Why cut taxes?

[creekster]

Amazing how many people make this argument about "keeping your money" while piling up federal debt that their grandkids will have to pay off.

So you disagree? You think it isnt your money? That’s your right but I prefer to keep ownership straight. I also dont want to “pile up federal debt” but I resent someone telling me that it is a government handout (especially given that I project to pay more in taxes next year).

[Jeff Lebowski]

So you disagree? You think it isnt your money? That’s your right but I prefer to keep ownership straight. I also dont want to “pile up federal debt” but I resent someone telling me that it is a government handout (especially given that I project to pay more in taxes next year).

Mostly I think it is a silly argument over semantics.

[beefytee]

LOL @ Canadians.

LOL @ Americans for ceding the tax rate advantage to Canada for a whole decade.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/corporate-tax-rate

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...orate-tax-rate

[Jeff Lebowski]

LOL @ Americans for ceding the tax rate advantage to Canada for a whole decade.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/corporate-tax-rate

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...orate-tax-rate

The party is over, hoser!

[creekster]

Mostly I think it is a silly argument over semantics.

By definition, I suppose, it is an argument over meaning and thus one over semantics. But it is not a meaningless distinction. The burden of persuasion should always be on the government (or other advocate for taxes) when my property is being taken. Discussions of taxes should never start with the premise that it is the government's money.

[Jeff Lebowski]

By definition, I suppose, it is an argument over meaning and thus one over semantics. But it is not a meaningless distinction. The burden of persuasion should always be on the government (or other advocate for taxes) when my property is being taken. Discussions of taxes should never start with the premise that it is the government's money.

I see arguments all the time on FB that taxation is theft. Crazy talk. There is not a single one of us that does not benefit from the structure provided by society and the government in terms of roads, police protection, rule of law, etc. You cannot earn "your money" without operating in that system and benefiting from it. None of us exists in an independent, self-sustaining vacuum. We can argue over how much taxation is necessary/proper, but the notion that it is all your money and your "property is being taken" is baloney.

[falafel]

I see arguments all the time on FB that taxation is theft. Crazy talk. There is not a single one of us that does not benefit from the structure provided by society and the government in terms of roads, police protection, rule of law, etc. You cannot earn "your money" without operating in that system and benefiting from it. None of us exists in an independent, self-sustaining vacuum. We can argue over how much taxation is necessary/proper, but the notion that it is all your money and your "property is being taken" is baloney.

[creekster]

I see arguments all the time on FB that taxation is theft. Crazy talk. There is not a single one of us that does not benefit from the structure provided by society and the government in terms of roads, police protection, rule of law, etc. You cannot earn "your money" without operating in that system and benefiting from it. None of us exists in an independent, self-sustaining vacuum. We can argue over how much taxation is necessary/proper, but the notion that it is all your money and your "property is being taken" is baloney.

Did I say it was theft? Sometimes it is hard to figure out who you are talking to in your posts. I simply said the distinction has meaning as when it comes to taxes the burden of persuasion must always be on the government, or those who urge the government. Clearly the government in its essential functions must be supplied with the means to perform them. It's all part of our social contract. No doubt about that. But that tax money is my money. My earnings. It results from my property or my labor. So if taxes are cut, they are giving me my money back, or taking less of it, but they are never giving me a handout by cutting taxes.

To be clear, I said nothing about theft. I said nothing to suggest the government should never take any taxes. I said nothing to even suggest they idea that I existed in an "independent, self-sustaining vacuum." The argument, which you concede is proper, is over how much taxation of my money and my property is necessary and proper. But it is still my money that is the source of those tax revenues.

[Crockett]

If the budget is not balanced, you are not "keeping more of your money". You are spending more of your grandkids' money. Freeloader.

Oh, so you agree that we have a spending problem? That's really the issue. Even with record tax revenues this year we are still running a deficit. Roughly 2/3 of federal govt spending is entitlement spending.

I actually agree that current generations are immorally spending too much money and they are in effect stealing from their offspring's future. Hey, common ground!

