Give me one REAL reason not to make the tax cuts permanent?

Question

List of the usually-argued fake reasons and why they're fake:

1) "The deficit" - - tax revenue is UP since the tax cuts and is rising at over 4X the rate of inflation - - - yes we have a deficit problem but that means we need to cut SPENDING. When your boss gives you a raise that's $2K more than you expected and your husband blows $3K more than you expected at the dog track, the problem's not with your boss!

2) "They went only to the rich" --- First of all, that's not true. Second, even if it were true, it's their money - someone else's tax cut doesn't harm you. It doesn't mean "you have to pay more" if revenue is going UP. Moreover, the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% of taxpayers pay an INCREASING share of the tax burden since the tax cuts went into effect.

3) "Lower income folks should get a tax cut" - sure, go ahead, I'll support ANY tax cut - but again, revenue is UP - cutting Peter's taxes is not a reason to raise Paul's taxes.

OK Sir Rene, talking about the federal income tax cuts here, public schools are funded with local property taxes, sorry for the confusion.

OK dolleyemu, again, REVENUE IS INCREASING ALREADY, AT 4 TIMES THE RATE OF INFLATION, BECAUSE WE CUT TAX RATES - - - the economy reinvested the tax savings in TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS, ultimately producing higher taxable income (a larger tax base) thus higher tax revenue.

When the current POTUS' Dad raised tax rates in 1990 (going into effect in 1991), tax revenue in real dollars went DOWN.

So the Laffer Curve is real and while there's a right side of it, we're not on it yet (and even if we get to the right side of it, the increases in the tax BASE are still there - meaning the "need" for many of the programs funded through those taxes should decline (as more people get jobs, programs for jobless people are less needed).

OK Argle, again, "the debt" is not a real answer, because the tax RATE cuts have produced INCREASED REVENUE.

OK but Kenny, the early 2004 Brookings article hasn't come to pass - - since that article was written the Fed has increased interest rates a record 17 times yet the expansion continues, and the revenue increases have continued with it, because of higher taxable incomes, BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS.

It's like if Peter Gammons had said that the Nomar trade was a bad idea - - yes Peter Gammons is smart but we know he was wrong - time has already told us.

Sorry - I meant good idea.

Boston sorry again the facts just don't support your arguments. Incomes are rising fairly quickly. And you're considering "class" as if it were permanent. It's not. What shows up in a snapshot as "classes" correlate to station in your career - - - as we've become a knowledge-based economy, people with little experience make a little more than people with little experience did a generation ago, people with some experience are a bit better off than people with some experience a generation ago, people with significant experience make a lot more - - - but almost everyone goes through all three stages.

YES information police, it has EVERYTHING to do with the recovery - which continues even after 17 interest rate hikes BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS.

The tax cuts enabled the recovery which produced higher incomes which created the revenue growth.....

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU????

Information police yes, of course you can separate them, they're two separate issues - - if we hadn't increased spending we'd have a surplus!

userx2000 - "I can't afford to buy a home made by the builder I work for" - - - why is it automatic that you should? Should the cashier at Shreve, Crump and Lowe be able to afford a diamond necklace?

I guess I just don't understand why the people who claim to care about the poor, and always say "we need a less free and more highly taxed economy so we can take from the rich and give to the poor" - once you show them that in a freer, less-taxed economy, yes the rich are richer but there are also a lot more OF them, and while there are the same number of poor people, we've imported 8 million more, so if net poverty is flat, that means people are moving up, they fight it. They refuse to abandon their static analysis. It's proven out - growing the whole pie makes everyone better off, and doing it by allowing the economy to grow naturally by reinvesting its own earnings rather than artificially by inflating the money supply works in the long run.

Reagan it has indeed been proven - but Libs don't let facts get in the way of their world view.

They'd rather pretend this is a subjective question on which both sides are equally valid than LOOK IT UP and see that they're wrong.

Answer 1

This has been proven over and over but it makes the libs feel better saying that were going to tax the rich. The rich that they are talking about is always the middle class aka the working people.

