Tax cut or the national deficit?

@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
September 24, 2010 4:00pm CST
What to do about the Bush era tax cuts have sparked fierce debate. Three positions have emerged, the let all of the tax cuts expire, let the tax cuts for only those above 250K to expire, or let none of the tax cuts to expire. I find it interesting how at the beginning of this year a lot of people were concerned over the growth of the national deficit. With the national deficit growing to 13 trillion dollars at some point the debt has to be dealt with. Those that have the opinion that the tax cuts should be renewed would say that spending should be cut. My question to that position is what do you cut? The last budget already had a built in 1 trillion dollars of debt if my mind serves me correctly. So you need to cut the budget back to a trillion dollars and then cut it back even more to create a surplus to pay down the deficit. So back to my point what are you willing to cut to find one trillion dollars plus some extra cuts for the pay down. The question is are we still willing to finance current spending on the back of future generations just so we can keep our taxes low?
1 person likes this
6 responses
• United States
24 Sep 10
Gew, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would also cost us $800 BILLION over ten years. So you have to pay for that along with the Trillion. This is the hypocrisy of the Republican "Pledge to America", they want to cut spending, but spend more on tax cuts. The only way to pay down the debt is to cut spending, raise taxes, and cut entitlements. And, NO politician is going to do call for this during an election year.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
25 Sep 10
Well no politician that called for the measures you speak of would win and winning is the name of the game.
2 people like this
• United States
26 Sep 10
Mattic, the fact is that the government would not have $800 Billion to pay down the national debt, or the deficit. You can call this what you want, but that is a FACT!!! The problem is capping spending. Both parties have shown that they don't want to stop spending. Remember that Republicans spent like drunken sailors during the Bush years, and added Trillions to our national debt. These tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy. Please show me ONE economist that says that extending these tax cuts will stimulate the economy? I can tell you right now you WON'T find one. What you are NOT seeing is that both parties use government spending to buy votes. Democrats redistribute wealth to programs that help the middle class, and poor. Republicans redistribute wealth to programs that help the upper class in hopes that it "trickles down". Either way, both parties use tax dollars to buy votes, and until the people of this country stand up and do something about it, it will always be like this. You say that there is "no reason for tax increases", but I beg to differ on that. Bill Clinton raised taxes while the country was in a recession, and he created more jobs than Reagan, and Bush COMBINED!!!!!
@mattic (282)
• United States
25 Sep 10
The progressive lie is that tax cuts are "spending". It is simply not so. Allowing Americans to keep more of the money they earned is not "spending". This is further exacerbated by ignoring the fact that tax cuts (and this is really not a tax cut - these are the current rates that they must vote to extend) - lower taxes raise government revenues. Simply freezing government spending at current levels would balance the budget within 5 years. John Podesta's claims were histrionics from a big government collectivist intent on further eroding individual liberties. Daniel J. Mitchell of Cat explains it in a Philadelphia Enquirer article. If spending is capped by a hard freeze at current levels - the budget will be balanced by 2016. Limiting the growth to 1 or 2 per cent would push that out to 2017 and 2020, respectively. Big government wealth redistributionists - who want to give your hard earned tax dollars to those who haven't earned them - are squealing at limiting their vote buying hand-outs. The key thing to realize is that there is simply no reason for tax increases. As Milton Friedman said, "In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with."
• United States
24 Sep 10
Well we can cut out the perks that have been abused in congress and the senate for starters. Hey we pay our own gas and drive our own cars they can too. Now it may not sound like much but think of it this way, they get new car every two years right? say we'll call it an even $20,000 each car and say $3000 for gas per year and $1000 for maintenance (tires, oil, etc) that's appr. $25,000 a year each. There is say 2 congress reps and two senate per state (yes I know this varies per state but we're estimating) so we're looking at 200 [people about. that's $4,800,000 a year, will it save the budget no but it's a start. Now let's do that for all of the government employees who drive work vehicles not only at work but for personal use, that is thousands of employees, thousands! People from IRS to FRA to governors have government vehicles they drive for personal use. That is not including first class air travel, they can go coach or pay for their own upgrades.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
25 Sep 10
This is all good and all but that alone wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget not including paying down the national deficit.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Sep 10
i did say it wouldn't fix the problem but it would be a start and not to sound cliche but a penny saved is a penny earned.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
25 Sep 10
I did a post on the cost of congress staffers and congressional salaries. For example my congress man has a paid staff that cost the taxpayers over $700,000 per year and then add his salary of $170,000 and you have a sizable chunk of money. Wee have over 500 congressmen and senators. cutting that would make a dent in the Federal Budget. As far as cutting taxes and paying for it, every time it, tax cuts, has been done the revenue to the government has increased. If you have $10,000 in taxable income you work 2 hours a week to pay your taxes. If you have $100,000 in taxable income you work 13 hours a week to pay your taxes. As your taxable income increases you spend more time working just to pay your taxes and at some point it is not worth working because more of you time is spent working to pay taxes that you take home. To me the answer is simple cut spending starting with cutting the Congressional staff by 50% and putting a freeze on all government salaries until they are in line with the private sector and reduce taxes across the board.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
25 Sep 10