The problem with trying to fix entitlements is that democrats will scaremonger, as they do, that republicans are trying to kill everybody if the republicans even dare to curb entitlements even a little. Again, democrats continue to buy and scaremonger votes. Maybe the tax reform will boost economic growth enough to grow us out of this mess. More taxes are not going to fix the problem. Obama loaded up the entitlements and taxes and we were told to expect the new normal of 2% annual GDP growth. Well, Trump said FU, Obama, we can do better!

And I don't want to hear any more complaining from you about your tax hike!

[Crockett]

Did I say it was theft? Sometimes it is hard to figure out who you are talking to in your posts. I simply said the distinction has meaning as when it comes to taxes the burden of persuasion must always be on the government, or those who urge the government. Clearly the government in its essential functions must be supplied with the means to perform them. It's all part of our social contract. No doubt about that. But that tax money is my money. My earnings. It results from my property or my labor. So if taxes are cut, they are giving me my money back, or taking less of it, but they are never giving me a handout by cutting taxes.

To be clear, I said nothing about theft. I said nothing to suggest the government should never take any taxes. I said nothing to even suggest they idea that I existed in an "independent, self-sustaining vacuum." The argument, which you concede is proper, is over how much taxation of my money and my property is necessary and proper. But it is still my money that is the source of those tax revenues.

Well said.

[Omaha 680]

Why can't it be both? It is all your money and taxation is the government taking your property. But it is not theft because it is lawful as decided by our duly elected representatives. But if I'm on a side in this one it's probably more with creekster. Yes we clearly all benefit from public spending, but I am uncomfortable with tax discussions that designate any portion of a one's income as public property because it skews the discussion of the proper level of taxation and spending too far to one side. I realize people will disagree with me on that but those people are mostly communists.

[Crockett]

I see arguments all the time on FB that taxation is theft. Crazy talk. There is not a single one of us that does not benefit from the structure provided by society and the government in terms of roads, police protection, rule of law, etc. You cannot earn "your money" without operating in that system and benefiting from it. None of us exists in an independent, self-sustaining vacuum. We can argue over how much taxation is necessary/proper, but the notion that it is all your money and your "property is being taken" is baloney.

I have never said this and that is not my POV.

There is a difference between paying for necessary services and appropriate functions of government, including defense (which is about a 1/3 of federal spending) and then 2/3 of federal spending going to entitlements. I am not advocating for absolutely no entitlements either, but we are so out of whack.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why can't it be both? It is all your money and taxation is the government taking your property. But it is not theft because it is lawful as decided by our duly elected representatives. But if I'm on a side in this one it's probably more with creekster. Yes we clearly all benefit from public spending, but I am uncomfortable with tax discussions that designate any portion of a one's income as public property because it skews the discussion of the proper level of taxation and spending too far to one side. I realize people will disagree with me on that but those people are mostly communists.

What if there is a tax break that only benefits one group?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, so you agree that we have a spending problem? That's really the issue. Even with record tax revenues this year we are still running a deficit. Roughly 2/3 of federal govt spending is entitlement spending.

I actually agree that current generations are immorally spending too much money and they are in effect stealing from their offspring's future. Hey, common ground!

The problem with trying to fix entitlements is that democrats will scaremonger, as they do, that republicans are trying to kill everybody if the republicans even dare to curb entitlements even a little. Again, democrats continue to buy and scaremonger votes. Maybe the tax reform will boost economic growth enough to grow us out of this mess. More taxes are not going to fix the problem. Obama loaded up the entitlements and taxes and we were told to expect the new normal of 2% annual GDP growth. Well, Trump said FU, Obama, we can do better!

And I don't want to hear any more complaining from you about your tax hike!

Dude, come on. I am the only one who didn't get a handout!

[Jarid in Cedar]

When Paul Ryan took the house leadership, I watched an interview where he said that the government we basically an army, retirement plan(social security) and a health plan(Medicare).

So all of the barking about entitlements is just that. All of the rest of the budget (and entitlements) was an insignificant amount in the big picture.

So unless Congress is willing to attack military spending, Medicare, or social security, (and they aren't)...nothing of real significance will happen will lowering spending.