A busted argument for not raising taxes

[GuitarDaddy]

I have been hearing over and over the last few days pundits and commentators who are against raising taxes arguing that "If you raise taxes the government will just find a way to spend the increased revenue"

This implies that spending and revenue are somehow connected and that if you raise more revenue and put more in the cookie jar there will be more to spend. IMO this line of reasoning is dishonest and just flat wrong, anybody who has been paying any attention for the last decade surely understands that spending is in no way connected to revenue or we wouldn't be in the debt position that we are currently in.

The same faulty logic was used to justify the Bush tax cuts. The thought being if we reduced taxes it would force the government to spend less, how did that work out for us? After 8 yrs of "starving the beast" government spending is higher than ever and all we have accomplished is pushing the national debt to stratospheric levels.

So IMHO this is not a valid argument against raising taxes and only appeals to the basor instincts of lessor informed folks that don't understand how the government is funded and buy into the big bad government is the boogie man theory.

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.

 

[soulcougher73]

Agreed. Most people are sheeple though.

 

[Atreus21]

I have been hearing over and over the last few days pundits and commentators who are against raising taxes arguing that "If you raise taxes the government will just find a way to spend the increased revenue"

This implies that spending and revenue are somehow connected and that if you raise more revenue and put more in the cookie jar there will be more to spend. IMO this line of reasoning is dishonest and just flat wrong, anybody who has been paying any attention for the last decade surely understands that spending is in no way connected to revenue or we wouldn't be in the debt position that we are currently in.

The same faulty logic was used to justify the Bush tax cuts. The thought being if we reduced taxes it would force the government to spend less, how did that work out for us? After 8 yrs of "starving the beast" government spending is higher than ever and all we have accomplished is pushing the national debt to stratospheric levels.

So IMHO this is not a valid argument against raising taxes and only appeals to the basor instincts of lessor informed folks that don't understand how the government is funded and buy into the big bad government is the boogie man theory.

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.

Let me get this straight...

Your argument is that it doesn't matter how much money we give the government, because it's going to go into crazy amounts of debt anyway.

So then why should we give it any money at all?

We have two scenarios then:

1. People are taxed more, government goes into crazy debt spiral.
2. People are taxed less, government goes into crazy debt spiral.

I'll take 2, please.

 

[fskimospy]

Hilarious. We should give more money to an entity that doesn't care about money, it will just get deeper in debt.

So then why does it need increased revenue at all if it can just keep getting deeper and deeper in debt? If anything, we should eliminate all taxation if the debt spiral is inevitable.

Nowhere did he say that, what he did say was the spending and revenue are not connected to one another, and it's true.

 

[her209]

I have been hearing over and over the last few days pundits and commentators who are against raising taxes arguing that "If you raise taxes the government will just find a way to spend the increased revenue"

But if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, then government will find a way to spend the revenue, which means you should be against cutting taxes. And if you believe that raising taxes lowers revenue, then government won't have as much to spend, which means you should be for raising taxes.

 

[sandorski]

But if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, then government will find a way to spend the revenue, which means you should be against cutting taxes. And if you believe that raising taxes lowers revenue, then government won't have as much to spend, which means you should be for raising taxes.

lol, indeed.

 

[Atreus21]

Nowhere did he say that, what he did say was the spending and revenue are not connected to one another, and it's true.

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

 

[Genx87]

Nowhere did he say that, what he did say was the spending and revenue are not connected to one another, and it's true.

I wouldnt say they arent connected. I would say they arent directly connected. But there is a definate connection between revenues and spending. At the very least given an amount of revenue the govt during good times will attempt to stay within confines of reasonable spending. Meaning if you have revenue x you will have spending y. If you have revenue x + 10, you will have spending x + 10.

So if we raise revenues via higher taxes, chances are higher the govt will enact more spending rather than use new revenues to close the deficit or reduce debt.

