6 ms·

Aren't most of these 'tax increases' simply an expiration of the huge tax cuts made under the previous administration as a temporary measure? If I recall corre

Aren't most of these 'tax increases' simply an expiration of the huge tax cuts made under the previous administration as a temporary measure? If I recall correctly, those cuts were strongly criticized at the time as being unsustainable and likely to lead to huge budget deficits. Rather than fix the core financial problems at the time, a tax cut was used to punt unpopular measures into the next administration. I guess those problems could continue to be ignored for the sake of popularity, but that plan hasn't worked very well so far. Edit: For the downvote brigade; no, those cuts did not help you: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/01/tax_cuts_ii_revenge_of_the_tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/01/tax_cuts...

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I guess those problems could continue to be ignored for the sake of popularity There is another option. The stuff the taxes were paying for could be stripped from the budget. Rather than fix the core financial problems at the time, a tax cut was used to punt unpopular measures into the next administration. Perhaps this time they should think about a more permanent fix. As unsustainable as the tax cuts may have been, monotonically increasing taxes are also unsustainable. The purpose of taxes is not to tweak the economy. It's just that taxes, and government spending overall, is such an enormous proportion of the economy that it's possible for them to have such an effect. I submit that it would be better to eliminate the use of the economy as a partisan lever by allowing we the people to decide how our money should be used. EDIT: put in the word "been" I'd missed in 3rd para.
- charleso 16y ago
  You've described the core of the problem: Everyone feels entitled to their entitlements, but nobody in the U.S. seems willing to pay for them. 'We the people' elected folks to 'decide how our money should be used'. That's the job of elected officials -- they're the hired help. A 'permanent fix' would involve either eliminating programs or raising sufficient funds to actually pay for them. Which subsidies which you personally benefit from would you like to see stripped out? Deductible mortgage interest? Cheaper cars? Lower gasoline costs? Cheaper food? You're paying for all of those now.
jsz0 16y ago
Most of them seem to be. The previous administration didn't fund most (any?) of their tax cuts.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I guess those problems could continue to be ignored for the sake of popularity There is another option. The stuff the taxes were paying for could be stripped from the budget. Rather than fix the core financial problems at the time, a tax cut was used to punt unpopular measures into the next administration. Perhaps this time they should think about a more permanent fix. As unsustainable as the tax cuts may have been, monotonically increasing taxes are also unsustainable. The purpose of taxes is not to tweak the economy. It's just that taxes, and government spending overall, is such an enormous proportion of the economy that it's possible for them to have such an effect. I submit that it would be better to eliminate the use of the economy as a partisan lever by allowing we the people to decide how our money should be used. EDIT: put in the word "been" I'd missed in 3rd para.

charleso 16y ago
You've described the core of the problem: Everyone feels entitled to their entitlements, but nobody in the U.S. seems willing to pay for them. 'We the people' elected folks to 'decide how our money should be used'. That's the job of elected officials -- they're the hired help. A 'permanent fix' would involve either eliminating programs or raising sufficient funds to actually pay for them. Which subsidies which you personally benefit from would you like to see stripped out? Deductible mortgage interest? Cheaper cars? Lower gasoline costs? Cheaper food? You're paying for all of those now.

jsz0 16y ago

Most of them seem to be. The previous administration didn't fund most (any?) of their tax cuts.