I'm starting to wonder why Democrats raise taxes

[Moiraine]

I think taxes should be raised to what they were before Bush's tax cuts. Something Obama didn't do for some reason (which is why it's so stupid how much Republicans seem to hate him). I'm okay with simplifying the system though.

 

What I don't get is why the Democrats bother anymore. When the debt inflates due in large part to not having the money to pay for our expenses, the Republicans convince half the population that it has nothing to do with the tax cuts. So whichever Democrat becomes president after taxes are cut gets blamed for it.

 

Trump wants to cut taxes even more so if there is a Democrat president after him the same thing will happen. I don't know why they even bother anymore when they get blamed for what the Republicans do. Why not just do the popular thing?

[BigRedBuster]

There is another side to the deficit equation.

[Moiraine]

There is another side to the deficit equation.

 

I know.

 

I'll admit I don't know a lot about the economy but it doesn't seem like Republicans (Tea Partyers) started pushing for major budget reduction until Obama was elected.

 

And then of course another major factor which is why Republicans call for lower taxes is helping businesses bolster the economy.

[BigRedBuster]

Taxes and the deficit is a very complicated subject.

 

Republicans should hold the responsibility for what the tax cuts has done to the deficit. My comment doesn't mean they didn't play a major part in this.

 

 

However, I the tax cuts wouldn't be nearly as big of issue if spending didn't go through the roof at the same time. When 9/11 hit and the Bush administration knew they were going to spend a huge amount on wars and the economy, they shouldn't have gone through with the tax cuts. Then the bank bail outs that both Bush and Obama are responsible for. The spending increases have slowed during the Obama administration but the true costs of ACA really are just now starting to hit.

 

So, tax cuts by themselves are not the problem. But, you have to control spending at the same time.

 

If you can control spending, then great...give tax cuts.

 

Also....I'm not in favor of huge tax increases for anyone unless the expenses side is also looked at.

 

My personal opinion is that the tax rates for the wealthy individuals are just fine. But, simplify the tax code. Allow companies to repatriate their income without a HUGE hit. Bring that money back to the US for our own economy, reduce corporate tax rates but tax the people who benefit from those corporations.

[Moiraine]

Just realized I used the word budget where I meant debt, heh. The budget doesn't inflate because of low taxes

[BigRedBuster]

And the debt doesn't inflate just because of lower taxes.

[NUance]

I'd rather see our politicians work to cut spending. They talk a lot about it. Make all sorts of campaign promises. But at the end of the day our politicians just can't bring themselves to cut spending.

[Moiraine]

And the debt doesn't inflate just because of lower taxes.

I didn't say it did but it's a huge factor. When you lower the amount of $ you have and don't cut spending, the debt increases. I don't get why the Tea Party didn't arise between 2000-2007 and cut spending to coincide with the tax reduction.

[ZRod]

Obama wasn't going to increase taxes due to the fragile nature of the economy at the time, the same reason the fed hasn't increased interest rates (supposedly). And no President is going ro make Bush I's mistake again and increase taxes in their first term.

 

That said, I think taxes should be raised on the wealthy to a level more inline with the first half of the 20th century, and taxes on the middle class gradually reduced by a few percent. A couple grand in a middle class family's pocket is a big thing for them and the economy. Tax codes need to be rewritten to eliminate so many loop holes and collect the proper amounts from people and business. The codes need to be structured to enfluence spending and hiring by companies.

[BigRedBuster]

 

And the debt doesn't inflate just because of lower taxes.

I didn't say it did but it's a huge factor. When you lower the amount of $ you have and don't cut spending, the debt increases. I don't get why the Tea Party didn't arise between 2000-2007 and cut spending to coincide with the tax reduction.

 

You will never see me defend anything the Tea Party.

 

The underlined is the biggest issue with me.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

And the debt doesn't inflate just because of lower taxes.