 

[PokerGuy]

Spending and revenue are connected, just not as strongly as they should be. At least there's a little pressure on them as the debt increases. Giving them more money just decreases the debt (a little) and takes some of the heat off them, they'll waste it all immediately and we'll be exactly where we are today, except with higher taxes. No thanks.

 

[soundforbjt]

But if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, then government will find a way to spend the revenue, which means you should be against cutting taxes. And if you believe that raising taxes lowers revenue, then government won't have as much to spend, which means you should be for raising taxes.

You need to start a liberal version of Rush, that'd be his logic used if he was a liberal. :thumbsup:

 

[matt0611]

But if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, then government will find a way to spend the revenue, which means you should be against cutting taxes. And if you believe that raising taxes lowers revenue, then government won't have as much to spend, which means you should be for raising taxes.

You're using faulty logic here, because if we lowered tax rates and the government ended up getting more revenue, this would be a result of more economic activity which would benefit everyone. So the economy has increased, but overall the government is getting more tax receipts (even though individually people are paying less taxes.)

Unless you are just joking, in which case, I lol'd

 

[fskimospy]

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

It doesn't have to in any way. US Government spending is not revenue constrained. It can spend however much it likes without collecting a cent in taxes, yes.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them, yet under Bush federal expenditures grew much faster than under Clinton.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

But if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, then government will find a way to spend the revenue, which means you should be against cutting taxes. And if you believe that raising taxes lowers revenue, then government won't have as much to spend, which means you should be for raising taxes.

Well then, there you have it! We must keep taxes exactly as they are or we are DOOMED! But yet we can't reduce spending or that would free up more money to spend on something else so once again we will be DOOMED!

Damn, I'm starting to sound like a rupublican

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldnt say they arent connected. I would say they arent directly connected. But there is a definate connection between revenues and spending. At the very least given an amount of revenue the govt during good times will attempt to stay within confines of reasonable spending. Meaning if you have revenue x you will have spending y. If you have revenue x + 10, you will have spending x + 10.

So if we raise revenues via higher taxes, chances are higher the govt will enact more spending rather than use new revenues to close the deficit or reduce debt.

Can you provide evidence that this is how things work?

 

[Atreus21]

It doesn't have to in any way. US Government spending is not revenue constrained. It can spend however much it likes without collecting a cent in taxes, yes.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them, yet under Bush federal expenditures grew much faster than under Clinton.

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

 

[matt0611]

If we increased taxes to cover the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit that we have (we'll assume that its even possible to do this), would the government care more about lowering spending than they do now or would they care less?

 

[fskimospy]

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

To constrain inflation.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I wouldnt say they arent connected. I would say they arent directly connected. But there is a definate connection between revenues and spending. At the very least given an amount of revenue the govt during good times will attempt to stay within confines of reasonable spending. Meaning if you have revenue x you will have spending y. If you have revenue x + 10, you will have spending x + 10.

So if we raise revenues via higher taxes, chances are higher the govt will enact more spending rather than use new revenues to close the deficit or reduce debt.

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!!!

 

[PingSpike]

Nowhere did he say that, what he did say was the spending and revenue are not connected to one another, and it's true.

Nice. Then let's cancel all taxes and we can keep all the free shit!

 

[Atreus21]

To constrain inflation.

Printing money is the government's responsibility to constrain, not ours to finance.

 

[PingSpike]

If we increased taxes to cover the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit that we have (we'll assume that its even possible to do this), would the government care more about lowering spending than they do now or would they care less?

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

 

[matt0611]

It doesn't have to in any way. US Government spending is not revenue constrained. It can spend however much it likes without collecting a cent in taxes, yes.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them, yet under Bush federal expenditures grew much faster than under Clinton.

Theres a limit to how much the government can borrow from the markets before interest rates start getting too burdensome and the debt spirals out of control.

Even if the fed prints it all, theres still a limit because of the economic disruption and civic unrest that high inflation will cause.

 

[Genx87]

Can you provide evidence that this is how things work?

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Printing money is the governments responsibility to constrain, not ours to finance.

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.

 

[theeedude]

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