They don't need your cash they have your credit card . The fact that you don't want to pay your credit card bill is a seperate issue all together. Time to pay up you deadbeat :twisted:

 

[Genx87]

That's not the question. Can you show me that the amount of spending the government does is related to the amount of revenue it gets? Can you find any analysis that shows when revenues decrease that federal spending decreases along with it, and when revenues increase that spending increases correspondingly?

I know it SOUNDS like that's how things should work, but it doesn't. It's yet another reason why comparing federal budgets to personal budgets is silliness. They don't work the same way.

I would say look at our deficit spending as a % of gdp over the past 60 or so years. For the most part it has stayed in the 2-5% range. Tax revenues are tied to economic activity. Govt size is moving slightly ahead of it with deficit spending. It has only been the last couple cycles we have blown the doors off.

That said I didnt say they are directly connected. But I think chances are higher they will spend it than use it cut deficit spending or debt.

I think the comparison is valid in regard that if you know you are making x dollars you can only spend y. But I will admit beyond that is isnt a terribly good compaison due to the fact people cant print their own money.

 

[Atreus21]

You pretend as if the goverment is on a cash basis. They don't need your cash they have your credit card . The fact that you don't want to pay your credit card bill is a seperate issue all together. Time to pay up you deadbeat :twisted:

In today's world, you can usually do something about people stealing your credit card and making unauthorized purchases.

 

[Genx87]

Oh, so your argument is that if revenue increase spending will increase, but if revenue decreases spending won't decrease. In other words government is "the bad boogie man" and will increase or maintain spending regardless of what happens to revenue ?

Bullshit! You are dishonest and don't give a damn about the deficit and your whole argument boils down to you don't want to pay more taxes, period.

My argument is new revenues are spent, not saved. And yes, if revenues decrease spending wont decrease. 2/3rds of the federal budget is on auto-increment. That is why entitlements and social spending have to be tackled to truely solve our spending problem. Eventually the discretionary budget can be cut to zero and we will still run large deficits.

 

[Matt1970]

If you guys are under the illusion that or Government is responsible enough to not increase spending if they have increased revenue then you are kidding yourselves.

 

[soundforbjt]

If you guys are under the illusion that or Government is responsible enough to not increase spending if they have increased revenue then you are kidding yourselves.

Happened under Clinton. Unfortunately, Bush and Obama were\are not Clinton.

 

[QuantumPion]

Oh, so your argument is that if revenue increase spending will increase, but if revenue decreases spending won't decrease. In other words government is "the bad boogie man" and will increase or maintain spending regardless of what happens to revenue ?

Uh that isn't an argument, it is a demonstrable statement of fact.

 

[QuantumPion]

Happened under Clinton. Unfortunately, Bush and Obama are\were not Clinton.

The new republicans (e.g. tea party equivalent), in control of both the house and senate, with a moderate populist president, did manage to balance the budget during an economic boom, yes. It lasted until we had a recession, and the democrats got enough senate seats back to have a filibuster against conservative agendas.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Uh that isn't an argument, it is a demonstrable statement of fact.

I disagree, but assuming you are correct and the bad government will always increase spending regardless of what happens to revenue, then the argument against raising taxes is still busted. Because if "as you claim" the government is going to spend regardless of revenue, not raising taxes will only increase the deficit. And under that logic the only way we could ever reduce the deficit is increase taxes faster than the government can spend it.


I suppose next you are going to tell me that the bad government will only act badly if we raise taxes, and that somehow if we hold the line or reduce taxes that the government will change their evil ways and stop spending Good luck with that! Your good buddy GWB spent 8yrs proving beyond a shadow of a doubt thats not true.

 

[fskimospy]

How did I go off topic?

The topic was that government is going to spend itself into oblivion anyway, so tax cuts don't matter. My counter was that by that logic tax increases don't either.

You then said spending and revenue aren't related.

I said that if they aren't related, why should we give it any taxes?

You said to counter inflation.

I said that's ridiculous. The government controls the printing of money. If they're going to just print money whenever they want it, why should we give them any of our money?

Because runaway inflation is bad?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

My whole point in this thread is not to say increasing taxes is better or worse than cutting spending, I think we all know that we will ultimately have to do some of both if we are ever to get the debt under control.

My point is that although both methods are equally as effective in reducing the deficit, they are not connected or dependent in any way. And that saying increasing taxes without cutting spending won't help the problem is as false as saying cutting spending without raising taxes won't help reduce the deficit.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say look at our deficit spending as a % of gdp over the past 60 or so years. For the most part it has stayed in the 2-5% range. Tax revenues are tied to economic activity. Govt size is moving slightly ahead of it with deficit spending. It has only been the last couple cycles we have blown the doors off.

That said I didnt say they are directly connected. But I think chances are higher they will spend it than use it cut deficit spending or debt.

I think the comparison is valid in regard that if you know you are making x dollars you can only spend y. But I will admit beyond that is isnt a terribly good compaison due to the fact people cant print their own money.

I don't see how that would prove it though. You could only really look at government spending since we went off gold convertability anyway, because thats when our modern system went into place.

Seriously, if you look at tax cuts, starving the beast, tax hikes to balance the budget, etc, you will see that the revenue side and the spending side don't really affect one another. The true constraint on government spending is inflation, not tax revenues. Given the evidence, I don't see how the argument of 'if they have more money, they will spend more money' holds up.

 

[soundforbjt]

The new republicans (e.g. tea party equivalent), in control of both the house and senate, with a moderate populist president, did manage to balance the budget during an economic boom, yes. It lasted until we had a recession, and the democrats got enough senate seats back to have a filibuster against conservative agendas.

Clinton was a fiscal conservative\social liberal, and I'd argue that the people in Congress at the time were nothing like the Tea Baggers of today.

 

[Atreus21]

Because runaway inflation is bad?

Yes, and largely within the power of the government to control, namely by NOT printing money to finance every pet program imaginable?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, and largely within the power of the government to control, namely by NOT printing money to finance every pet program imaginable?

Right, but since we're not trying to live in a government-less Mad Max state, we need some of it.

If we didn't pay any taxes and just printed money for it all, we would get runaway inflation.

That's why we need to pay taxes.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

In today's world, you can usually do something about people stealing your credit card and making unauthorized purchases.

Well then maybe you should have spoken up while GWB spent the last 8yrs spending like a drunken sailor on your credit card for two unfunded wars and increasing annual budget deficits, while at the same time reducing the minimum payments to pay down your card balance by inacting unfunded tax cuts.

 

[PokerGuy]

Starve the beast and trickle down, have both been disproved by Republicans themselves under Bush. The feeble minded still fall for it though.

The whole "starve the beast" thing is and always has been empty rhetoric. It's never been done, so how would we know if it would "work" to achieve certain goals or not?

 

[PokerGuy]

Well then maybe you should have spoken up while GWB spent the last 8yrs spending like a drunken sailor on your credit card

And yet his spending over that time was a mere rounding error compared to what's being spent now. I'm not too worried about gaining 5 pounds, but when you gain 40 pounds in 2 years it's time to go on a diet.