Why are you liberals so opposed to tax cuts?

Great Debates
101

I think I missed communicating something here. My friends are above the poverty line for a family of four. They aren’t using your tax dollars (or mine) for foodstamps. I wasn’t talking about the ineffieciency of redistribution of wealth. I was talking about being able to afford a higher tax burden than them without scrimping the essentials. At $26k a year, even with their two children and a mortgage, they still pay several thousand dollars a year in taxes. And that several thousand is a lot more money to them than it is to me.

Your point would probably be that we lower taxes for everyone – a point of view I can respect although we will agree to disagree (cause I doubt you’ll change your mind, and - although I’m a lot more fiscally conservative than I pretend to be - you aren’t going to change mine).

And yes, I’d rather have the government inefficiently redistribute my wealth than risk having my goofy sister in law have to move into my basement. (Actually, I don’t have a goofy sister in law. My relatives and friends don’t require me bailing them out for survival). I do see taxes as insurance that I won’t feel obligated to give cash or gifts to the good for nothing relatives that I don’t even have.

Finally, I can take the couple hundred dollar rebate the state is sending to me and give it to the school so they can hire a teacher. Of course, many people would need to do the same. It is my experience that most people don’t part with their money that easily. Which is why we don’t make paying taxes optional.

(I did take my rebate last year and donate it to charity).

102

**

What an ironic example. It just so happens that my goofy sister-in-law will probably be moving into our loft next. She has a job already, but wants to return to a vocational school (her first vocational “degree” is not want she wants) and stay with us as she (or so she promises) work part-time and pay nominal rent. I can’t say I’m delighted with the situation, I think she is doing okay in the life she has already made for herself, but my home will be open if she wants to make a change. I suppose we could tell her “Go to the Government!” But that would be foisting the responsibility into the public trough–a philosophically unethical and immoral action IMHO; besides, the Government in its infinite wisdom would probably insist she have a few illegitimate kids first.

If taxes were paid more towards goods and services used, then there would be a lot less griping, instead of making someone else pay for a different person’s needs. If the schools and teachers in your area lack funding–Why not enact a tax on school-age children? Say 1% income tax per child in public school. Your friends pay $1040 for their kids education. Surely it would be burden which would require more scrimping and saving, but its their kids, why foist that burden onto someone else? How many people out there want to pay into my early retirement fund? I’ll give a PO box number to anyone interested. Should I hold my breath?

Good for you. Don’t forget to write it off this year. It is a free world, do as you will, but we OWED more last year than this refund. I’m just getting back a portion of what I put in. But this refund bugs the turds of the Liberals’ bowels because they truly believe they know what’s best to do with some one else’s earnings.

103

I, on the other hand, don’t see you as having a responsibility to your goofy sister in law. Yeah, its a nice thing to do, but she is an adult. You feel some moral responsibilty to her (and I probably would, I’m pretty soft hearted - unless she was one of *those *relatives), but I wouldn’t blame you if you din’t let her move in.

However, I see us (as a society) having a responsibility to her - provided she has a need (it sounds like she has more of a want to me, but I know her from three sentences. I’m sure if you referred her to her local social welfare division, they could spend many of your tax dollars evaluating if she has a need or a want).

And, hey, if I write off that charitible contribution, I won’t get to pay as much in taxes!

104

I always was under the government was supposed to do what the people wanted. That is what a democracy is all about. Somewhere along the line, the government decided that the whole “no taxation without representation” thing didn’t really matter anymore. So we are now charged income tax (on a little side note: the one congressman who opposed the income tax was afraid that we were going to be charged as high as, get ready for it, 2% one day! What is it now, 33-37% for most people).

I look at it this way: I pay the government for a few services. They protect me from crazy foreign dictators with funny hats who want to blow me up, and they protect me from crazy people who live next door to me who want to beat me up. Other than that, as long as I don’t break any of the rules (some of which I have a problem with, but I’ll probably get into that in another forum) they let me live my life. Now, assume for a moment that I am being overcharged for this service. Shouldn’t the price of the service be lowered? And shouldn’t I get back the money I overpaid?