Here is a report that disagree with yours: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/ http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts One thing is for certain we can not keep reducing unemployment by hiring more people to work in government. We can't spend our way out of this recession - nearly a trillion dollars and unemployment increases when it was to go down. Cash for clunkers spurred auto sales for a few weeks and then a slump. The poor do not have cheep cars available to them because they were removed from the market, so now the poor have to finance their purchases when they used to be able to pick one up for a few hundred bucks and do some work to make it drivable. The government tried to pay people $8,000 to purchase a home and home sale rose only to fall after the program ended. The government refinanced high risk loans on homes to prevent foreclosure only to see foreclosures increase as these homes ended up in foreclosure. Maybe the tax cuts increased revenue or not depending on who you choose to follow their numbers but under the Tax Cuts we had unemployment at 4% to less than 5%, the stock market was increasing and people were making money in their retirement account. We tried increased spending under President Bush and again under President Obama and it has not improved things. Now you want to double down on the same thing. I say lets try something different reduce spending and keep the tax cuts in place and see what happens.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Sep 10
Actually, revenue did NOT increase following the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and incomes went down. Also, incomes were lower than 2000 every year of the Bush Presidency except for 2006 and 2007 and during those years the increased incomes were enjoyed predominantly by the wealthy. http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Sep 10
Great discussion! I'm afraid the sad truth is NO politician is willing to tell what I believe to be the "real" truth, which is in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt there are going to have to be lots of tough choices made. I've heard and read that many economists that know a heck of a lot more about these things than I ever will say a combination of increased revenue in the form of raising taxes and cuts are going to be needed. To do just one of those, there are going to be lots of angry constituents; to do both, there are going to be more angry constituents than any politician is going to risk, or at least that's what they think. We hear lots of talk about how the government has to cut spending but when specifics are mentioned there are always enough who will complain that particular program or service is essential to take it off the table. Therefore, there's not much left ON the table! We all know one man's pork is another man's treasure. Even the voters who go on and on about wasteful spending often feel the spending that benefits their own backyard somehow isn't really wasteful at all. Funny how that works, isn't it? The bottom line is our lawmakers don't give us nearly enough credit when it comes right down to it; at other tough times throughout our history the people of our great nation have been willing to band together and sacrifice and give up at least a little bit for the general good. It's been probably the last 25-30 years that we haven't been asked to play any real part in helping us get through tough times. I think that has made some of us lazy, greedy and a bit selfish. Sometimes it's necessary to compromise, to give up one thing in order to ensure something more important will be there for those who need it more and for the time when WE may need it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and that anyone who can work for a living should do so. I also know there are times when we may need a safety net despite our best efforts, sometimes an entire lifetime of best efforts. What we need are lawmakers who are willing to risk their own election or reelection by telling us the truth and laying it on the line. Tax cuts all around, especially for the very rich aren't going to help us balance the budget nor are they going to get the economy moving. Cutting spending alone isn't going to do it either and there are some things that really can't be cut without causing more harm than good. The one thing that really confuses me is how some can claim we can't give an extend in unemployment compensation for those who are out of work through no fault of their own and REALLY need those checks unless they're offset by cutting something else yet they have no problem with extending tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost of $800 billion without paying for them at all. That's some kind of magical math I must have missed in school! Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Sep 10
There are quite a few things about Reagan that today's Republicans like to forget when they're singing his praises. He wasn't so popular and beloved because he wouldn't work with the other party! Like you said, he NEGOTIATED and he did what he really thought was right not just what was right for his party. I so agree about funding two wars at once. I'd never try to claim that our current deficit and debt can be blamed only on one party, but let's face it, the GOP has beentrying to put ALL the blame on Obama and the Democrats and that doesn't fly at all. Annie
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Sep 10
This country does not...repeat (with strong emphasis)- does not- have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. You can keep raising taxes, removing tax breaks, eliminating tax cust all uyou want, but it will do no good at all. We absolutely must get spending under control. What we need to do is strip the federal government back to it'sconstitutional limits. This is the only way we are ever going to restore our economy propperly. And by propperly I don't mean temporary prosperity, false prosperity or create more bubbles. This means eliminating many programs and agencies that people have started to rely on or mistakenly believe they are entitled to or believe they are propper federal government roles.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 Sep 10
No X, it makes someone an anti-government extremist. Did I tell you about the argument I got in on another forum where people were trying to convince me that libertarians were anarchists?
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
27 Sep 10
Yeh, I know, it's pretty sad that common sense makes someone a bad candidate these days isn't it?
• United States
26 Sep 10
X, the problem with this is that you would NEVER win an election running on these issues. It doesn't matter if you make sense or not.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
24 Sep 10
The real answer is both. Cut taxes, cut spending. Take a giant pair of scissors, cut up the bills and then throw a huge bonfire/celebration party where all of Congress gets drunk and spends the rest of the year hungover in their respective states. (Sarcasm)
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
25 Sep 10
For every dollar of tax cuts you would need a dollar of spending cut. So you would still need more spending cuts out side of the cut to offset the tax cuts.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Sep 10
That is unless you assume that tax cuts lead to hiring sprees which in turn puts more people into the tax-paying pool and decreases the number of people dependent on social programs. Which can potentially put more tax revenue into the government's pockets and less money paid out in social programs. What a novel concept. Put people back to work with tax cuts to small businesses so they can hire people which means more people pay taxes which means less people need social support money which means the government has more spendable funds. Unless your assumption is that tax cuts could not possibly yield more money than it loses from tax cuts. But the above numbers are highly unquantifiable and therefore completely ignored. Now, appreciable cuts would still have to be made in government. But if the IRS started auditing Congress and the Presidential cabinets, they may collect at least half of the national debt in back taxes. (Sarcasm intended).