Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13485)	10/23/2003 12:08:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793568

Tax cuts reduce revenue in the short term. That's obvious Even that may not be obvious, if tax cuts lead to a decrease in tax-dodging. All depends what the setup was before the cuts.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (13485)	10/24/2003 10:42:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 793568

It is virtually impossible to quantify the degree to which any specific given factor affects macroeconomic indicators. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. You can twist numbers to support either side in the argument, but the numbers are just too general, and subject to too many influences, for the figures to mean much in either case. Then it is virtually impossible to support an argument that tax rate increases result in increased taxes. After all, economic activity may very well fall as a result of the increase. Also, tax dodging becomes a more popular sport. This has certainly been demonstrated with cigarette taxes both here and in Canada. The idea that tax cuts will automatically generate enough growth to cover revenue shortfalls is, to me, a dangerous thing. The idea that every d*ned cent of everyone's money belongs to the gov't is also a dangerous idea, Steven. Someone can ALWAYS dream up some urgent need that is currently not being met by the gov't and requires more taxes. We have seen this so many times in the country it is simply ludicrous. It is by far the best example of the "slippery slope" argument. I much prefer to keep to the idea that the government should, to the greatest possible degree, keep its spendings reasonably close to its earnings.* Fine. But when Teddy finally gets his prescription drug program and more taxes are needed and evasion increases as a result, what do you do then? Increase the power of the gov't so it can find and steal more money?