Reuters: House Republican rules ease way for tax cuts

[Kilmer17]

Yes, Tax cuts will help raise revenues that will in turn have an impact (by lowering) the defecit.

I have no problem excluding tax cuts from evaluations, especially if those evaluations dont address the affects of tax cuts on revenue.

[dchogs]

On a personal level, if I want to have more money in my pocket, I need to Spend less or Earn more. Shouldnt that also apply to Govt? If Govt earns 30 percent of X and we lower that to 20 percent, but X becomes XX, we have earned more.

or, if you're in really bad shape financially (as the US is in right now), the best thing of all is to do both. if i'm in debt up to my ears and i want to get my house in order, i'm working another job to bring in more money (i.e. raising taxes, eliminating loopholes, etc) and i'm ruthlessly cutting my spending on non-essentials. seems like the republicans are focusing on just the spending side, and the democrats are focusing on the tax side. i think most moderates would agree that both need to be done concurrently.

fwiw, i'm way down in the tax brackets and would be okay with a tax increase as long as it was met by spending cuts and by tax hikes for the upper brackets. loopholes need to be closed, period. desperate times call for desperate measures, and the economic future of the country is much more important than me having to work another 5-10 years before i retire.

[alexey]

BLAH BLAH BLAH....

There are only TWO ways to increase "revenue" for the federal govt:

1) Raise taxes

2) Cut spending

That is it, and that is all. Anything else is hyperbole. By EITHER side.

Now, how do we fix the deficit? Easy, base spending off your income. Cut spending to below your income level, and apply savings to deficit. It really is that simple. The problem is, neither party has the balls to look John Q Public's eyes and tells him, "This is going to hurt, but will stabilize the long term health of this country" because the public would accuse them of lieing and vote them out. And the public would be right because the fed govt has earned the public's distrust. BOTH PARTIES.

It will take years to repair the distrust, and I can't say whether this Congress will move the needle in that direction. No one does, because you can't predict the future. To say they won't is more partisan hyperbole. Nothing will get accomplished as long as we have this poisonous 2 party system where the goal of both party is to gain power, not govern and maintain the countries health. Reading this thread, I can literally see the heads of both parties nodding in agreement to both sides, noting with pleasure how deep the divide between both sides and how dogmatic the responses are. Dems think Reps are evil, pro-business anti-middle class, racist, selfish ****s. Reps think the Dems are socialist, elitist, holier-than-thou, we know better than you, over-educated snobs. Congrats, the other side is evil and wrong. Your side is good and right. Meantime, this country continues to suffer because you BOTH only care about what is best for your interests. If you can't see that, then the Dems and Reps have accomplished exactly what they set out to do. The tennis match will continue.....

Calling out bull****, regardless of the party that's pushing it, in an important part of improving the situation.

Exempting tax cuts from these deficit offset rules is a load a bull****. Defending such clear-cut bull**** is indefensible.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 11:23 AM ----------

Yes, Tax cuts will help raise revenues that will in turn have an impact (by lowering) the defecit.

I have no problem excluding tax cuts from evaluations, especially if those evaluations dont address the affects of tax cuts on revenue.

Yeah... if you're not going to get the calls you want, may as well remove the referee.

[Kilmer17]

or, if you're in really bad shape financially (as the US is in right now), the best thing of all is to do both. if i'm in debt up to my ears and i want to get my house in order, i'm working another job to bring in more money (i.e. raising taxes, eliminating loopholes, etc) and i'm ruthlessly cutting my spending on non-essentials. seems like the republicans are focusing on just the spending side, and the democrats are focusing on the tax side. i think most moderates would agree that both need to be done concurrently.

fwiw, i'm way down in the tax brackets and would be okay with a tax increase as long as it was met by spending cuts and by tax hikes for the upper brackets. loopholes need to be closed, period. desperate times call for desperate measures, and the economic future of the country is much more important than me having to work another 5-10 years before i retire.

By cutting taxes Govt will make more money because the Revenue base will increase. The mistake is thinking that raising taxes per person is the only way to increase revenue.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

By cutting taxes Govt will make more money because the Revenue base will increase. The mistake is thinking that raising taxes per person is the only way to increase revenue.

You really buy the right wing propaganda hook line and sinker, huh? THINK about what you just said.

Seriously, we should lower income taxes to a 1% flat tax rate so that our government can increase its revenue stream, right?

