Which is more important to you, lower taxes or eliminating the national debt?

Question

Which of these two choices are more important to you? Eliminating the national debt or lowering taxes? Which is better for our country in the long run?

Lancelot, unfortunately there are some holes in your theory...not every tax dollar reduced increases cash flow into the economy (some people save the money, reducing the money to the economy) and not every thing bought incurs taxes (such as groceries). This is why giving the rich a tax break does not result in everyone else benefitting.

Answer 1

No brainer, eliminating the National Debt is the better choice in the long run. Our taxes can go up do to compensating for the deficit and the higher cost of goods/services. You can lower taxes at anytime, not the deficit. Interest doesn't acrew on taxes but it does on the deficit. The deficit lowers the value of the American Dollar the higher it gets. It also means inflation and job loss. The list goes on. Taxes pay for immediate services, the deficit pays for goods without the money to pay the bill.

Answer 2

Lower my taxes and it will help lower the debt.

One thing that most people seem ignorant of is the national debt. It has been demagogued as something that is bad. Well, if not kept in check, it can be bad.

The comparison of the national debt can be done like this:

You have 10 Credit Cards. Each of them has a limit of $3000. You have a bad habit of spending a lot on those cards. And have maxed them out. Your debt would be 30,000 just on those cards. Now, add in your house, cars, and whatever other thing you like to spend your money on that you MUST pay. Your Debt just grew. There is not much different with the national debt except the size of the debt.
The federal government takes in trillions of dollars every year. They spend trillions of dollars and sometimes a little more. Mostly done with Bonds that people buy and expect a return on.

When you lower taxes, people get more money to spend. Every dollar you spend has tax after tax put on it. That money gets back to the government many many times over.... So the 1000 that Uncle Sam gave you back can become $2000 or $3000. They just multiplied their money by letting you spend more of it. It is simple economics’, but if you listen to people who either do not know economics, or that want to confuse you with misstatements, then you will assume the lies.

You have fallen for the propaganda that some of the Liberal Left has fed you. Heck, even the old Blue Dog Democrats know that what is going on is not bad, just should remain controlled.

Answer 3

Reducing the debt, through reduced spending.

The national debt simply represents a tax on future generations. Better to be rid of it first. If you get rid of the debt, you can then focus on lowering taxes.

But if you focus on lowering taxes first, you may never be able to reduce the debt.

Of course, the best solution is to do both at the same time: reduce taxes, reduce spending even more, and use the surplus to pay off the debt.

Answer 4

Don't try to hold your breath while waiting for either one.
Inflation and a national debt are believed to be good for the economy.

In the year 1900, there was no inflation, no national debt, and virtually no taxes. How far we have come in only 106 years!

Eventually, the national debt will be declared null and void and nonexistent, probably after a war. Or perhaps paid off ten cents on the dollar. Then there will be a major economic depression.
Or maybe, with a few years of triple-digit inflation, the national debt will be paid off in inflated money.

See, I am trying to cheer you up.

Answer 5

nicely, I applaud your homework in this, yet there is lots extra to the image of ways those presidents affected the rustic, financially and otherwise. Clinton did not quite stability the funds anymore than Reagan stopped the chilly conflict. those issues have been already in action and only take place to get carried out of their words with little to no enter via them. Bush 2d, not purely doubled the debt yet brought about u.s. harm which will persist with us for the subsequent 20 years or extra - not least of that are the envisioned 250,000 squaddies getting lower back from the wars he began to snatch Iraqi oil who will desire government counsel for something of their lives as they are going to be too broken to artwork or have kinfolk lives. Plus he exhausted the protection rigidity which now desires to be re-geared up. not each and every little thing would be measured via the debt and deficit. Bush in no way blanketed the cost of his wars in his funds, getting emergency spending each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days to pay for them (examine extra China debt). Obama does incorporate them, so now Conservatives can crow that Bush's budgets have been under Obama's.

Answer 6

Lowering taxes on the middle income. The national debt will never be totally eliminated

Answer 7

Eliminating the national debt

Answer 8

The interest alone on this debt would pay everybodys taxes for a few years. I would think it would be better to pay off the debt, guard against discretionary spending and then lower taxes for everybody, not just the rich as the repuglicans have done.

Answer 9

Well, it's unwise to completely eliminate the national debt. But lowering it to healthy levels is more important to me.

It's an awful legacy that we're leaving to our children.

Answer 10

Paying down the national debt is pretty doggone important.