Tax cuts and the national debt

[admin]

It’s a brilliant plan:

– Cut taxes.

– Spend more.

– Create lots of jobs.

– Eliminate the national debt in ten years.

Why didn’t we think of this earlier?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan

[spdrun]

I don’t get the opposition to taxes. I’d be glad to pay a sizable chunk of my income in tax if I had a family, in exchange for certain guarantees.
(1) My kids get a decent public education no matter what happens to me
(2) My kids have access to secondary education at low cost
(3) My family has access to healthcare at low cost with minimal risk of medical bankruptcy
(4) Government retirement system (read: Social Security) remains well-funded
(5) Infrastructure and public transport systems are well maintained
(6) Things like the environment, food quality, and drug efficacy are well-regulated to prevent corporations harming the public. Also, working hours are regulated and vacation time is guaranteed as a matter of health and safety.

Problem with the US isn’t our taxes are terribly high — it’s that we don’t get much back for the tax money spent. We waste it on homicide sprees abroad (aka, power projection) and abuse of our own citizenry (overpolicing, mass incarceration, war on the bugaboo of the week).

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]I don’t get the opposition to taxes. I’d be glad to pay a sizable chunk of my income in tax if I had a family, in exchange for certain guarantees.

[…][/quote]

Your logical and reasonable points can be wholly refuted simply by labeling you a libtard.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=spdrun]
Problem with the US isn’t our taxes are terribly high — it’s that we don’t get much back for the tax money spent. We waste it on homicide sprees abroad (aka, power projection) and abuse of our own citizenry (overpolicing, mass incarceration, war on the bugaboo of the week).[/quote]

I think this is the main catch. Aside from a support network for old people, which most people with any sense of history and plans to be old one day themselves are ok with, we don’t get a lot of visible stuff for our low taxes.

A huge chunk of our taxes go to national defense, and there’s the biggest irony; a lot of people who want lower taxes want higher defense spending. The sequester actually was helpful in temporarily stemming ballooning defense spending, but unfortunately most of that eventually got exceptioned out.

[spdrun]

You mean “national offense?”

[moneymaker]

Have to agree with spdrun most of our military budget seems to be offensive and not defensive weapons.

[FlyerInHi]

I was grateful about the sequester, at least to military spending

Lots people, you know who, bitch about the cost defending allies, yet they want to project more American power which leads to escalating military spending.

I think Americans generally like badass talk and kickass adventures. Lots of soldiers go with badass attitudes, then they come back with psychological problems. Then their families start crying.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Lots people, you know who, bitch about the cost defending allies, yet they want to project more American power which leads to escalating military spending.
[/quote]

And this is where the “average voter” is just stupid. Either you want America to have the most Dominant military force in the world (and the cost that comes with it) or you want Rand Paul style isolationism. I suppose you can also be a moderate. But you can’t demand the goodies without paying the price. But then again 95% of politics is promising to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, or free college for all.

[FlyerInHi]

I think free public college is not outrageous. It’s just raising the bar from high school and it would be money well spent, if well implemented.

The people who are against college are the very people whose kids would benefit most from tuition free college. I find it funny that some segment of our population think that college is elitist. All the immigrants i talk to look up to college and wish their kids could attend university, even if they didnt go.

For comparison, i seem to remember that 80% of Korean high school kids go to college. They have become a modern prosperous society in 1 generation. They have little natural resources or agriculture. It’s a cold frozen country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Either you want America to have the most Dominant military force in the world (and the cost that comes with it) or you want Rand Paul style isolationism.[/quote]

Today’s “average voter” understands:

– Vote for one party and you’ll get neither

– Vote for the other party and you’ll get both

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
A huge chunk of our taxes go to national defense, and there’s the biggest irony; a lot of people who want lower taxes want higher defense spending. The sequester actually was helpful in temporarily stemming ballooning defense spending, but unfortunately most of that eventually got exceptioned out.[/quote]

Defense spending is large but it’s not the main problem with the national budget. Healthcare is the biggest one and growing way too fast. You have to address cost side of the equation which means you have to eliminate the medical monopolies and artificial supply constraints. Raising taxes and subsidizing certain individuals isn’t going to fix the real problem.

[Anonymous]

[quote=livinincali]Defense spending is large but it’s not the main problem with the national budget. Healthcare is the biggest one and growing way too fast. You have to address cost side of the equation which means you have to eliminate the medical monopolies and artificial supply constraints. Raising taxes and subsidizing certain individuals isn’t going to fix the real problem.[/quote]

Not sure what numbers you are looking at but defense is bigger than healthcare in every federal spending chart I’ve seen.

Healthcare is likely to grow but only because almost all Americans want the government to provide that also (except those enlightened ones that want the government to keep it’s hands off their Medicare…)

The “medical monopoly” argument is a canard. Haven’t heard that one in a while, even in the latest election rhetoric. But if you want to use that one you’ve just gone full circle – the only paying entity that has negotiating power in healthcare costs is government.

[EconProf]

For the record, entitlements are 49% of the federal budget and defense is 18%. Equally important are the trends. Defense has been stable or shrinking while entitlements have been growing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=EconProf]For the record, entitlements are 49% of the federal budget and defense is 18%. Equally important are the trends. Defense has been stable or shrinking while entitlements have been growing.[/quote]

Yes we are going down this path…discretionary/non-discretionary….

The big entitlements have their own source of revenue – we can make SS and Medicare disappear tomorrow, both the payroll taxes and the spending, and there’s still a deficit. Basic arithmetic shows that we cannot simply blame government overspending on entitlements.

What’s important is what benefits we actually receive for the spending: Pay for grandma’s bypass surgery or maintain an air base in Farfuckistan.

Of course Americans across the board want their entitlements. One side just doesn’t want to pay for them.

So did anybody actually look at the OP article? A walk down memory lane. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate our national debt away by now. And yet we don’t have that, or flying cars.

This time will be different.

[FlyerInHi]

I’m waiting with bated breadth to see what Trump will do with regard to healthcare.

My expectation is that medical will be worse in 4 years now has republicans have rejected Obamacare which is a version of Romney care. They don’t have an alternative to offer. I think deep down they know know we need government run basic healthcare and rationing in order to contain costs.

[Author]

Posts