# Generally, what would you rather see more of to handle the government deficit? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 12, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761 "2011-07-12T16:13:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/41 "2011-07-13T14:08:15Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > I totally see where the Right is coming from in wanting to cut spending where it’s wasted, but just like running a household: sometimes you’ve got to increase revenue to keep up with the bills you racked up when some emergencies popped up. No offense, but the federal budget is NOT like running a household. Unless your household has a few million people working (or not) different jobs, the ability to print money whenever it wants, some ability to control the interest rates different members of the household charge each other for borrowing money, and members of the household spending their own money totaling far, far more than the household budget. Oh, and if your household can at the moment get free loans (literally 0%), and has a whole bunch of members without jobs, while other members of the household might start hiring, but only if someone starts buying what they’re trying to sell. The whole ‘just like a household’ is just a really, really, bad analogy that leads to really bad decisions; the kind of decisions that created the Great Depression. Here’s a much better analogy: [Baby-Sitting the Economy](http://www.slate.com/id/1937/) A recession is NOT the time to balance the federal budget; it’s the time to spend money to get the economy moving. Once you’re in a boom, THEN stop spending stimulus and raise taxes to slow things down and save up for the next rainy day. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/42 "2011-07-13T14:34:08Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Or on the other hand flat taxation can start at say $50,000 or some income level like that. Bull. Why should we get taxed 25% [roughly combining state fed and assorted crap taken out of mrAru’s paycheck] on $40000, and some rich guy with access to lots of accountants and lawyers gets off with paying less of their much greater income simply because they can afford to have a team pore over the books to find every single way to squirm out of paying their fair share. People with LOWER incomes should pay the flat tax and the asshole CEOs and executives that get millions and billions in income for screwing over the public in the first place, and doing jack shit towards fostering business get slammed with a percentage of their income with no little old boy network tax breaks. We can afford it less than those jackasses can. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/43 "2011-07-13T14:53:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Right, because the trillions of dollars sitting in corporate cash reserves right now are totally reviving the economy. Businesses aren’t expanding and creating products because there’s no demand - you could eliminate their taxes entirely and they’d mostly just sit in the cash until demand picked up. > > And yeah, cutting spending at a time when the most major effect is a lack of demand, when everyone is sitting on their money and refusing to spend it, is definitely the way to get us out of this recession. > > Well played. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > How do you think we got out of the Great Depression? World War II actually. The New Deal helped slightly but there were parts of it that hurt more than it helped and the economy did not fully recover until World War II started. > [@aruvqan](#): > > Bull. Why should we get taxed 25% [roughly combining state fed and assorted crap taken out of mrAru’s paycheck] on $40000, and some rich guy with access to lots of accountants and lawyers gets off with paying less of their much greater income simply because they can afford to have a team pore over the books to find every single way to squirm out of paying their fair share. People with LOWER incomes should pay the flat tax and the asshole CEOs and executives that get millions and billions in income for screwing over the public in the first place, and doing jack shit towards fostering business get slammed with a percentage of their income with no little old boy network tax breaks. We can afford it less than those jackasses can. Hypothetically if were to simplify the tax code via flat tax or something, I suppose we would eliminate most tax breaks/loopholes as part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/44 "2011-07-13T15:05:06Z")
It would be possible (tough, and probably not a good idea, but possible) to tax our way out of the current deficit. It would not be possible to cut our way out of it. Yes, there are some things that can and should be cut, and which could go a significant way towards making ends meet. But even if, say, we cut the Department of War entirely (which even I won’t advocate), it wouldn’t be enough. Toss in the entirety of of the NSF, NASA, the Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the Arts, like a lot of conservatives are fond of talking about, and you’d hardly even see a difference. Toss out Social Security, and you’re just making things worse, since Social Security is a source of income, too. We absolutely need to raise taxes. My preferred method for doing so would be to eliminate the inheritance tax and capital gains tax and just consider those income like any other. Why should some schlub who works hard for his money have to pay more than someone who just sits back and gets it handed to him on a silver platter? Added to this, of course, we should add another bracket or two at the top end. The current bracket cutoffs made sense when “millionaire” meant “fabulously stinking wealthy”, but times have changed since then. EDIT: > [@](#): > > World War II actually. The New Deal helped slightly but there were parts of it that hurt more than it helped and the economy did not fully recover until World War II started. And the way that World War II helped was that it represented massive government spending. If we had had the guts to spend that much on the New Deal in the first place, that would have worked even better. