# No, tax cuts do not increase overall revenue more than they cost, for the last time **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 19, 2006, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046 "2006-10-19T03:03:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/1 "2006-10-19T03:03:16Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121\_pf.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html) > [@](#): > > “Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth – when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that’s what’s happened,” Bush said. It’s true that growth means that tax revenues will be higher than they would have been without growth. It’s also true that tax cuts can increase growth. But implying that Bush’s tax cuts created higher overall tax revenues, or that they ever could under real world conditions, is simply dishonest. > [@](#): > > Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, **and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.** > > “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that,” said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. “It’s logically possible” that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. “But there’s no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that.” Simply put, Bush and his speakers have long played a game of doublespeak on this issue, both having to conceed to actually informed people that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves, but repeatedly misleading the public by using ambiguous language that implies exactly that. For example: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060711-1.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060711-1.html) > [@](#): > > President Bush, 7/11/06: “Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit. You might remember those debates. You endured that rhetoric hour after hour on the floor of the Senate and the House. Today’s numbers show that that was a false choice. **The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring. That’s what’s happened.** ” In other words, Bush is implying that without his tax cuts, revenues wouldn’t be as high as they are. This is simply false. Note how suddenly ALL the growth becomes attributed to the tax cuts when there isn’t an economist on the planet who would actually agree with that in an academic circle, no matter how conservative they were. The bait and switch, more clearly: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-7.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-7.html) > [@](#): > > President Bush, 2/8/06: “One of the interesting things that I hope you realize when it comes to cutting taxes is \*\*this tax relief not only has helped our economy, but it’s helped the federal budget. \*\*In 2004, tax revenues to the Treasury grew about 5.5 percent. That’s kind of counter-intuitive, isn’t it? At least it is for some in Washington. You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase. **See, some people are going to say, well, you cut taxes, you’re going to have less revenue. No, that’s not what happened.** What happened was we cut taxes and in 2004, revenues increased 5.5 percent. And last year those revenues increased 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. **And the reason why is cutting taxes caused the economy to grow,** and as the economy grows there is more revenue generated in the private sector, which yields more tax revenues.” See the lie again? Again, what Bush is implying over and over is that by cutting taxes, we ended up with more revenue than we otherwise would have, the implication being that 100% of the growth in the economy is due to tax cuts. That’s a flat out lie. No economist could honestly support that idea. And yet that’s clearly what he wants his listeners to believe. The fact is, if Bush had not cut taxes, the government WOULD be taking in more tax revenue. It wouldn’t be taking in as much revenue as it would if the economy had grown as MUCH as it has, because part of that growth IS attributable to the tax cuts. But no one seriously believes that the US economy is at the point where a relatively minor tax cut could cause so much growth that it would “pay for itself.” They just want the ignorant voting public to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/2 "2006-10-19T04:20:26Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] See the lie again? . . . That’s a flat out lie. [/QUOTE] OMG, Bush lied? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/3 "2006-10-19T05:24:06Z")
I don’t disagree with your specific arguments but I do disagree with your general argument as stated in your subject, that is, “No, tax cuts do not increase overall revenue more than they cost, for the last time”. That isn’t true, tax revenue will actually go down if taxes are too high. I’m not saying taxes were anywhere near that point when Bush entered office. However, at one point the highest tax bracket was set at something ridiculous like 90%. People in that bracket did pretty much everything legally and somethings illegaly to avoid paying such ludicrous taxes. Not only did tax revenues increase as that tax rate went back down to “normal” levels, the overall share of tax revenue paid by the top 1% and top 10% increased in relation to the rest of the taxpayers. I’d say 35% or 40% for the top income tax bracket is nowhere close to being so high that it’s hurting tax revenues. I’d wager you could knock the top rate up to around 65% before that starts happening. However, there’s no clear-cut reason in my mind to maximize government tax revenue. Eventhough I think we could set taxes to 65% or so before we stopped seeing an increase in revenue, I don’t necessarily think that is something the government should be doing. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/4 "2006-10-19T05:30:47Z")