[Kilmer17]

Calling out bull****, regardless of the party that's pushing it, in an important part of improving the situation.

Exempting tax cuts from these deficit offset rules is a load a bull****. Defending such clear-cut bull**** is indefensible.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 11:23 AM ----------

Yeah... if you're not going to get the calls you want, may as well remove the referee.

What's bull**** is the inability for people to understand that creating a bigger tax base is more important than increasing the percentage the govt take OF that base.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What's bull**** is the inability for people to understand that creating a bigger tax base is more important than increasing the percentage the govt take OF that base.

No one disputes that, but saying "lowering taxes" creates a bigger base is a huge leap to that increases revenue. That's just way too bald a statement, even assuming that lowering taxes actually does create this "bigger base" you are projecting.

Seriously, as I said, lets lower taxes to 1% for everyone and see our revenue sky rocket!

[Kilmer17]

You really buy the right wing propaganda hook line and sinker, huh? THINK about what you just said.

Oh that's right. Any non left wing nuttiness is automatically propoganda, or stupid, or bull****.

Too bad for you the majority of Americans doesnt believe the lefts lies anymore.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Oh that's right. Any non left wing nuttiness is automatically propoganda, or stupid, or bull****.

Too bad for you the majority of Americans doesnt believe the lefts lies anymore.

Any left wing nuttiness or right wing nuttiness is stupid bull**** 99% of the time.

I am just advocating that you think before you adopt something as true.

I am regularly surprised by your aggressive attitude towards the lefts "lies" though. Its really sorta weird. I mean, sometimes the left lies, sometimes the right lies. Don't you agree?

[Kilmer17]

No one disputes that, but saying "lowering taxes" creates a bigger base is a huge leap to that increases revenue. That's just way too bald a statement, even assuming that lowering taxes actually does create this "bigger base" you are projecting.

Seriously, as I said, lets lower taxes to 1% for everyone and see our revenue sky rocket!

In theory, that's correct. But in the real world their are limitations. The base simply cant grow THAT big.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

In theory, that's correct. But in the real world their are limitations. The base simply cant grow THAT big.

So, how do you know we aren't at that point already?

That's why these blanket statements (for example "lowering taxes increases revenue") are foolish. I just disproved your theorem, didn't I?

Or maybe you are just against growing the base big enough so that 1% income tax will produce giant revenue for the gov't. Are you against doing that?

[DjTj]

What's bull**** is the inability for people to understand that creating a bigger tax base is more important than increasing the percentage the govt take OF that base.

What's bull**** is believing that tax cuts can create a bigger tax base while increased spending cannot.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 11:48 AM ----------

In theory, that's correct. But in the real world their are limitations. The base simply cant grow THAT big.

In theory that is not correct. As the tax rate goes to zero, revenue will always goes to zero. As the tax rate goes to 100%, revenue will also go to zero.

There is a theoretical maximum at some point between 0% and 100%, but we can theoretically argue all day about where that is.

[Kilmer17]

I actually DO believe that spending can increase revenues.

The problem is what we're spending it on.

[DjTj]

I actually DO believe that spending can increase revenues.

The problem is what we're spending it on.

And it also matters where we are giving the tax cuts. But Congressional Republicans seem to be much more interested in paying attention to one and not the other.

[Kilmer17]

And it also matters where we are giving the tax cuts. But Congressional Republicans seem to be much more interested in paying attention to one and not the other.

Tax cuts should go to those who are most likely to spur the economy. If the only way to accomplish that is to give them across the board, well that's a compromise needed. But it is much more important to our economy to give tax cuts to the higher tax brackets than it is to give them to the lower ones.

On a personal level it's better for the individual in the lower brackets, but on a macro scale it's not.

[Predicto]

By cutting taxes Govt will make more money because the Revenue base will increase. The mistake is thinking that raising taxes per person is the only way to increase revenue.

The Laffer Curve is a scam unless tax rates are historically high, much higher than they are in the US.

Even Arthur Laffer acknowledges that.

[Bang]

BLAH BLAH BLAH....

There are only TWO ways to increase "revenue" for the federal govt:

1) Raise taxes

2) Cut spending

That is it, and that is all. Anything else is hyperbole. By EITHER side.

Now, how do we fix the deficit? Easy, base spending off your income. Cut spending to below your income level, and apply savings to deficit. It really is that simple. The problem is, neither party has the balls to look John Q Public's eyes and tells him, "This is going to hurt, but will stabilize the long term health of this country" because the public would accuse them of lieing and vote them out. And the public would be right because the fed govt has earned the public's distrust. BOTH PARTIES.

