Reply With Quote
just as i thought, you're nothing but a chicken acting tough behind the computer...have fun with your hand, lube, and lonely life my friend! cheers!
Actually, I like going out with people I already know. If you need to use the forum to make friends, more power to you.
just as i thought, you're nothing but a chicken acting tough behind the computer...have fun with your hand, lube, and lonely life my friend! cheers!
And you are what, exactly?
Yes, I will enjoy the fact that I don't have to use this forum to make friends. Sad that you can't say the same.
I don't know, but I'm a liberal democrat and I'm all for getting the deficit back in order.
From what I've read, Bush had not vetoed one single spending bill since taking office, so for me, yeah I put some of the blame on him.
We currently have a republican led congress, no?
Why can't they curtail the current spending?
What some don't understand is the tax cuts are being funded by borrowed money that has to be paid back at some time. Or am I wrong on about that?
Yes.We currently have a republican led congress, no?
They seem to have trouble saying no to the desires of an administration bent on re-election.Why can't they curtail the current spending?
You are wrong in this way: federal spending is financed through either tax receipts or borrowing. Borrowing in turn implies future taxation. But it is the level of spending as well as its growth that is most important. You either end up with high tax rates or large amounts of borrowing. In the long term neither is desirable.What some don't understand is the tax cuts are being funded by borrowed money that has to be paid back at some time. Or am I wrong on about that?
Also, there is the impact of the federal en lement programs which makes the rest of federal spending look like nothing.
making friends from Kori's board is a bad thing? i guess it is when no one wants to be yours, eh matt?Yes, I will enjoy the fact that I don't have to use this forum to make friends. Sad that you can't say the same.
Bummer. Oh what will I ever do?
awww im sorry no one wants to be friends with you kiddo...cheer up though, you still have five-finger freddy and his magical lotion to comfort you!
Who is this "freddy"? Did you meet him in a forum?
Also, there is the impact of the federal en lement programs which makes the rest of federal spending look like nothing.
Oh God, here we go again with en lement programs. The debt can't be due to tax cuts we couldn't really afford, a weaker economy than we had 4 years ago, or military spending run amoke. No, of course not it's all about en lement programs.
You do realize that the implied debt of SS and Medicare dwarf the outstanding 'formal' government debt don't you?
Either those programs must be reformed or else there will be benefit cuts and/or payroll tax rate increases. Old people vote, so that means payroll tax rates are likely going to increase barring a significant reform of those programs. I for one think it is time for means testing.
Before I forget, I don't know why you have such a hardon for those programs. Basically they subsidize the lifestyle of whites who enjoyed relatively high incomes during their life at the expense of current lower income non-white workers. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, the payroll tax rates are regressive. I thought Democrats didn't want to screw the "working man" and "minorities"?
I don't know about you, but I can think of a number of things I would rather be doing with my money than having it disappear into those black holes. If you think Uncle Sam is the best money manager around, that's your prerogative. I'd like to make that decision for myself.
But hey, those programs are ing great, my man. A negative return and no way to pass on that money to future generations. No way to use that money to build wealth over one's lifetime. Less money for a home. Less money for one's kids. Great idea.
To with George W. Bush for creating Social Security.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-19-2004 at 04:46 PM.
No, the debt is due to spending we really can't afford. Duh.The debt can't be due to tax cuts we couldn't really afford
I'll have to do some checking but I do know that somewhere down the line, long after Dubya is gone, the tax cuts will need to be paid for and that is why it is like borrowed money, no?
It doesn't take a genius to know that if you cut revenue and increase spending, you will be in the red in record time.
Spending is paid for in one of two ways: tax receipts or debt. When the government borrows it is doing so to finance that spending, not the tax cut.
You said it yourself.It doesn't take a genius to know that if you cut revenue and increase spending
And, when tax cuts cause an increase in federal tax revenues -- why about them?
Because it ain't happening is it?
I believe I read recently that it was but the real issue is spending growth. Taxes and debt are how we finance that spending. If the spending growth rate increases then either we end up with higher taxation and/or larger amounts of debt. Neither is a good recipe for the long term health of this economy.
I concur.
But, I think you're both missing an important part of the equation. Tax policy needs to be established based on tax revenues -- not debt and not spending.
The effective tax rate needs to be set according to what revenues it will produce and, as has been discussed (to blue-faced proportions), higher taxes don't always result in higher tax revenues -- just as lower taxes don't necessarily reduce revenues.
The whole argument that taxes need to be higher to cover spending or reduce debt is bogus. Yes, we need to reduce spending. Yes, we need to reduce the debt. But, as Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both demonstrated, you can increase the tax revenue -- to go towards reducing the debt and to cover spending -- by cutting tax rates.
I'll say it again. Tax policy should never be predicated on what are our spending levels or debt. Our tax policy should be crafted to produce the greatest revenue with the least amount of intrusion on the taxpayer.
At some point, and that point floats from year-to-year, (see Laffer Curve discussion), tax rates become so punitively high that those paying the most start devising methods of reducing their tax burden. That is sometimes accomplished by criminality or fraud...however, it is most generally accomplished by being less productive and reducing taxable income or by hiring sharper lawyers to legally avoid the taxes (See Heinz-Kerry's 12.5% effective rate as an example) and thus, you can raise a persons tax rate and actually end up with less in revenues from that person.
So, raising taxes on the evil rich is not necessarily the solution to our inability to stay within a budget or reduce our debt. We already have 20% of the people paying 80% of the burden and, 40% of the taxpayers pay an astounding 95% of the burden. The 60 out of a hundred lowest paid taxpayers only share 5% of the tax burden.
You are assuming that tax rates are not impacted by increasing spending growth rates and clearly they are in the long run.
If you want low tax rates then you will want a low spending growth rate.
But, spending should follow taxing -- not the other way around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
