American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44422)	7/28/2010 5:07:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 71588

What actual numbers could be provided. Its a matter of definition not math. Its as if I said "a cat is a mamal", and you said "show me the numbers". Numbers aren't really relevant to the definitional issue, and whatever numbers you plugged in it would still be true. Lets say a tax cut of 10%, reduced federal revenue by 10% (the actual reduction in revenue would almost always be less but I'm being generous to your side of the argument). OK, then the tax cut leads to lower revenue for the government. The actual numbers in such a case would refute (at least for this one cut) the "tax cuts pay for themselves" idea. But that isn't the idea we are talking about. I'm not claiming "tax cuts don't reduce government revenue", but rather "tax cuts are not a cost". Whatever the reduction in revenue the cost is zero. Taxes are a transfer to the government. Taxpayer A pays $X to government B. If you cut the tax by Y then the taxpayer pays $x-y to the government. The government has Y less revenue but 1 - That's made up by the taxpayer having $Y more. and 2 - Less revenue is not an increase in cost, its a decrease in the income that can be used to pay for costs.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next