It’s just like you go into a store and buy a gallon of milk for, let’s say $3.50 and you find out later you were overcharged by the guy behind the counter by $1.50. Don’t you go back and ask for your $1.50?

By the way, everyone here should go check out http://www.cagw.org. It’s the website of an organization called Citizens Against Government Waste. After you see some of the ways in which your hard earned money is being wasted, you’ll want a tax break, too.

105

Exactly, Lord Astar…

And the people have wanted much more over the years than simply being protected from people in funny hats…they’ve wanted roads and schools. They’ve wanted the government to research disease. They’ve wanted the government to assure them that their food and drinking water is safe and that their employers can’t tromp all over them. They’ve wanted the government to send their district jobs and money in the form of huge pork barrel projects (i.e. supercollider or military bases). Thus, they’ve elected people who have enacted laws to do this, at a cost, and the cost is passed on to all people…even the ones that don’t care if the government is partly funding a search to find the cause of ovarian cancer.

One of the recent Liberatarian threads (not the “just how Liberatarian are you”, but the follow up) addressed this. Even the Liberatarians couldn’t agree on roads, public schools, the need for the CDC…

106

OK, education time. NAIRU - NAIRU is not something used by the unemployed to avoid jobs, but instead by the Federal Reserve in setting interest rates.
The reason that the Fed considers NAIRU is that supply and demand affects labor as well. If the supply of available labor is lower than the demand for it, the cost of labor (i.e. wages) will increase, often dramatically. An increase in the wages (i.e. the purchasing power) of the employed population leads to an increased demand for all sorts of goods, outstripping the increase in supply, thus accelerating inflation. So, the supply of labor must be keep sufficient to meet the demand for labor.
The important thing to consider is that supply and demand for labor do not balance at 0% unemployment. Due to factors such as necessary skills, labor mobility, etc., etc., the balancing point for supply and demand for labor is actually considerably higher than 0% unemployment. Where it falls is a matter of debate, and is affected by such factors as increases or decreases in labor productivity, but most economists think it falls in the 3-5% range.
This is NAIRU. And the Fed will try to keep the unemployment rate from falling below NAIRU. Say the Fed determines that NAIRU is 4%, and, in May 2002, the unemployement rate drops to 3.8%. The Fed will see this as a sign that inflation is going to accelerate, and will likely increase interest rates (this is where the prime rate comes in), in order to slow the economy down and, indirectly, to throw people out of work so that the labor supply is sufficient to meet demand.
Now do you get it? Having a sufficient supply of unemployed people is considered by the Fed to be a necessary fact of economic life, and the Fed will take action to ensure that a certain percentage of people remain unemployed.

So, perhaps, not all unemployed are lazy gits. At least some of them are unemployed because the Fed has manipulated interest rates to ensure they are unemployed.

Sua

107

Lord Ashtar, your heart is in the right place, and you make a lot of sense. I agree that we should start giving back money to the American people and stop overcharging them.

Just as soon as we pay off the debt we have incurred because we undercharged ourselves. By about five trillion dollars.

FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS!!! That’s fifty estates the size of Bill Gates’, or 2,500 B-2 bombers, or 2,000 attack submarines, or 1,250 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

That is money already spent. Gone. If you’re an American, you spent it, and you will pay it back.

Enjoy your tax cut, like a stream of urine into the hurricane of the national debt.

108

As I have posted before in other threads, personal income for the year for the U.S. comes to around 8.6 trillion, last I checked. The national debt is 5.7 trillion or so, whilst personal revolving debt stands at around 1.5 trillion.
So, you could pay off the entire national debt and all of the credit-card debt out there from a single year’s income and still have change left in the collective national pocket.
We’re not in trouble in this way. Not even close.

109

Could you lay that out a bit more clearly, pantom? I can pay off my entire outstanding mortgage with a single year’s income, but I would have to give up eating, drinking, buying gas for the car, heating the house, lighting the house, and several other “extras” to accomplish that. If I choose to not starve to death, not freeze to death, not quit bathing, and not cease all activities after dark, I cannot pay off the mortgage, regardless of my current income.

