3 ms·

I love how "tax the rich" types seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the

by lzw 16y ago

I love how "tax the rich" types seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the status quo. A major tax hike, on top of the deficit sending and resulting inflation will greatly increase unmetoyment and worsen the depression. But you don't get off the hook for deficit spending just because there is a recession. First off, as I've pointed out, deficit spending makes the economy worse. Secondly, there are massive amounts of new spending that has been created. The vast majority of the current yearly deficit is from new spending on stupid, pointless things that will also only serve to hurt the economy. Frankly, since government has shown no ability or interest in being fiscally responsible, they really should lose the ability to levy an income tax at all. This would benefit poor people more than rich people, and would greatly stimulate the economy, and the government would only have to shrink to the size it was a decade ago, or so. Since they have proven to be completely incompetent at running government, they have lost the right to take our money and "manage it for us". Social Security is a complete scam- you'd be better off putting the money in a savings account. Therefore, the idea that government should be taxing us to provide us with "Services" is absurd -- they never deliver the services, and they constantly increase the taxes.

anigbrowl 16y ago
I love how "tax the rich" types ...a position I do not hold, and which I object to being characterized with. seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the status quo. No, because the status quo includes a sunset for the tax cuts in question, that was put there by the Congress that passed EGGTRA and JGGTRA in the name of fiscal responsibility. The legislation which implemented those tax cuts was crafted as a temporary measure, designed to promote more economic activity and pay for themselves after economic growth had returned to earlier levels. Making the tax cuts permanent equates to a drastic cut in revenue because for the entire life of the tax cut, budget and debt projections were calculated and presented to the public on the basis that the cuts would be allowed to expire, as they were designed to do by law. Anyone who questioned the deficits being run up by the previous administration was told to stop worrying, and presented with figures showing that it would all come back into balance...later. And yet, when those expiration dates arrived starting in 2006, and the economy had grown so much that a classic asset bubble was inflating, and borrowing had significantly increased during the life of the tax cuts, the very same people insisted that we had to extend the tax cuts because to do otherwise would slow economic growth. They weren't even willing to contemplate increasing the tax rate on short-term capital gains. As of now, they (and seemingly you) are insisting those tax cuts should be made permanent, while completely ignoring the fact that they came with a sell-by date. Answer me this: if higher taxes are such a terrible idea, and Congress was able to cut them as they did during the previous administration, why didn't they reduce spending at the same time? Why is it that the same people who cut taxes chose to actually increase spending significantly, and borrow to pay for it?

by lzw 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

I love how "tax the rich" types ...a position I do not hold, and which I object to being characterized with. seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the status quo. No, because the status quo includes a sunset for the tax cuts in question, that was put there by the Congress that passed EGGTRA and JGGTRA in the name of fiscal responsibility. The legislation which implemented those tax cuts was crafted as a temporary measure, designed to promote more economic activity and pay for themselves after economic growth had returned to earlier levels. Making the tax cuts permanent equates to a drastic cut in revenue because for the entire life of the tax cut, budget and debt projections were calculated and presented to the public on the basis that the cuts would be allowed to expire, as they were designed to do by law. Anyone who questioned the deficits being run up by the previous administration was told to stop worrying, and presented with figures showing that it would all come back into balance...later. And yet, when those expiration dates arrived starting in 2006, and the economy had grown so much that a classic asset bubble was inflating, and borrowing had significantly increased during the life of the tax cuts, the very same people insisted that we had to extend the tax cuts because to do otherwise would slow economic growth. They weren't even willing to contemplate increasing the tax rate on short-term capital gains. As of now, they (and seemingly you) are insisting those tax cuts should be made permanent, while completely ignoring the fact that they came with a sell-by date. Answer me this: if higher taxes are such a terrible idea, and Congress was able to cut them as they did during the previous administration, why didn't they reduce spending at the same time? Why is it that the same people who cut taxes chose to actually increase spending significantly, and borrow to pay for it?