Answer 2

that's not as a lot of a black and white difficulty as you think of. you might have it the two approaches if spending is decrease in different aspects. that's some thing that the left which will by no skill understand, through fact they % entitlements and stimulus programs and bailouts and "funds for clunkers" and different issues that one and all value funds. greater tax isn't the only thank you to repay a deficit, and for this reason the left fails time and time back. decreased government spending is the alternative way of paying down the deficit. that's the place the authentic black and white comes into play. you have 2 thoughts, decrease spending or develop taxes. the two way, there'll be losers, and human beings who would be offended...yet here is the question...which will effect greater human beings? And which will effect greater people who actually pull their weight in society? Tax hikes will actually negatively impression greater human beings than reducing entitlement courses, to not point out, why ought to we proceed to punish the folk who artwork and not the folk on the government dole? and not purely the entitlements, government itself needs to step as much as the plate and take one for the group...they could take pay cuts, income mark downs, and so on, yet they by no skill will. CEO's and VPs of agencies will try this in annoying situations, why won't be able to our government?

Answer 3

1. The deficit. Under the Bush administration, the deficit has grown more than the deficits of ALL administrations before his COMBINED! He's the ONLY wartime President to cut taxes during wartime. The growth of the deficit has slowed but we're not paying it off yet and without massive tax increases we never will.

2. The majority of the cuts most certainly went to the wealthy. I average about $82k a year and I got enough for a case of cheap beer a month out of the tax "cuts." My brother makes about 10 times as much but his cut was about 100 times as much as mine. So don't tell me they didn't go disproportionately to the wealthy.

3. Real after tax income growth for the middle class under Bush is the worst since The Depression. Inversely skewed tax cuts for the wealthy are the primary cause of this failure to grow income for the middle class. On the other hand, real after tax income for the wealthy under Bush is the highest in the history of the nation.

You asked for 1 real reason. I've given you 3.

Answer 4

Tax revenues increased since the tax cuts? I'm sure that had absolutely nothing to do with recovering from the economic shock of 9/11.

The tax cuts of 2003 were also accompanied by the biggest INCREASE in federal spending in history. Can you separate the effect of the tax cuts from the effect of spending increases?

Answer 5

Let me quote an article that is way more intelligent than you.

Should the President's Tax Cuts be Made Permanent?

Brookings Institution, March 8, 2004
Abstract

This article examines the economic impacts of the Bush Administration's proposal to make its recent tax cuts permanent. Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive and would dig a fiscal hole over the next 75 years that is as big as the combined social security and medicare trust fund shortfalls over the same period. This would raise uncertainty about future policy and it highlights that a key issue is how the tax cut would be financed. If it were financed with deficits, the tax cut would reduce long-term growth. If it were financed by spending cuts, it may increase growth, but the spending cuts would likely be regressive, in which case lower and moderate income households could actually be worse off. In addition, the required spending cuts are monumental and hence extremely unlikely to occur. Because of the salience of the financing issue, no proposal to make the tax cut permanent should be considered unless the financing is specified as well. The Administration has not specified how its tax cut would be financed.

Answer 6

I don't support the tax cuts...because I didn't get one.

My taxes have gone consistently up since 2000.

I'm middle class...45k /yr, and I can't afford health insurance for my children...I don't live beyond my means...unless you consider having a 3/2 home and one vehicle beyond your means..

The current tax percentage wouldn't be such a problem for people like me, if the cost of living wasn't so damn high.

I got news for all those people who say...."well the rich pay most of the taxes in this country".......They should pay the most !.....They wouldn't be rich if it weren't for the middle class who run their businesses and buy their products.

Example: I work for the 5th largest residential builder in the United States.....The owners are multibillionares...which is fine...however, I can't afford to buy a home built by the company I work for. Right there you can deduce that something is fundamentally wrong with way money is distributed within our economy.

The rich get richer, the poor get sicker.

Time for a change....whether it's taxes or something else...but something has to give soon.

Answer 7

There was no good reason to institute them to begin with. The Iraq War has put us deeper into debt and that would be a good place to cut what spending we still can. We’ll be paying for this war for many years to come. Also, borrowing from Social Security has got to stop.

Answer 8

The debt. Almost 9 Trillion dollars now. That's the only reason I need. True fiscal conservatives understand this.

Answer 9

Tax cuts should not be permanent because once you cut the taxes, it disrupts the quality in the public school system. Less funding means less quality. Less quality leads to less hopeful future.

Answer 10

two things:

we should replace the tax cuts with a sales tax.

the deficit is still relevant. you should cut spending AND increase revenue.