So, where are you going as you mix income and debt in your calculations?

110

Oh, that’s easy, tom.

You want to pay off your home? First, start with a lot of money. Get more money by setting up a money pool with a lot of friends who make less money than you do. Put in a larger sum than anyone else, with the understanding that you will, of course, get a larger return from the pool than anyone else. The next year, make sure that the amount you need to pay gets reduced, because it’s unfair to you, but keep drawing the same benefits. Use the money pool to add an addition and a putting green. When the pool gets a little bit tight, because you’re not paying as much as you did, kick in more of your own money–as a fair interest loan of course. Wait awhile, then carefully explain that the debt is going to be paid off sooner or later, and everyone would do better if they all payed less money into the pool, but since you pay a larger amount than anyone else, it’s only fair that they take a smaller cut. Your buddies pay off your debt, back to you, the mortgage gets paid, and your pals are none the wiser.

Oh, wait. I think I was talking about something else.

111

Easily, tomndebb. Taking the mortgage analogy, in my experience your typical mortgage taken out by your first time homebuyer will be for a house that costs around twice as much as their yearly household income. The mortgage will of course be less than this with the down payment, but I figure the bank is figuring the leftover will go to car debt and credit card debt.
Looking at the U.S., in the above example I took just a portion of our national income, that amount that is distributed to us as individuals. Taking just that amount, you already have more than enough to pay off the entire national debt, and all of the outstanding credit card debt too, and still have money left over, with a single year’s total income.
The U.S., in other words, is in very good shape, debt-wise. So the debt isn’t a good argument for not getting a tax cut.

And as I said earlier in this thread, I figure most of our personal income taxes are going to pay for a bloated military and for paying down the debt that was incurred paying for our past excesses in military spending. I for one would rather have my money back.

112

pantom:

Uhm…that’s not too far from my position. But I want it back after the “bills” are paid. My definition of “bills” may be different than others, but as I see it:

National Debt
Social Security
MediCare/Aid

Fix those and then gimme my money back. The argument (debate) over whether we need a defense oriented military force structure or a strategic power-projection military force structure is for another thread.

But briefly, as I see it, as long as we’re tied to an external energy supply to run our country, and can brook no interference in that supply, then it is in our national strategic interest to be able to stomp the living shit out of anyone who even thinks about messing with it.

If at such time we come up with an alternate energy supply that can be produced domestically cheaper than importing, then downsize that puppy to defensive levels.

113

I’m still not quite understanding this one. Exactly how large would the debt have to be before it would become a priority for you?

114

I work as an accountant for a government contractor. More specifically, I work in accounts payable (I pay the bills for the company). I hope the following example makes my point about why we should get some money back:

I got a call the other day from a company that subcontracts for us. We owed them somewhere in the neighborhood of $140,000.00, and we were a day or two passed what they considered to be the day that we should have paid them by. Our company policy, however, is not to pay them 30 days after the invoice date, but after we recieve it. This usually gives us an extra week or so to pay it. Anyway, I asked my boss why we couldn’t just pay them so they would quit calling me. You see, that $140,000 meant nothing to me. It wasn’t my money. I didn’t care if it was spent.

This is how I think a lot of politicians in Washington are. The tax dollars they are spending are not there own. To them, it’s free money. So if some special interest group shows up at their doorstep (who happens to give them a lot of soft money and illegal kickbacks to visit the President) and demands that some money go to some radical left wing (or right wing, I’m not just picking on the liberals here) cause, they’d be more than happy to have the Treasury Department cut them a check.

But wait, it has to go through Congress, right? Surely somebody there will see that this is an extremist cause that does not represent the American people and will shoot it down, right? Think again. They have their own special interest groups to worry about. If they shoot down this guy’s bill, then he will shoot down their’s when it comes up. It’s a big game of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

I have no problem paying some taxes to the government because, as Dangerosa so aptly added we need roads, cancer research, and homeless shelters. My problem is that there are so many ways in which my hard earned money is being wasted that I feel I am being ripped off. Here are a few examples:

-The jobless woman who has been on welfare for six years who has nine kids from eight different fathers who keeps having kids because it means she gets a pay raise.