I’d also elaborate on my last point. There is an automatic assumption that it’s “bad” if we haven’t “maximized” the treasury’s revenue. Why is that? Taxes are taken from people who have worked, usually pretty damn hard, to make their money. A lot of the people in the highest income bracket are doctors and lawyers who work a huge number of hours and have devoted many years of their life to become who they are, and they’ve also typically ran heavily into debt in that process as well. Keep in mind, the top income tax rate doesn’t discriminate between a doctor making $200,000 a year and a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company making $50 million a year. In fact that CEO may actually be taxed at a much lower rate than that doctor when you consider CEOs compensation packages are often structured in such a way that a lot of their income can be counted as “capital gains” which is only taxed at 15% maximum. Just because government _could_ make more money, to me that isn’t justification to steal more money from its citizens. Taxes really are just a form of accepted theft for the good of society. They serve an essential purpose, and they “pay” for services that benefit everyone. But nonetheless, you pay them no matter what, you don’t get a choice in the matter. When the mafia offers you “services” for a cut of your business, that’s more or less a type of theft because you have no option to say no without suffering serious consequence. Even if you really do gain some benefit from their “protection.” Before we start to take more money from our citizens through taxation I think we should probably analyze how we’re spending our money, and decide if increased spending is always justified and whether or not some spending could be cut. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/5 "2006-10-19T06:33:49Z")
I believe the weapons of mass deficit reduction have been moved, possibly to Syria. And of course you have to expect some looting. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/6 "2006-10-19T06:37:38Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’d say 35% or 40% for the top income tax bracket is nowhere close to being so high that it’s hurting tax revenues. I’d wager you could knock the top rate up to around 65% before that starts happening. However, there’s no clear-cut reason in my mind to maximize government tax revenue. Eventhough I think we could set taxes to 65% or so before we stopped seeing an increase in revenue, I don’t necessarily think that is something the government should be doing. [/QUOTE] You might remember that during the '90s the higher rate in the top bracket didn’t seem to stop anyone from wanting to make money. I was in the top bracket for a while, and was damn happy to be there. Would I trade a higher tax rate for the economic conditions and the state of my stocks back then? In a New York second. No one is talking about maximizing tax revenue. Getting it to the point of balancing spending might be nice, though. Let’s decide what we need to do, (hint - does not include throwing money down a shithole in Iraq) and spend the money to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/7 "2006-10-19T06:45:53Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Just because government _could_ make more money, to me that isn’t justification to steal more money from its citizens. Taxes really are just a form of accepted theft for the good of society. They serve an essential purpose, and they “pay” for services that benefit everyone. But nonetheless, you pay them no matter what, you don’t get a choice in the matter. When the mafia offers you “services” for a cut of your business, that’s more or less a type of theft because you have no option to say no without suffering serious consequence. Even if you really do gain some benefit from their “protection.” Before we start to take more money from our citizens through taxation I think we should probably analyze how we’re spending our money, and decide if increased spending is always justified and whether or not some spending could be cut. [/QUOTE] Gee, Martin, I don’t know where you’ve been the past 225 years, but I get to vote on who represents me. In California, through initiatives, I vote directly on some taxes. So this taxation = theft thing is total bullshit. You have a perfect opportunity to say no to paying US taxes - leave the country. And, I guess no body in Congress has ever analyzed or debated how we spend our money. So nice for you to give them that suggestion. It’s like the lamebrains who say the simple way to balance the budget is to cut waste - as if any large entity could work with 100% efficiency. Large corporations have plenty of waste too. Notice nothing ever happens when someone actually looks at the situation. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/8 "2006-10-19T07:23:29Z")
