Would you support CUTGO?

[techs]

OK, I just made up the term and idea of CUTGO.
CUTGO would require the Congress to either cut spending or find savings in expenditures before cutting taxes. It would stop the irresponsible usage of the deficit to give a phoney tax cut that was only a loan and would give real incentive to cut spending if either party wanted to give a tax cut.

 

[SirStev0]

I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

 

[Stunt]

In principle I support the idea of cutting spending and reducing taxation but there is a significant problem with the concept of forced balanced budgets. It is well known the economy acts in cycles; times of recession and times of large productivity growth. The government currently funds social programs which couldn't handle huge swings in funding.

Imagine large amounts of people dying and undereducated during recessions while attempting to stimulate productivity and innovation through tax cut incentives. I think as long as politicans understand the long term goal is balanced budgets and large deficits on the long term are not sustainable, these structured catch phrases are simple minded and misleading.

 

[Craig234]

CITGO is great, it funds progressive help for the poor in Venezuela, and because of Chavez's leadership, across much of the continent.

Oh, CUTGO. Ya, it sounds ok to me, though I don't think we need any more tax cuts with the skyrocketing debt and interest to pay, until we get our budget fixed, in decades.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll agree with Stunt, with one caveat. Even in a booming economy, our leadership has refused to create budget surpluses to reduce debt. That really needs to be done, otherwise debt simply grows cyclically until Uncle Sam hits his credit limit... next time there's a recession- sorry, suckers, no deficits for you... When it's time to begin drawing on the SS trust- sorry, suckers, that was really just an incredibly regressive payroll tax.... can't afford it- go away... gotta keep paying the bankers...

 

[Genx87]

How about we just demand the govt pay for its bills with the revenue afforded them through taxation of its citizens?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

 

[ProfJohn]

umm PAYGO requires you to cut spending before you can cut taxes.

What you are asking for is already there, they is why the Dems bitched about it going away.

Of course the argument as to whether tax cuts lead to more or less revenue is still floating around out there.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How about we just demand the govt pay for its bills with the revenue afforded them through taxation of its citizens?

Because balancing budgets on a strict 'fiscal year' (or what - day, month?) basis is no more worthwhile in government than in your personal finances.

You have to accept and expect cyclical deficits and surpluses, but sustained debt growth is poor planning and damaging in the long run.

 

[theeedude]

PAYGO is CUTGO. It requires that taxcuts be offset with spending cuts.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87
How about we just demand the govt pay for its bills with the revenue afforded them through taxation of its citizens?

Because balancing budgets on a strict 'fiscal year' (or what - day, month?) basis is no more worthwhile in government than in your personal finances.

You have to accept and expect cyclical deficits and surpluses, but sustained debt growth is poor planning and damaging in the long run.

Correction: Debt growth relative to your creditors is damaging long term. A rising debt smaller than GDP growth will improve your positioning relative to other nations. Much like a rich individual can take on more debt than a poor person in straight dollar figures and as long as both grow income faster than debt; they are in no worse financial situation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87
How about we just demand the govt pay for its bills with the revenue afforded them through taxation of its citizens?

Because balancing budgets on a strict 'fiscal year' (or what - day, month?) basis is no more worthwhile in government than in your personal finances.

You have to accept and expect cyclical deficits and surpluses, but sustained debt growth is poor planning and damaging in the long run.

Correction: Debt growth relative to your creditors is damaging long term. A rising debt smaller than GDP growth will improve your positioning relative to other nations. Much like a rich individual can take on more debt than a poor person in straight dollar figures and as long as both grow income faster than debt; they are in no worse financial situation.

Nope, you're assuming that your present level of debt has no damaging effects, and that everyone else will maintain the same ratios.

Debt isn't always a bad thing (mortgages can be 'good' debt, and corporate debt runs most of the economy), but unless that debt is being used to purchase something of value, it's simply damaging.

It might make sense, for example, to take on debt to build a highway with a net positive return, but it doesn't make sense to increase debt to pay for operating expenses. A much better rule than the one you're using is that all of your operatig and maintenance expenses should be payable in-period, while infrastructure and other 'investments' (or, for example, disaster recovery) can be financed as long as the financing makes sense, and you can afford to service the debt.

Because government spending produces returns outside of government, and has at least some effect on the economy, you can modify this to include cyclical over and under-spending, but a consistently growing debt, in a vaccuum, is not a good thing, even if it is shrinking in real dollars (though this is less damaging than if it is growing in real dollars).

 

[sandorski]

The US will not be the dominant Economy forever. When it ceases to be that, it will be in deep sh1t and will fall much further and faster than it needs to because of current policies.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US will not be the dominant Economy forever. When it ceases to be that, it will be in deep sh1t and will fall much further and faster than it needs to because of current policies.

