Lower taxes or reduced deficits (Debate)

[olena]

Originally posted by katerkat
I want the government to cut spending on stuff that isn't needed - and then give the excess money back to us (instead into someone's pork project.) Then, as we continue to trim down the government, the need for taxes will decrease, so we will be taxed less. So, I guess I'm voting for both.

(BTW, I'm a Libertarian, hence my desire to trim down the government.)

Ditto!

 

[jrydberg]

In order to make any meaningful cuts to the budget, you have to go after the big ticket items: defense, social security and medicare.

Absolutely correct. And instead of that, we're padding more onto those budgets. That's what causes deficits.

The problem is money is never cut from a budget. It's cut from one place and moved to another.

BTW, taxes were significantly lower in just about every respect when Reagan left office compared to when he entered office. Taxes were lowered to such an extent that Reagan had to raise them a bit from the cuts he made initially. The effect on the economy is a debatable point, but the fact that he substantially cut taxes overall isn't.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

in the Clinto years we had a surplus, but now we have the largest deficit in hisotry.

when you borrow money, you have to pay it back with interest.

the cost of paying back what we're borrowing today will most likely be more of a tax burden than what each taxpayer is saving now because of Bush's cuts.

my personal finances benefitted ssomewhat by the tax cust, but in the long run...????

 

[ripleysmom]

"* To some extent, I believe in supply side economics - i.e., reduction in tax rate does not necessarily equal reduction in tax revenue, over the mid-to-long term."

Yes but when you combine tax cuts with hefty spending increases we have a problem.


* You know as well as I do that spending cuts are highly unlikely at any time, and next to impossible when "we" have the money. The only realistic way to get cuts through is to plead poverty."

Why? The Republicans are in the majority. Weren't they going to show the Democrats how government is supposed to be run?

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and they can't manage the government?

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
Yes but when you combine tax cuts with hefty spending increases we have a problem.

No argument here on that one!!

Why? The Republicans are in the majority. Weren't they going to show the Democrats how government is supposed to be run?

Hee! A ha ha! Oo hoo! (It's times like this that I'm thankful to be neither a Democrat nor a Republican.)

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
BTW, taxes were significantly lower in just about every respect when Reagan left office compared to when he entered office. Taxes were lowered to such an extent that Reagan had to raise them a bit from the cuts he made initially. The effect on the economy is a debatable point, but the fact that he substantially cut taxes overall isn't.

Reagan did indeed cut tax rates. And I would argue that getting rid of a short-term capital gains rate of around 70% probably was the right thing to do. But when the deficit soared as a result of the tax cuts he did sign some substantial tax increases. He didn't mess with the lower rates but made income taxable that hadn't been taxable before. He raised both the social security payroll tax and the medicare tax. He also increased gasoline taxes dramatically.

 

[MosMom]

I would prefer a reduced deficit. The deficit is impacting our economy and I would MUCH rather have a stronger economy than a tax cut that really doesn't effect me much.

 

[jrydberg]

But when the deficit soared as a result of the tax cuts

The deficit soared more because of ballooning defense spending and lack of offsetting cuts in other areas.

Reagan insisted on defense increases while the Democratic Congress vigorously defending the other large budget items -- that led to an inevitable deficit. Tax rates would not have had a substantial impact on that.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by caitycaity


seriously though, spending is cut all the time. it's just then usually re-appropriated to other purposes.

Then it's not really a cut. Just re-appropriated.

Someone like yourself might feel differently because you may not have a job but in the end as a whole, it's not a cut.

for example, a lot of federal research money has been shuffled to defense and homeland security research in the past couple of years instead of other types of research (like education).

IMO, that's where the money should go. Leave education up to the States.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by MosMom
I would prefer a reduced deficit. The deficit is impacting our economy and I would MUCH rather have a stronger economy than a tax cut that really doesn't effect me much.

But if you're taxed more, and that sounds like what you're advocating, you (and I, and Joe down the street) will have less money to pump into the economy. It's all the little people that drives the economy.

 

[emmagata]

Oh I forgot to answer the OP (so sorry!!)


Anyway, I want both.

I want to keep as much of MY money as possible and for the government to spend less of what they take from me.

 

[Bob O]

The think to do is to reduce taxes and also reduce the debt.
By reducing taxes you win actually increase the amount of tax revenue, this has happened now and happened under Pres. Reagan.
The only thing that doesnt happen is government actually reducing the money they spend!!! If the federal government would prioritize the spending that is going on, like getting rid of the NEA and grants to the arts as examples then we could and should have reduced spending and pay down our debt. There is more than enough waste in the federal govt. to give tax breaks and reduce the debt.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Bob O
The think to do is to reduce taxes and also reduce the debt.
By reducing taxes you win actually increase the amount of tax revenue, this has happened now and happened under Pres. Reagan.
The only thing that doesnt happen is government actually reducing the money they spend!!! If the federal government would prioritize the spending that is going on, like getting rid of the NEA and grants to the arts as examples then we could and should have reduced spending and pay down our debt. There is more than enough waste in the federal govt. to give tax breaks and reduce the debt.

The NEA budget is $96 million dollars. Drop that and you still have a budget deficit of around $349.9 billion. The bulk of the deficit is defense, social security, medicare which could be cut if there was the political will do do so, and interest on the debt, which we can only cut by paying off the national debt.

I am all for tax cuts if we have a balanced budget. But I agree with the brave republican senators who are holding up the budget--we should not approve further tax cuts if we don't have spending cuts to offset them.

When you're running a deficit there is no such thing as a tax cut--it is a tax deferral. Whatever benefit we derive, we're passing the cost on to our children. It's going to be hard enough for them to bear the health and social service costs of having the largest senior population EVER, and it is irresponsible for us to run up the debt too.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
I also am in favor of both but I think that before we cut taxes we should make sure that we have the money for it.

I don't understand this logic. This is MY MONEY I would be getting back, not the government's. If the govt has a deficit they should stop spending money. Simple acct 101 .

The govt should never run a surplus either. They means they have more of MY MONEY than they need. So, give it back!

Stop spending. Give me back MY MONEY!

 

[KarenC]

This paper from the Tax Policy Center of the Brooking Institute explains why the recent tax cuts will, in the long run, cost most middle income tax payers more than they gain. For those of you who are genuinely interested in whether tax cuts are good public policy, this is worth reading.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.pdf