The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:23 pm 
Are tax cuts inherently conservative?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:35 pm 
I'm answering without RTFA'ing, I suppose I'll have to edit this once I read it.

Of course not.

Conservatives generally favor low taxes, but if the taxes are already low there's no reason to lower them further.

[aside]I'd prefer a national sales tax on non-necessities to our current system, but I don't expect anything as simple and rational as that to happen any time soon.[/aside]

EDIT: Something to add in response to "George", moving Social Security revenue into individual accounts only solves half the problem. The other half of the problem is where do we get the money needed to pay the people who are currently recieving Social Security and those who will be retiring in the next few years with only a handful of cash in thier individual accounts? The core problem with Social Security is that there just isn't going to be enough money coming in the keep up with the need, and the only ways the Government will have to pay will be additional tax increases, printing money, or going deeper into debt.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm 
Tax cuts, no, not inherently. The tax cuts were supposed to be a side effect of the decrease of governmental size. Sadly, the current "conservative" leadership believes that tax cuts themselves are the end, and not the side effect.

The only logical thing about their position on tax cuts are that in the long run, they do provide a boost to the economy. Having more capital under the control of people who have an interest in producing more business, more jobs, more products.

Instead of under the control of people who waste money on as many pointless things as good things.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:48 am 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
The problem with considering tax cuts into a deficit as stimulative is that, in the end, someone has to pay for the deficit.

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:14 am 
Vorn the Unspeakable wrote:
The problem with considering tax cuts into a deficit as stimulative is that, in the end, someone has to pay for the deficit.


Yep. Which is SUPPOSED to happen in times of economic boom, when the tax revenues increase without any sort of tax increase. The problem with this vision is that politicians think that if they have more money coming, they need to spend more money...

We should be keeping spending fairly constant and taxes fairly constant, both at a much, MUCH lower level than they are today. In economic recession you have a deficit, in economic booms you have a surplus, and they balance each other out. This is kind of like the ocean stabilizing temperatures along the coast. It acts as a sink and source of money stabilizing the economy through the deficit spending, then drawing some off of a hotter economy to pay for it. Too bad politicians want to run a deficit even in the hottest economies we ever have, such as the internet bubble. Instead of getting a REAL surplus, they continued to increase spending, albeit at a slower rate than the taxes were going up. This resulted in the smallest deficit in decades, but a deficit of 20 billion is still nothing to be sneezed at.

The various TABOR bills in the states have some right ideas, such as limiting growth of government to inflation plus population increase, except for returning surplus money. This encourages spending all the money they are permitted under the law, then borrowing during hard times to keep the government going rather than saving money up to keep the government going. Every time one of these local governments float a bill demanding bonds to pay for this or that, I usually oppose it with the hope that they would operate off current income and saved income and work within their means rather than living on credit.

In the years since Colorado passed the TABOR amendment here, we've had tons of attempts to defang it, using such things as "we can't use this money the railroads are trying to set aside for us to improve the underpass."

Uh. other counties worked within TABOR, having the railroads pay the contractors directly...

Governments... :roll:

Now that I've restated what I've said a half dozen times before, I'm going to sleep. ;)


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group