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/45 "2011-07-13T15:07:03Z")
> [@UncleRojelio](#): > > As far as I’m concerned, Americans get off pretty well for the amount of taxes we pay. Raise the taxes and make damned sure that EVERYONE (I’m looking at you top 1 percenters) pays their share. Really? You’re going to say that the top 1% owe _more than_ the 80-whatever percent they pay now? And that the bottom 50% that [doesn’t pay any tax](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/) at all _is_ paying their share? It’s absolutely baffling how someone can look at who pays what and put the phrases “pay their share” and “I’m looking at you, top 1%” together. > [@SecondJudith](#): > > I will never understand the general US aversion to taxing the rich. I will never understand the general US ignorance of how much the rich are financially carrying this country on their backs. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Remove the cap on FICA for Social Security, or even fund it out of the general fund It’s nice to finally get a Democrat to admit that what they really want is for the rich to pay for the poor’s retirement. Y’know, originally, the grasshopper died, come winter. I liked it better that way. > [@aruvqan](#): > > Bull. Why should we get taxed 25% [roughly combining state fed and assorted crap taken out of mrAru’s paycheck] on $40000, and some rich guy with access to lots of accountants and lawyers gets off with paying less of their much greater income simply because they can afford to have a team pore over the books to find every single way to squirm out of paying their fair share. People with LOWER incomes should pay the flat tax and the asshole CEOs and executives that get millions and billions in income for screwing over the public in the first place, and doing jack shit towards fostering business get slammed with a percentage of their income with no little old boy network tax breaks. We can afford it less than those jackasses can. Name one way that rich people “squirm out of paying their fair share”. Name one, or admit that you’re just making up stuff that makes you feel better. Second, explain how the “jackass” rich people were the ones buying houses they couldn’t afford. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/46 "2011-07-13T15:13:43Z")
I don’t understand the “taxes are eeevvviiill” mindset. I get a lot of good stuff for the taxes I pay and I don’t mind paying my fair share. I do mind picking up the tab for the wealthy and mega corporations though, and I just cannot fathom why anyone thought starting 2 wars and cutting taxes made any kind of sense in any kind of way. Responsible tax policies should have been in place years ago. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/47 "2011-07-13T15:16:22Z")
If we tax the rich at substantially higher percentages than the middle class and poor, what is the incentive to work hard and become rich? Are we trying to have everyone take home the some amount of money? Might as well stay poor and sponge off the government. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/48 "2011-07-13T15:19:30Z")
Right, why would anyone want to be a guy who makes $5 million a year paying 40% taxes when it’s practically the same thing as a guy making $50,000 a year paying 32% taxes? No one would bother to work to become rich. At 33% top marginal tax rate, the rich work as hard as they can to increase their wealth, which allows them to invest and hire people and stuff. At 37% top marginal tax rate, they all decide to live under bridges and the economy goes nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/49 "2011-07-13T15:24:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Why should some schlub who works hard for his money have to pay more than someone who just sits back and gets it handed to him on a silver platter? You know why. Because gaining capital is extremely risky and taxes take a huge chunk out of the “reward” side of risk vs. reward. Replace “sits back and gets it handed to him on a silver platter” with “sweats it out, risks bankruptcy, and goes balls-out” and maybe it’ll make sense. ETA: > [@Ca3799](#): > > I don’t understand the “taxes are eeevvviiill” mindset. I get a lot of good stuff for the taxes I pay and I don’t mind paying my fair share. I do mind picking up the tab for the wealthy and mega corporations though, and I just cannot fathom why anyone thought starting 2 wars and cutting taxes made any kind of sense in any kind of way. > > Responsible tax policies should have been in place years ago. Fiction: **Ca3799** is picking up the tab for corporations and the wealthy. Fact: The wealthy and corporations are picking up the tab for **Ca3799**. Fiction: The poor are paying more than their fair share. Fact: The bottom half pay nothing. