How can anyone oppose making the tax cuts permanent?

Question

"The deficit" is NOT a valid response - the tax cuts have brought in MORE revenue by fueling economic growth. Whether the tax cuts paid for themselves is a simple question. There are (a) what revenue was just before the tax cuts, (b) what revenue was projected to be with the tax cuts, using static analysis, (c) what revenue was projected to be without the tax cuts, using static analysis, and (d), what revenue actually turned out to be following the tax cuts. If (d) is the highest of those, and Fed policy was neutral or restrictive, the tax cuts paid for themselves. Period. Money is fungible - the fact that you can't trace individual dollars to specific companies' or sectors' growth is irrelevant - you never can. All you have is the before and after and whether any other major factor might intervene - i.e., if the Fed was cutting rates maybe that could be why the economy grew. But it wasn't - rates were initially low but the Fed raised them and tax revenue grew even faster.

Answer 1

They use their knowledge of economics to garner Power over the citizens!
The interesting fact is...When J.F.K. ...R.W.R. pushed through major tax cuts...High tax democratic inspired recessions were reversed and government income on all levels went through the roof!
Just as it has under G.W. ! But liberals lose power when people are empowered to control and spend what "they earn" as they see fit, as opposed to the lefts superior, better than thou, for your best interest...Socialist re-distribution scheme of theirs.

Elitist pseudo-intellectual, faux humanitarians are control freaks with delusions of Godhood! When in fact they are the most vile fascists and racists and their philosophy would make Lenin and Hitler blush!
And their answer is a Chamberlain...Jack Webb! He probably has both Hitlers AND Iran's fascists of the moment's signature, as valid and historically worth while as all that deception was then, and is now worth! NOTHING!
Jack wants his kid back...I can relate!
But to lose when victory is a goal borders on cowardice...Welcome to the Democratic party!

Answer 2

Saying the tax cuts have increased revenue relies on a false assumption: that every bit of economic recovery has come from the tax cuts. If that assumption isn't true (and it isn't), then your argument falls apart.

Here is why it isn't true.

1. The largest part of the recovery was spurred by the Federal Reserve dropping interest rates. This fueled a boom of home loans, which created a booming trade in construction.

2. The recovery was also fueled by the largest ever federal spending increase (Yes-Bush and a Republican congress are responsible for increasing federal spending more than has ever happened before).

3. The economy is innately cyclical. Go look at a graph of the U.S. economy over the last hundred years, and you'll find it's basically a sine wave. The frequency and amplitude of the cycles varies slightly, but only slightly. For this reason, I don't really credit Clinton with the boom of the 90's, nor do I fault Bush for the recession at the start of his term. However, I do credit Clinton with taking advantage of this and balancing the budget, and I fault Bush for never once submitting a balanced budget.

Therefore, since the tax cuts are only one small part of the economic recovery that led the increased revenues, we should get rid of them, and use the revenue to pay our bill finally.

Answer 3

I agree with the point that you are assuming a cause and effect relationship in a vacuum. The points you bring up may be coincidental rather than causative.

I assume you would not make an argument that cutting your taxes to zero and waiting to see if tax revenue went up would provide you with an indication that you should pay no taxes. Most people don't like to pay taxes. But everyone takes for granted the services provided by our taxes - roads, police, fire protection.

The issues everyone should agree on are optimizing the tax rate - which is an impossible task that really degenerates into a political issue and eliminating as much waste as possible, while retaining those services which are necessary.

I would be against the tax cut, because I don't think it captures the optimal amount of revenue to fund the services we need. On a more personal level, I really only care about my net revenue. Gross revenue means nothing to me.

Answer 4

Because taxes are how bureaucrats get money to pay back lobbyists who gave them cash during the rest of the year. And Dems are actually talking about raising taxes. What social program could we possibly invent now? What dam do we need to build, what rich guy needs a highway to his new factory? Nancy Pelosi's first official act as Queen of the Dems was to add a rider to the minimum wage bill that excluded American Samoa (or Guam?) so that the San Francisco area canning industries who contribute so heavily to her would save money by not having to pay the new minimum wage at the canneries that were outsourced to those locations from California a few years ago. . So in the world of lemmings people would go "oh my God Queen Nancy has raised the wages of the poor!" except that you cheesed out some folks (who happen to be a minority too) as a political favor to a lobbyist. People who think that Dems are the answer or that they are somehow more moral than Repub are the dumbest people on earth.