All I know is that tax cuts under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have been accompanied by big increases in federal deficits. Under Kennedy the tax cuts didn’t increase the deficit so maybe a different economic group got tax cuts. When rich people get tax cuts they tend to save it, when middle class people get tax cuts they tend spend it in order to improve their standard of living. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/9 "2006-10-19T07:33:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _David Simmons_ > All I know is that tax cuts under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have been accompanied by big increases in federal deficits. Under Kennedy the tax cuts didn’t increase the deficit so maybe a different economic group got tax cuts. It’s not whether the deficit went up or down, it’s whether it went up or down relative to what would have happened in the absence of the policy. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/10 "2006-10-19T07:45:23Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] That isn’t true, tax revenue will actually go down if taxes are too high. [/quote] And if we are standing on the surface of the sun, it isn’t true that air conditioning will keep you comfortable. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Tax rates haven’t been anywhere near those levels in decades, and that simply isn’t relevant to any current debate over tax policy. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/11 "2006-10-19T08:33:34Z")
The overall point is that whatever the trend and history, for some people it is _never_ the time to stop believing, instanter, everything someone tells you, providing they have a GOP affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/12 "2006-10-19T14:19:26Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Gee, Martin, I don’t know where you’ve been the past 225 years, but I get to vote on who represents me. In California, through initiatives, I vote directly on some taxes. So this taxation = theft thing is total bullshit. [/quote] Just because a majority approves theft does not make it any less theft. It’s not as if these votes are whether or not taxes should be increased for only those who approve of the increase. No, the votes are for taxes to be increased for everyone, regardless of his or her consent. Since I don’t want to pay them, and the government says that I must do that or be imprisoned or killed, I’d say that has a lot in common with the robber who approaches me and demands my money or my life. > [@](#): > > You have a perfect opportunity to say no to paying US taxes - leave the country. A lof of people do – they move their assets offshore. And, of course, they get blasted for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/13 "2006-10-19T14:25:47Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] It’s not whether the deficit went up or down, it’s whether it went up or down relative to what would have happened in the absence of the policy. [/QUOTE] I don’t think you can ever really know what would have happened if you hadn’t done a certain thing. I think those who claim otherwise are just waving their arms and talking in jargon with big words. Those who would claim that the deficit under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II would have been even higher had taxes not been lowered haven’t a leg to stand on. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/14 "2006-10-19T14:28:11Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] A lof of people do – they move their assets offshore. And, of course, they get blasted for doing so. [/QUOTE] Seems obvious, but I’ll say it anyway. Moving your assets offshore is not leaving the country - it’s staying in the place that best suits you, but using the mechanism of tax avoidance to avoid paying for the privilege. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/15 "2006-10-19T14:44:54Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Just because a majority approves theft does not make it any less theft. It’s not as if these votes are whether or not taxes should be increased for only those who approve of the increase. No, the votes are for taxes to be increased for everyone, regardless of his or her consent. Since I don’t want to pay them, and the government says that I must do that or be imprisoned or killed, I’d say that has a lot in common with the robber who approaches me and demands my money or my life. [/QUOTE] The Republicans have had a rock solid majority for the last four years. Why hasn’t the tax rate fallen to zero? Well, at least government spending has gone way down since the Republican party has been in charge. Also, please indicate which places on earth you can get similar standard of living and pay lower taxes. Or indicate which of the following we should be rid of: 1. Military/defense 2. Coast guard 3. Highways 4. Police 5. Food inspection 6. Schools 7. Social Security Damned thieves, taking your hard-earned money. They should be ashamed. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/16 "2006-10-19T15:37:10Z")
[QUOTE=ShibbOleth] The Republicans have had a rock solid majority for the last four years. Why hasn’t the tax rate fallen to zero? Well, at least government spending has gone way down since the Republican party has been in charge. Also, please indicate which places on earth you can get similar standard of living and pay lower taxes. Or indicate which of the following we should be rid of: 1. Military/defense 2. Coast guard 3. Highways 4. Police 5. Food inspection 6. Schools 7. Social Security Damned thieves, taking your hard-earned money. They should be ashamed. [/QUOTE] Don’t forget the overwhelming importance of the fight against terrorism which has to be paid for. What? We are borrowing the money to carry on that fight? Shocking. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/17 "2006-10-19T15:56:06Z")