I didn't say it did but it's a huge factor. When you lower the amount of $ you have and don't cut spending, the debt increases. I don't get why the Tea Party didn't arise between 2000-2007 and cut spending to coincide with the tax reduction.

You will never see me defend anything the Tea Party.

 

The underlined is the biggest issue with me.

I thought balancing the budget was one of their major goals. Anyway the reason I mention it is the Republicans were in charge and as far as I know didn't cut spending. At least not enough.

 

For the record I'm for higher taxes, not cutting spending. The Republicans tend to cut help for the poor but keep subsidies in place that help people who don't need it.

[ZRod]

 

 

And the debt doesn't inflate just because of lower taxes.

 

I didn't say it did but it's a huge factor. When you lower the amount of $ you have and don't cut spending, the debt increases. I don't get why the Tea Party didn't arise between 2000-2007 and cut spending to coincide with the tax reduction.

You will never see me defend anything the Tea Party.

 

The underlined is the biggest issue with me.

That's a huge issue, but it seems like we're at a point now where it's political suicide to seriously work on cutting spending.

 

If you eliminate the needless military equipment and vehicles the congressmen of those districts likely lose their seat. If you cut entitlements, you affecting tens of millions who may not have other options. Eliminate certain agencies, and watch dogs are gone.

 

We are going to have sit down and have a real reckoning soon...

[Moiraine]

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

[BigRedBuster]

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

Yep...always thought that was pretty stupid.

 

All these congressmen sitting around talking about how horrible it is that SS is going broke and it's so hard to fix it.......when they themselves aren't paying in as much (as a percentage) as the rest of us.

 

It truly is a perfect example of using an issue to garner votes but not interested in actually fixing it.

[84HuskerLaw]

Tax cuts almost always increase revenues to the federal government under the basic taxing approaches taken by the federal government over the past 50 years or so. This is because the economy in general grows as a result of tax cuts. Almost any tax cut stimulates economic growth. Economic growth expands the tax base (the source of all taxes is economic activity such as sales, income, profits, etc etc). This is not a complicated subject but for many liberals who have a mistaken idea of how basic economics work - often explained by the use of the 'pie' concept. Liberals make the mistake of thinking that the economy is a fixed or static sum and not a growing and expanding phenomenom. The economic 'pie' is not a fixed size so reducing the % of the pie taken by the government does not mean the government gets LESS. In fact, quite the opposite, the pie grows larger in circumference and the government gains not loses. This is not to say that there are not interruptions in the cash flows and the timing of the revenues taken in by government as the growth does not hapen instantly but rather happens over time.

 

Conversely, tax increases almost always decrease tax revenues to the government, over time. In the short run, of course, taking money from the people and putting it in government accounts begets short term cash inflows. But as the loss of money reduces growth, the government in the long term will get less and need to again raise more taxes.

 

More growth and economic activity can be stimulated by certain types of tax cuts than others depending on the types of taxes cut but ultimately any tax cut is a good one economically. Government produces almost NOTHING economcally while the private sector produces almost everything economcally. Government consumes the productivity of the people and any time you increase the share of the economy consumed by government you will discourage growth. Obviously, government provides some essential services for the society - otherwise the ideal tax cut would be a 100% cut to zero - such as national defense and security and protection of the soverignty of the nation. Almost all government is most effective, efficient and least wasteful when it is conducted at the local level where it is most closely monitored and limited by the people being governed. This is why the founding fathers designed the national government in a 'federalist' form with all powers retained to the people and local governments with only those specific powers allowed for the national government - i.e. 'federalism' in a nutshell.

 

Democrats are always eager to raise taxes because the power to tax is the power to destroy and control and because they wrongfully believe that government spending is somehow 'good' for the economy and the people. Economically speaking, sadly, the exact opposite is true. Many Democrats would actually agree that you can 'stimulate the economy' and make people richer by simply passing a law that says "Americans are hereby declared to be rich!" Such foolishness.