cthulu2016 (4,132 posts)
How does Cutting Taxes for the Rich reduce the National Debt?
Every republican, at any level, should be asked this question in this simple form.
Even their best spokespeople will draw a blank.
In 1985 or even 1995 they could have answered this question by claiming (falsely) that the increased growth caused by not taxing the rich would generate more than enough new taxable activity to offset the seeming loss in revenue and the the government would take in more money.
But in 2012 nobody can say that with a straight face. It is rare for even the loopiest RWer to claim that tax cuts increase revenue, and increasing revenue is viewed as a bad thing by the modern Republican party.
So there is no longer any argument for the tax cuts other than that taxing the rich at the same effective rate as the poor would e class warfare. But it is far from obvious that avoidance of class warfare reduces the national debt.
So it is a question to be asked.
How does Cutting Taxes for the Rich reduce the National Debt?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021248518Cutting taxes does not reduce the national debt alone. What happens though, is when you cut taxes revenue to the government will go up.
How you ask?
When people have more of their own money to spend on things that you complain about they are putting money into the pocket of the people working for the manufacturers and the business that sells the item.
When you do so that creates taxable income from the workers and since there are more workers there is a larger tax base to pay into the system. So let's say we cut taxes and there is more money coming in. If and this is a big IF congress acts responsible and doesn't start dreaming up new programs to spend every dime, plus another dime on top of that on, the money coming in could be used to pay down the debt.
This was tried in the 80s, the problem was the dems in congress were not responsible and spent every new dime and then some that came in which lead to deficits.
In the 90s when Newt and the gang controlled the budget, we spent less than we took in. That created a surplus. I realize that Clinton had raised taxes and that is what you claim lead to the surplus, but it wasn't. Keeping spending under control is what brought that.
So basically DUmmies, when you cut taxes you still get that money from the rich, but instead of just taking it from them, they use that money for wants, needs, or desires that they have. You raise taxes, and people won't work as hard because it is human nature to not want to put in extra hours if they don't see any of the money from those extra hours.
As for this talking point of taxing the rich at the same rate you tax the poor, that sounds like a flat tax and we know that none of you are for that. In fact the poor don't pay anything they get money back every year, and that amount is greater than what they paid in to begin with.
