A busted argument for not raising taxes

[MomentsofSanity]

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.

With that analogy Bush would be more like an undiagnosed thyroid condition. You didn't realize how bad off you were when you started gaining that first 5 pounds but since it was left unchecked you've ballooned up.

 

[soundforbjt]

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.

Because he didn't count the turkey (Afghanistan) and dessert (mis-spelled on purpose) (Iraq) in his weight gain\food deficit. :whiste:

 

[Atreus21]

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.

I agree. We should and do pay taxes.

And the government prints money and goes into mammoth debt anyway.

So why should we give it more real money when it can just print fake money?

 

[fskimospy]

I agree. We should and do pay taxes.

And the government prints money and goes into mammoth debt anyway.

So why should we give it more real money when it can just print fake money?

To curb inflation.

We've been over this.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

What do you mean, you disagree? It happened! In the last 3 years, government revenue has gone down while government expenditures have gone up by a ludicrous amount.

As for the second point, it's called starving the beast. The government can only print so much money before interest rates and inflation force that policy to end. GWB was able to run on ~$200 billion/year deficit because the economy was growing, so it was somewhat sustainable. $1700 billion/year deficit is NOT sustainable, and it is not possible to raise taxes enough to pay for that level of spending.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Agreed. Bush went insane on spending. And so did congress and the senate, who had to approve all this.

If government is going to go crazy on spending, let them deal with their own problems. They asked for taxes, they got them, and they went into fabulous debt anyway. Now they come to us looking for an additional allowance, without any indication whatsoever that they will be responsible with it.

It's like I said earlier.

Two scenarios:

1. We pay more taxes. The government goes on crazy spending spree.
2. We pay less taxes. The government goes on crazy spending spree.

Until the government stops the crazy spending sprees, 2 is the best option.

 

[Atreus21]

To curb inflation.

We've been over this.

Yes, we have. And as I said before, It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to curb inflation. We don't print the money. The government does.

Why should we finance the government's inability to stop printing money?

 

[QuantumPion]

Because he didn't count the turkey (Afghanistan) and dessert (mis-spelled on purpose) (Iraq) in his weight gain\food deficit. :whiste:

I'm pretty sure the yearly cost of the Iraq/Afghan wars was not $1.3 trillion dollars.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, we have. And as I said before, It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to curb inflation. We don't print the money. The government does.

Why should we finance the government's inability to stop printing money?

Because we want X amount of services and Y amount of inflation.

You keep asking why we should pay taxes at all, and I keep giving you the same answer. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. Bush went insane on spending. And so did congress and the senate, who had to approve all this.

If government is going to go crazy on spending, let them deal with their own problems. They asked for taxes, they got them, and they went into fabulous debt anyway. Now they come to us looking for an additional allowance, without any indication whatsoever that they will be responsible with it.

It's like I said earlier.

Two scenarios:

1. We pay more taxes. The government goes on crazy spending spree.
2. We pay less taxes. The government goes on crazy spending spree.

Until the government stops the crazy spending sprees, 2 is the best option.

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

 

[Atreus21]

Because we want X amount of services and Y amount of inflation.

You keep asking why we should pay taxes at all, and I keep giving you the same answer. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm as intellectually honest as I can manage to be. I'm never deliberately obtuse.

To the extent that we can afford these services without going into insane amounts of debt, I agree that we should be taxed for them. But that's not the case.

 

[Atreus21]

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

No evidence to support that the government spends like crazy? Why then are they mulling a tax increase?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm as intellectually honest as I can manage to be. I'm never deliberately obtuse.

To the extent that we can afford these services without going into insane amounts of debt, I agree that we should be taxed for them. But that's not the case.

That's really completely irrelevant to this thread. What you think appropriate levels of taxation and spending are is your business, but this thread is about pointing out the important fact that the two are not dependent upon one another.

 

[fskimospy]

No evidence to support that the government spends like crazy? Why then are they mulling a tax increase?

No evidence to support that the outcomes of options 1 and 2 would be the same, ie: the same amount of debt. False equivalence.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I have no problem with Republicans taking the negotiating position that they want guaranteed spending cuts before they will sign on for taxes increases, I think thats a reasonable conservative position. But call it was it is a negotiating position and don't try and justify it with the stupid argument that "if you tax it, they will spend it"

The only reason I hate to see the two issues connected is that its going to be hard enough to come to concensus on either tax increases or spending cuts individually (ie.. what taxes to increase, and what spending to cut) and combining the two seperate issues seems to almost guarantee there will be no comprimise from either side.

I wish we could agree that both are necessary and tackle each individually.

 

[Atreus21]

That's really completely irrelevant to this thread. What you think appropriate levels of taxation and spending are is your business, but this thread is about pointing out the important fact that the two are not dependent upon one another.

I don't understand.

Sooner or later, the government is going to have to pay, in tax money, for whatever it spent money on. Right?

No evidence to support that the outcomes of options 1 and 2 would be the same, ie: the same amount of debt. False equivalence.

Whether it results in a debt of 14 trillion at one tax level or $18 trillion at another, the result is still the same. We're throwing our tax dollars into the trash heap. Whereas if government were forced via no increased tax revenue to meet it's financial obligations on existing revenue, they might learn something about financial discipline.

If government approached the taxpayers and said, "we need a tax increase to pay for all the stupid stuff we did, and after that we won't do it anymore," I'd gladly accept a tax increase.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't understand.

Sooner or later, the government is going to have to pay, in tax money, for whatever it spent money on. Right?

Nope. That's why government spending isn't constrained by revenue, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

[JD50]

Good point OP, I guess we don't need to raise taxes then either.

 

[rudder]

So they way you see it...taking money out of people's pockets which could go towards eating out, buying electronics, buying services, or generally putting it into the economy will do more good if the government takes it and spends it.

 

[fskimospy]

Good point OP, I guess we don't need to raise taxes then either.

How does that follow from the point of the OP? Saying that they are not dependent on each other in absolutely no way makes a statement as to what our tax policy should be.

It's merely correcting a widespread myth.

 

[Atreus21]

Nope. That's why government spending isn't constrained by revenue, which is the whole point of this thread.

So revenue doesn't affect spending, but spending more than revenue creates deficits.

So then why are we trying to bridge the deficit with increased revenue?

You may say to combat inflation again, but that's not what the OP said. He said it was necessary to plug the deficit.

 

[fskimospy]

So revenue doesn't affect spending, but spending more than revenue creates deficits.

So then why are we trying to bridge the deficit with increased revenue?

You may say to combat inflation again, but that's not what the OP said. He said it was necessary to plug the deficit.

They are the same thing.

 

[Atreus21]

They are the same thing.

...so why not just...not create the deficit in the first place?

 

[piasabird]

If a person with a credit card spends too much money, you dont offer to increase their debt limit you send them to get counseling. That is because spending too much is a mental disease. Greed is a problem. No matter how much our government has, it never wants to give money back. Try to prove me wrong????? Just speaking from 53 years of personal experience.

 

[fskimospy]

...so why not just...not create the deficit in the first place?

Because the government provides services that people want.