-The special interest group N.O.W., who I believe no longer represent women of this country, only their leftist agenda. I think it’s kind of hypocritical of these people to yell at Justice Clarence Thomas but not Gary Condit. At least Anita Hill is still alive. Any word from Chandra Levy yet?

-My government passing out needles to heroin addicts. I have a very libertarian view on drugs. I believe it is your body and you can do whatever you want to it. But I’ll be damned sure that I will not pay to support your habit. Could you imagine if we were passing out six-packs to alcoholics because they need it?

These are just a few examples of how I feel our government is wasting our money.

But wait, what about the National Debt? It’s so high. The number is so macrocosmic that we can hardly even envision that much money. Well, I’m sure that a lot of you have been in debt before. When I was in debt, I cut back on my luxuries as much as was necessary until it was paid off. Then I didn’t get into debt again. The difference between me and the federal government was I couldn’t go up to my boss and say, “I’ve racked up quite a few credit card bills (money I’ve already spent). You must give me a raise so that I can pay it off. Once I am out of debt, I will allow you to pay me less.”

Please try to remember, that the government is supposed to work for us. We are the bosses here. That is the beauty of democracy. Why should we pay them more so they can vote themselves a payraise or more security (gun weilding security for those anti-NRA people. Ain’t hypocracy grand?) whenever they want?

For more examples of government waste, I encourage you to visit the website of Citizens Against Governement Waste at http://www.cagw.org.

115

Why hypocrites? Thomas and Condit are both right-wingers who oppose most of the legislation that N.O.W. supports. There are “liberal” guys that N.O.W. may have hypocritically left alone, but Condit is not one. (And N.O.W. seems to be an off-topic rant in this case, anyway, since they are not a government subsidized organization.)

There can be valid arguments against needle-exchange, but your analogy is not among them. The government is not handing out heroin, just a device that will (potentially) reduce government expenses by reducing the risk of AIDS. (And this, of course, is leaving aside the point that many people had (debateable) statistics showing that the British system of giving heroin addicts controlled fixes actually worked before Reagan’s moralizing encouraged Thatcher to destroy that program.)

The several year old welfare “reform” law has already made this scenario obsolete.

If/When the government needs to cover their expenses in another few months or year by borrowing, they will reduce the amount of international money available for capital loans for business in this country as well as others. Paying down the debt would have made it easier for American industry to grow in the upcoming months. Scattering the money as droplets among the populace will not generate the same overall wealth as getting the government out of the money buying business.

116

Ashtar, do you get paid if we visit that site?

Most of what you mention-straw men.

117

Ashtar, I’m not going to bother refuting each of your examples of “government waste” because they’re not relevant to the discussion (and most have been covered on this board many times before). But I don’t see any logic to the central argument of your post. You seem to think that if we get tax cuts and there’s less money heading to the government, then Congress will be forced to reduce spending by eliminating unnecessary programs. But that isn’t how it worked in the past and it’s not how it would work now either. It’s much easier for Congress to simply let deficits return than to make serious reductions in spending.

118

Yes, this is the nub of the argument. I am 58 years old. During most of my life the Democrats controlled Congress. They continued to raise taxes, yet ALWAYS ran a budget deficit. I contend that actual experience shows that Congress will spend the money available, so the only way to reduce (or not increase) government spending is to reduce taxes. In theory, it would be better to cut spending first, but that seems to be virtually impossible.

BTW, the Bush tax cut will merely bring the ratio of tax to GNP down to a level of a few years ago. This ratio has been rising steadily due to bracket creep, and it will do so.in the future.

119

Of course, under Reagan and Bush senior, with a president and one house of congress firmly established under Republican control, we continued to spend while reducing taxes and still ran up an enormous deficit–one that was so large that it did affect the availablity of cash and threatened the economy. Then under Clinton, once the Republicans got control of both houses and rode “Clinton’s” taxes to budget surpluses, we still saw no effort to actually reduce the debt.

I have no faith in Republicans or Democrats, but it would be nice to see some politicians some time at least make the attempt to behave responsibly.

120

:snort: