A busted argument for not raising taxes

[Trianon]

Really? So if the government collected not a cent in taxes, it wouldn't affect spending?

Not at all, they could still pass the budget entirely built on borrowing on your behalf

 

[sandorski]

Oy vey. Such a simple concept, but the Ideologues still deny it.

 

[PingSpike]

I just figured out how to solve our debt problem. First we pass a law giving everyone access to easy credit. Then we divide up the national debt and levy a one time tax on everyone. Everyone puts the tax on their credit card and then goes bankrupt so they don't have to pay it. Problem solved! We can stimulate the economy at the same time by having everyone buy a new truck on the credit card and not pay for that either.

 

[QuantumPion]

I just figured out how to solve our debt problem. First we pass a law giving everyone access to easy credit. Then we divide up the national debt and levy a one time tax on everyone. Everyone puts the tax on their credit card and then goes bankrupt so they don't have to pay it. Problem solved! We can stimulate the economy at the same time by having everyone buy a new truck on the credit card and not pay for that either.

Except we don't have unlimited trucks. There aren't enough trucks to go around. That's why we have money - to decide who worked hard enough to earn the privilege of a new truck. If you make money worthless by giving everyone infinite money, then people will resort to using a different currency or bartering.

 

[Atreus21]

Because the government provides services that people want.

...but can't pay for.

I guess we have differences of opinion in how that resolves.

 

[rudder]

The reality is we need to reduce the deficit in any way we can, and increasing taxes is one way to do it and doesn't have to be tied to spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

What do you think happens when you take more money out of people's pockets and send it to the government? Government spending does not really produce a high rate of returns.

One the other hand if someone wanted to reduce the deficit... they may come up with a plan to increase GDP. One way to increase GDP is to allow the people to keep more of their money.... you know more disposable income.

Too much government spending has a negative effect on the economy. Only in liberal la la land does raising taxes and not controlling spending equal booming economy.

 

[sandorski]

What do you think happens when you take more money out of people's pockets and send it to the government? Government spending does not really produce a high rate of returns.

One the other hand if someone wanted to reduce the deficit... they may come up with a plan to increase GDP. One way to increase GDP is to allow the people to keep more of their money.... you know more disposable income.

Too much government spending has a negative effect on the economy. Only in liberal la la land does raising taxes and not controlling spending equal booming economy.

Fail

 

[the DRIZZLE]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z2.xls

That link is to an excel file that tracks government spending and receipts as a percent of GDP since 1930. Looking at the numbers its pretty clear the problem is on both the spending and revenue side.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Illogical argument because it supposes that the second sentences of 1 and 2 are equivalent, when there is no evidence to support that.

His argument is based on your own assumptions. You are the one claiming that spending is going to go to infinity either way not matter what happens to revenue.

 

[fskimospy]

His argument is based on your own assumptions. You are the one claiming that spending is going to go to infinity either way not matter what happens to revenue.

What?

Nowhere, anywhere did I claim anything even remotely close to that. Or even on the same planet as that. In what world is 'spending is not constrained by revenue' the same as 'spending will increase to infinity'?

So no, his argument is not based on my assumptions in any way, shape, or form.

 

[nusyo]

you give the Gov $2 they spend $4, you give them $4 they spend $6, you give them $6, they spend $8 .... look at the history how much the gov spending & taxes grew .... and you guys claim they are not related?

if i am going back to school and work my @$$ that some day I might have the chance to make $1 mil, why then should the gov take half of it and give it to those who don't do anything and just rely on the gov?

 

[fskimospy]

you give the Gov $2 they spend $4, you give them $4 they spend $6, you give them $6, they spend $8 .... look at the history how much the gov spending & taxes grew .... and you guys claim they are not related?

if i am going back to school and work my @$$ that some day I might have the chance to make $1 mil, why then should the gov take half of it and give it to those who don't do anything and just rely on the gov?

Well if it's so easy to see how they are related, by all means show us some evidence.

 

[nusyo]

Well if it's so easy to see how they are related, by all means show us some evidence.

can you spend something you don't have (revenue) ? if you overspend, dont you have to tax more to make up the deficit? by definition they are related

u want evidence that we're spending more than ever, and we're taxed more than ever?

heck a $20 ticket in california (for using a cellphone while driving) will cost you $200 (will all the taxes included)

 

[the DRIZZLE]

What?

Nowhere, anywhere did I claim anything even remotely close to that. Or even on the same planet as that. In what world is 'spending is not constrained by revenue' the same as 'spending will increase to infinity'?

So no, his argument is not based on my assumptions in any way, shape, or form.