How many people have been executed for failure to pay taxes? What is the ratio of crazy hyperbole to reasonable point that is acceptable before credence drops to insignificance? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/18 "2006-10-19T17:10:30Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] It’s true that growth means that tax revenues will be higher than they would have been without growth. It’s also true that tax cuts can increase growth. But implying that Bush’s tax cuts created higher overall tax revenues, or that they ever could under real world conditions, is simply dishonest. The fact is, if Bush had not cut taxes, the government WOULD be taking in more tax revenue. It wouldn’t be taking in as much revenue as it would if the economy had grown as MUCH as it has, because part of that growth IS attributable to the tax cuts. But no one seriously believes that the US economy is at the point where a relatively minor tax cut could cause so much growth that it would “pay for itself.” They just want the ignorant voting public to believe it. [/QUOTE] Another pretty important factor to consider is the tax gap. There is a huge gap (on the order of 350 billion dollars a year). This is how much people are cheating on their taxes. The IRS is one situation where the beast has been starved and it hasn’t really worked out that well. Now they want to fire half the estate tax examiners and outsource collection activity, pretty soon we will see the tax code fully transistion to the honor system. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/19 "2006-10-19T17:15:36Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I don’t disagree with your specific arguments but I do disagree with your general argument as stated in your subject, that is, “No, tax cuts do not increase overall revenue more than they cost, for the last time”. That isn’t true, tax revenue will actually go down if taxes are too high. I’m not saying taxes were anywhere near that point when Bush entered office. However, at one point the highest tax bracket was set at something ridiculous like 90%. People in that bracket did pretty much everything legally and somethings illegaly to avoid paying such ludicrous taxes. Not only did tax revenues increase as that tax rate went back down to “normal” levels, the overall share of tax revenue paid by the top 1% and top 10% increased in relation to the rest of the taxpayers. I’d say 35% or 40% for the top income tax bracket is nowhere close to being so high that it’s hurting tax revenues. I’d wager you could knock the top rate up to around 65% before that starts happening. However, there’s no clear-cut reason in my mind to maximize government tax revenue. Eventhough I think we could set taxes to 65% or so before we stopped seeing an increase in revenue, I don’t necessarily think that is something the government should be doing. [/QUOTE] I don’t think anyone is trying to say we should maximize government revenue but when these tax cuts are sold as revenue neutral because the cuts will generate enough taxable economic activity to make up for any loss in revenue, we have to say bullshit. If you want tax cuts, you have to cuts costs or admit that you are financing the tax cuts with additional debt. This administration looks at the deficit and says “whew, imagine what the budget deficit would have been if we didn’t have those tax cuts” I think anything up to 50% has negligible economic effect and will increase the tax reciepts and maybe we will be able to get the national debt under control. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046/20 "2006-10-19T17:20:35Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’d also elaborate on my last point. There is an automatic assumption that it’s “bad” if we haven’t “maximized” the treasury’s revenue. Why is that? Taxes are taken from people who have worked, usually pretty damn hard, to make their money. A lot of the people in the highest income bracket are doctors and lawyers who work a huge number of hours and have devoted many years of their life to become who they are, and they’ve also typically ran heavily into debt in that process as well. Keep in mind, the top income tax rate doesn’t discriminate between a doctor making $200,000 a year and a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company making $50 million a year. In fact that CEO may actually be taxed at a much lower rate than that doctor when you consider CEOs compensation packages are often structured in such a way that a lot of their income can be counted as “capital gains” which is only taxed at 15% maximum. Just because government _could_ make more money, to me that isn’t justification to steal more money from its citizens. Taxes really are just a form of accepted theft for the good of society. They serve an essential purpose, and they “pay” for services that benefit everyone. But nonetheless, you pay them no matter what, you don’t get a choice in the matter. When the mafia offers you “services” for a cut of your business, that’s more or less a type of theft because you have no option to say no without suffering serious consequence. Even if you really do gain some benefit from their “protection.” Before we start to take more money from our citizens through taxation I think we should probably analyze how we’re spending our money, and decide if increased spending is always justified and whether or not some spending could be cut. [/QUOTE] Where do you suggest we cut the fat? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-tax-cuts-do-not-increase-overall-revenue-more-than-they-cost-for-the-last-time/377046.md?page=2)