It will take years to repair the distrust, and I can't say whether this Congress will move the needle in that direction. No one does, because you can't predict the future. To say they won't is more partisan hyperbole. Nothing will get accomplished as long as we have this poisonous 2 party system where the goal of both party is to gain power, not govern and maintain the countries health. Reading this thread, I can literally see the heads of both parties nodding in agreement to both sides, noting with pleasure how deep the divide between both sides and how dogmatic the responses are. Dems think Reps are evil, pro-business anti-middle class, racist, selfish ****s. Reps think the Dems are socialist, elitist, holier-than-thou, we know better than you, over-educated snobs. Congrats, the other side is evil and wrong. Your side is good and right. Meantime, this country continues to suffer because you BOTH only care about what is best for your interests. If you can't see that, then the Dems and Reps have accomplished exactly what they set out to do. The tennis match will continue.....

Best post of the thread. Totally agree.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Tax cuts should go to those who are most likely to spur the economy. If the only way to accomplish that is to give them across the board, well that's a compromise needed. But it is much more important to our economy to give tax cuts to the higher tax brackets than it is to give them to the lower ones.

On a personal level it's better for the individual in the lower brackets, but on a macro scale it's not.

So, since we had eight years of constant tax rates under Bush... does that mean we just came out of the greatest period of growth and wealth in the history of the United States. The problem with the theory that tax cuts work is that they don't. They didn't under Reagan. They didn't under Bush II. Both practices led to incredible deficits and devestating recessions. G. W. Bush's almost completely capsized the nation.

Read my lips, it's a bad theory.

[Kilmer17]

The problem under Bush was they spent like Democrats. Along with other things like 2 wars, housing bubble etc. But the main culpret was spending.

[Predicto]

So, since we had eight years of constant tax rates under Bush... does that mean we just came out of the greatest period of growth and wealth in the history of the United States. The problem with the theory that tax cuts work is that they don't. They didn't under Reagan. They didn't under Bush II. Both practices led to incredible deficits and devestating recessions. G. W. Bush's almost completely capsized the nation.

Read my lips, it's a bad theory.

Its actually a good theory if you have outrageously high tax rates in excess of 50-60 percent.

Of course, we don't have those, so it becomes a lousy theory, and the exact opposite of "fiscal conservatism."

[Burgold]

The problem under Bush was they spent like Democrats. Along with other things like 2 wars, housing bubble etc. But the main culpret was spending.

Its actually a good theory if you have outrageously high tax rates in excess of 50-60 percent.

Of course, we don't have those, so it becomes a lousy theory, and the exact opposite of "fiscal conservatism."

Exactly, unless we're dealing in academic abstracts trickle down just doesn't work. It hasn't worked almost ever. It's worse than socialism for the economy.

[Kilmer17]

It worked under Reagan, It worked under Clinton.

The problem is ALWAYS spending.

Remembering also that the amount of the defecit is one problem, but the current issue is how large it is as a percentage of GDP.

If we dont cut the defecit one penny, but triple our GDP (huge exageration) we'd be fine.

[Burgold]

It worked under Reagan, It worked under Clinton.

The problem is ALWAYS spending.

Remembering also that the amount of the defecit is one problem, but the current issue is how large it is as a percentage of GDP.

If we dont cut the defecit one penny, but triple our GDP (huge exageration) we'd be fine.

I didn't work under Reagan. When Reagan left the economy was in shambles. His VP become President promised never to raise taxes, but it got so bad he was left with no choice. Reaganomics was a failure. More Reaganomics was the same principle that George W. Bush and the current Republicans follow. Cut taxes, increase spending, push problems until tomorrow, and don't look back.

[Kilmer17]

It wasnt in shambles. It was in shambles when he took office.

The issues at the end of his term was spending.

Decrease taxes, decrease spending. Refvenues go up, defecit goes down.

[DjTj]

It worked under Reagan, It worked under Clinton.

Didn't Clinton increase taxes? I think that Republicans called it "the biggest tax increase in American history."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/02/bg928nbsp-clintons-budget-higher-taxes

Decrease taxes, decrease spending. Refvenues go up, defecit goes down.

Increase taxes, decrease spending. Revenues go up faster. Deficit goes down faster.