Take what you are saying to its logical conclusion. If spending is growing faster than revenue, and is not constrained by revenue it will go to infinity. Of course this is nonsense, which is why your position that there is no relationship that spending is not constrained by revenue is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

 

[IGBT]

get used to the fact that it's not your money. And taxes are income confiscation. The US has a spending problem. Not a revenue problem. Spending needs to be brought in parity with the massive revenue confiscated from tax payers.

 

[Anarchist420]

Expenditures were higher when the Constitution was formed and there was the Congressional power to tax. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no taxation and much lower expenditures, as well as no legal tender.

Therefore, the OP's argument couldn't possibly fail more.

To make my point: if we went back to tariffs and excise taxes, then expenditures would have to be reduced accordingly. No creditor with any sense would loan to a government without high revenues.

 

[rudder]

Fail

Can you cite any examples of governments who kept an economy growing while increasing taxes and not curtailing spending?

How about Germany? Their economy is beginning to boom. Like many European countries government spending consumed a large portion of the GDP. Who would have guessed that this turn around in their economy came after implementing a very large austerity program. They realized government spending had to be cut. The German government realized that although they were raising some taxes to reduce the deficit, they had to reduce spending as well. This came in the form of reduced business subsidies, cutting jobless benefits, and shedding government jobs.

 

[Smoove910]

This is why the country is in such turmoil. Not a one of you can 100% say how the government spends it's money. Sure, you can assume, quote internet threads, watch your FOX news or whatever else... but the fact remains,

"If all the sheep are confused, the wolf can prey easily".

As long as the US continues down this path, things will remain constant. A Revolution is needed and the Government needs put in it's place.

 

[sandorski]

Can you cite any examples of governments who kept an economy growing while increasing taxes and not curtailing spending?

How about Germany? Their economy is beginning to boom. Like many European countries government spending consumed a large portion of the GDP. Who would have guessed that this turn around in their economy came after implementing a very large austerity program. They realized government spending had to be cut. The German government realized that although they were raising some taxes to reduce the deficit, they had to reduce spending as well. This came in the form of reduced business subsidies, cutting jobless benefits, and shedding government jobs.

Is anyone suggesting doing that? Seems to me that the only ones insisting on one or the other are the Republicans/Conservatives who refuse to Raise Taxes. Not only that, but they insist on Cutting Taxes further.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

How quickly the conversation turns from simple math to irrational emotional babbling about the constitution and income confiscation, why should the goboment take 1/2 my money, if I give um two dolla they spend four dolla. Viva la Revolution! :awe:

You guys should take up torches and march on da white house, like the angry mob that stormed Frankenstiens castle

 

[JTsyo]

So then why should we give the government any taxes at all?

The more you borrow, the more expense it will get to borrow more. Also if lenders knew the government didn't have tax income and needed to borrow to pay back the loans, they would be very wary to lend.

 

[rudder]

Is anyone suggesting doing that? Seems to me that the only ones insisting on one or the other are the Republicans/Conservatives who refuse to Raise Taxes. Not only that, but they insist on Cutting Taxes further.

43% of wage earners in the U.S. pay no Federal income taxes. Out of 151 million tax payers... 65 million owe nothing or even get money back. This same 43% are benefiting from tax credits... whether it be homebuyers, hybrid car buyers, child tax credits, EIC, etc.

The deficit can be reduced by reducing spending. Allowing people who pay taxes to keep more of their money will stimulate the economy and eventually as the economy grows... tax revenues can catch up with spending.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to see that every $1 spent by the federal government comes from somewhere.. whether it be borrowed or received by the IRS. That $1 spent by the government gets very little return.

 

[sandorski]

43% of wage earners in the U.S. pay no Federal income taxes. Out of 151 million tax payers... 65 million owe nothing or even get money back. This same 43% are benefiting from tax credits... whether it be homebuyers, hybrid car buyers, child tax credits, EIC, etc.

The deficit can be reduced by reducing spending. Allowing people who pay taxes to keep more of their money will stimulate the economy and eventually as the economy grows... tax revenues can catch up with spending.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to see that every $1 spent by the federal government comes from somewhere.. whether it be borrowed or received by the IRS. That $1 spent by the government gets very little return.

Yay, fun with numbers! :\

Your points are meaningless. Your Plan Fails and is absurd.

 

[QuantumPion]

It's funny how easy it is to tell who here works for a living and who lives in their parent's basement (or college dorm on their parent's dime).

 

[fskimospy]

Take what you are saying to its logical conclusion. If spending is growing faster than revenue, and is not constrained by revenue it will go to infinity. Of course this is nonsense, which is why your position that there is no relationship that spending is not constrained by revenue is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

It would also not grow to infinity if spending is constrained by factors other than revenue, as has already been discussed in this thread. Noting the reality that spending is not constrained by revenue is not the same as saying spending is not constrained by anything, ever.

This has all already been discussed in this thread, so before trying to tell me what the logical conclusion of my argument is, please be sure to actually read it in the future.