There's a significant list of nations more likely to get in "deep sh1t" before the US is.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

This is something that is often lost of many people from the left. They somehow think a taxcut should send money back to people who dont pay taxes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
PAYGO is CUTGO. It requires that taxcuts be offset with spending cuts.

That's what I was thinking.

Anyway... our problem is not that we are undertaxed. We simply spend/waste too much money. At some point our toes are going to hang a little to far over the edge. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Hopefully I'll be retired on an island in the South Pacific by then.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US will not be the dominant Economy forever. When it ceases to be that, it will be in deep sh1t and will fall much further and faster than it needs to because of current policies.

There's a significant list of nations more likely to get in "deep sh1t" before the US is.

True enough, but no comfort for the US.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

This is something that is often lost of many people from the left. They somehow think a taxcut should send money back to people who dont pay taxes.

Its kind of funny how they always ignore this point.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

Let's use an example:
Former chairman of Home Depot. I think he'd qualify as rich. Where'd his huge salary, and thus the huge amount of taxes he pays come from? Ans: the average person paying a little bit extra for that 2x4.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

This is something that is often lost of many people from the left. They somehow think a taxcut should send money back to people who dont pay taxes.

Its kind of funny how they always ignore this point.

All pay Taxes, not all pay Income Taxes.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
OK, I just made up the term and idea of CUTGO.
CUTGO would require the Congress to either cut spending or find savings in expenditures before cutting taxes. It would stop the irresponsible usage of the deficit to give a phoney tax cut that was only a loan and would give real incentive to cut spending if either party wanted to give a tax cut.

Do you understand the concept of a loan we never really have to pay back? Because that's what our debt is...we keep taking out loans to pay for the previous loans, and the depreciation of the dollar allows us to continue to do this because the true wealth of our debt remains the same despite the dollar increases.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
The US will not be the dominant Economy forever. When it ceases to be that, it will be in deep sh1t and will fall much further and faster than it needs to because of current policies.

There's a significant list of nations more likely to get in "deep sh1t" before the US is.

True enough, but no comfort for the US.

Even after our economy falls from the dominant #1 spot, we will still be politically and militarily the most powerful, thus helping preserve our position...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

Let's use an example:
Former chairman of Home Depot. I think he'd qualify as rich. Where'd his huge salary, and thus the huge amount of taxes he pays come from? Ans: the average person paying a little bit extra for that 2x4.

Is that really your argument to the facts? The vast majority of the ?rich? people we are talking about, people making $200K a year and above, are not massively wealthy CEO?s getting multi-million dollar bonuses. Not to mention that the board of directors and the shareholders decided he would get that bonus, not some guy buying a 2 X 4. Besides, that argument can be used for a lot of things. Where does raising the minimum wage increase come from? The avg guy buying (insert goods here). So since the avg. guy is paying for both of the pay increases shouldn?t the avg. guy expect to get a return on the investment in the form of taxes? What do you mean we can?t tax people making minimum wage (we don?t now and we won?t when its raised), both are paid for by the ?avg.? guy.

Besides, your argument doesn?t address the real point. If by and large, only the rich pay income taxes, any and all income tax cuts will affect mostly the rich. The only way to give the poor and lower middle class a tax break would be to give them more than they pay back at the end of the year (We already do actually for some people with the EIC). The rest of the middle class don?t pay much so anything they get back will seem paltry even though it?s a considerable percent of what the paid in.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: techs
OK, I just made up the term and idea of CUTGO.
CUTGO would require the Congress to either cut spending or find savings in expenditures before cutting taxes. It would stop the irresponsible usage of the deficit to give a phoney tax cut that was only a loan and would give real incentive to cut spending if either party wanted to give a tax cut.

Do you understand the concept of a loan we never really have to pay back? Because that's what our debt is...we keep taking out loans to pay for the previous loans, and the depreciation of the dollar allows us to continue to do this because the true wealth of our debt remains the same despite the dollar increases.

A loan we never have to pay back??? What are you smoking?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I agree with you there... however this would just make it even harder for middle and lower class to actually get a cut, since only tax cuts for the rich.

Since by and large, only the rich pay any real portion of the income tax dollars collected, it would be easy to surmise that any tax cut would mainly affect the people actually paying said tax.

This is something that is often lost of many people from the left. They somehow think a taxcut should send money back to people who dont pay taxes.

Its kind of funny how they always ignore this point.

All pay Taxes, not all pay Income Taxes.

I specifically stated income taxes and I think its safe to assume that?s what Genx87 was talking about as well.

However, since you bring it up, can you think of any tax that the rich don?t pay the majority of? Maybe some state and local level taxes but on the Federal level I doubt it. Can you think of a Federal tax (not a tax gift IE. No giving them more than they pay)cut that would significantly help the poor and middle class? Can?t touch S.S.I or Medicaid since they aren?t solvent as it is.