Answer 5

I too go with reducing the size of the federal authorities, yet there's a capture 22 concern. First, the only thanks to make the "tax cuts everlasting" is to also to reduce the size of the federal authorities. in the different case companies received't extremely make investments, quite only carry on to the cut back to pay the bill even as it comes due(see the ricardian equivalence). ok, then in the experience that your going to make cuts in spending what do you chop back? you could only contact discretionary spending which the final public of is going to street projects that are planned years in boost (the "G" interior the GDP formulation). yet another question: Why has authentic GDP boom slowed over the former few quarters? ought to or not it is per chance that money became diverted to purchase fed. bonds (which helps Bush's cyclical deficits) quite of going to the own capital projects? with the exception of, the Fed can't even decrease the fed money fee to strive against adverse authentic GDP boom because of mounting inflationary boom. Couple that with growing to be enter expenses (the reason behind that mounting inflationary boom) and your searching at a bleak destiny for the subsequent 3 hundred and sixty 5 days or so. you position it in simplistic absolutist words which isn't descriptive of the present concern.

Answer 6

I think that the gov't should only have one sort of tax that would be based on your yearly totals and nothing else. Sort of like Canada. Their Tax paperwork is one sheet with 7 lines for entry on it. And they already have everything they need. The qestion is not weather anyone oposes permanent taxcuts its that our rules and economy fluctuates too much, hence crazy tax increases and decreases.

Answer 7

No matter how you attempt to twist the truth, the Bush tax cuts have gone mainly to the rich, who didn't need tax cuts and who, in many instances, never paid a penny in taxes anyway! You're prattling and parroting the same disproven garbage about tax cuts bringing in more revenue - they haven't - and encouraging the recipients to put more money into wages and the like -which it most certainly did not! Ya see, most of us realize there're lies, d a m n lies, and statistics!

Answer 8

Dude, You don't really believe in doing your own research do you?

Anything released by the White house has to be taken, not with a grain of salt, but by a salt lick. They're claiming that they've "slashed the deficit", but if you look at how they did it, it makes no sense. They're borroring from Social Security to pay off the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Best analogy I've heard so far is that it is like using your Mastercard to pay off your Visa and claiming that there is that much less you have to owe.

From the Citizens for Tax Justice website:
-For the wealthiest one percent of Americans, who have an average 2006 income of $1,272,000, the tax breaks outweigh the added debt burden accumulated from 2001 through 2006 by an average of $30,352 per family member. They have received an average tax break of $84,482 per family member, which exceeds their added debt burden of $54,130 per person by $30,352.
In contrast, the added debt burden accumulated from 2001 through 2006 outweighs the tax breaks for the other 99 percent of U.S. residents by an average of $7,166 per person. They have received a tax break of $2,616, but their added debt burden is $9,782 per person.
Put another way, if you’re among the 99 percent of Americans who lose, then for every $1.00 in tax cuts the federal government has given you over the past six years, you’re left holding a bill for $3.74.

Another issue:
Despite the fact that tax breaks enacted since 2001 are responsible for almost HALF of the U.S. federal budget deficit, President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress claim that they need new budget rules that will encourage deep cuts in federal programs — but mandate no changes in tax policy — in order to get deficits under control.
Congress Considers Budget Rules To Slash Services Americans Depend On, While Protecting Tax Breaks for the Rich

I got that link from a friend of mine who actually used to support the tax cuts until he actually researched it.

For those of you who bring up the Minimum wage argument:

"But the disparity between American Samoa and the Northern Mariana islands’ wage policies is nothing new, and the Democrats’ minimum wage bill does not mention American Samoa in any way.

While the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) has been exempt from any federal minimum wage standards – an exemption that former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked for years to protect – Samoa has operated under federal minimum wage laws for years.

Samoa, however, has a federal wage review board in place that allows it to evaluate the effect incremental increases in its minimum wages would have on the territory’s economy. This wage review board, made up of representatives in Samoa’s business and public sector who are appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, has set Samoa’s wages and has managed to keep them well below the mainland U.S. minimum wage."

Answer 9

The Democrats want to raise taxes to fund social welfare programs because that's how they buy votes from their constituants. You continually hear them say that they only want to tax the rich and that's just a lie. They want to tax the successful! It's like they want to punish progress. Hillary wants to raise taxes to pay for her universal healthcare program and that's stupid on a lot of levels. The President wants to give tax breaks to individuals who purchase their own health care insurance and to businesses that provide health care insurance to their employees. That makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Answer 10

So you are ruling out the use of the correct answer. look at history. under Reagan the largest tax cuts in history, then the largest deficit in history. Then comes bush with a don't care about history attitude and he repeats it.