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/50 "2011-07-13T15:25:01Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Really? You’re going to say that the top 1% owe _more than_ the 80-whatever percent they pay now? And that the bottom 50% that [doesn’t pay any tax](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/) at all _is_ paying their share? Where the crazy are you getting 80-whatever-percent as a current tax rate on the rich? > [@](#): > > It’s absolutely baffling how someone can look at who pays what and put the phrases “pay their share” and “I’m looking at you, top 1%” together. I don’t use the “pay their share” terminology, but if (to pull numbers out of nowhere) the top 1% have 30% of the wealth in the country, and they pay 25% of the tax load - even though they are disproportionately paying more than everyone else in taxes, they still wouldn’t actually be paying their share in terms of how much of their ability to be taxed that they’re actually being taxed. > [@](#): > > I will never understand the general US ignorance of how much the rich are financially carrying this country on their backs. Do you understand that the super rich are increasing the wealth gap so that increasingly the large majority of people can’t do stuff like own houses or afford health care? That the massive increase in productivity over the last few decades has actually seen a decline in the average relative financial power of individuals, whereas the gains were made amongst the super rich? They stack society in their favor so that they have all the wealth - so it becomes necesary to tax them to run society because they’re the only ones with the fucking money. You guys make me sound like some fucking hippy when you make me do this. > [@](#): > > It’s nice to finally get a Democrat to admit that what they really want is for the rich to pay for the poor’s retirement. Y’know, originally, the grasshopper died, come winter. I liked it better that way. Do you really? I mean this in a very literal way. Would you like to have things like social security taken away so that old people go back to starving to death on the streets in mass like the good old days? > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You know why. Because gaining capital is extremely risky and taxes take a huge chunk out of the “reward” side of risk vs. reward. Replace “sits back and gets it handed to him on a silver platter” with “sweats it out, risks bankruptcy, and goes balls-out” and maybe it’ll make sense. Yeah, I remember how much all of the super rich financial people suffered because of wrecking the entire world financial system with their bad risks. Oh, right, too big to fail. I think small business owners face some real risk, but the super rich really don’t. When is the last time one of them lost everything due to poor decisions or risks going against them? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/51 "2011-07-13T15:48:32Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Sure, the real solution is some combination of both, but generally speaking which would you prefer to see more of as the solution to handle the government deficit problem? Higher taxes or lower spending? > > This is not intended to be a debate…there’s another forum for that…this is just a straw poll to see the general sentiment of posters here. > > Poll forthcoming. [Moderator Note]Despite your original intention, this topic cannot avoid becoming a debate. My choice is to either shut down the poll and move it to Great Debates, or shut it down and refer people to the Great Debates thread currently running. If you have a preference let me know, otherwise I’m going to do one or the other pretty soon.[/Moderator Note] ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/52 "2011-07-13T15:54:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Moderator Note]Despite your original intention, this topic cannot avoid becoming a debate. My choice is to either shut down the poll and move it to Great Debates, or shut it down and refer people to the Great Debates thread currently running. If you have a preference let me know, otherwise I’m going to do one or the other pretty soon.[/Moderator Note] Bunch of kids that can’t follow instructions!!!😉 Just shut it down and refer people to threads already running. ETA: is there any way to close it to posting but leave it open to voting in the poll? Not sure if that functionality with in vbulletins exist. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761/53 "2011-07-13T16:01:03Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Bunch of kids that can’t follow instructions!!!😉 > > Just shut it down and refer people to threads already running. > > ETA: is there any way to close it to posting but leave it open to voting in the poll? Not sure if that functionality with in vbulletins exist. Poll results won’t register as responses, and your thread would sink faster than Aquaman with a bad leg cramp. If people wish to continue this discussion, they may do so [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616085) Closing thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/generally-what-would-you-rather-see-more-of-to-handle-the-government-deficit/588761.md?page=2)