Who Will Increase Deficit Spending The Most?

[red viking]

Both Trump and Harris are running on tax cuts, just like every President in modern history. 

No mention whatsoever about any meaningful spending cuts. Maybe Trump will cut Planned Parenthood and NPR, LOL. Dept of Education is barely any bigger than those. 

This all adds up to increasing the deficit. 

My prediction is that we'll vote for whoever increases the deficit (cuts taxes) the most. 

Then we'll continue to complain about the deficit and many of us will say that this is the #1 problem we are facing. 

Idiot voters. 

[Offthemat]

Deficit or debt?

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Deficit or debt?

Deficit. The debt goes up if we have any deficit at all, which has been a given ever since the 90s (under Cllinton). But yah, whoever increases the deficit more will also increase the debt more. 

Edited August 20 by red viking

[Offthemat]

Cutting spending doesn’t increase the deficit.

[Caveira]

So if we say…. Spend a shyte ton more will the deficit go down?

when I maxed out my credit card I asked to increase my limit dramatically and they said no.   Weird.   

[red viking]

33 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Cutting spending doesn’t increase the deficit.

OMG. You REALLY need to take econ 101. 

Cutting taxes increases the deficit, when spending stays the same. 

Cutting spending decreases the deficit, when taxes stay the same. 

The federal government always spends more than it takes in with taxes and the difference is the deficit. 

Politicians always strive to cut taxes but nobody is really serious about cutting spending. 

End result is that our deficit continues to get larger and larger, or at least that is the long-term trend. The deficit grows at a faster and faster rate. 

Edited August 20 by red viking

[red viking]

If I ran for President, I'd campaign on eliminating all taxes and all education would be free. Social security benefits go up 20% and start at age 55. Everybody gets a check in the mail for $1,500 every year, from Uncle Sam. Child tax credit jacked up to $7,500 per kid. 

You think that sounds ridiculous? I guarantee that I'd get quite a few votes, if people knew I existed. Those same people that complain about the deficit and debt. 

[ionel]

14 minutes ago, red viking said:

 

Cutting taxes increases the deficit, when spending stays the same. 

 

Nope it depends on elasticity.

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Nope it depends on elasticity.

Like what is needed for the waist of my pants??

[ionel]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Like what is needed for the waist of my pants??

Yes

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, ionel said:

Nope it depends on elasticity.

OMG. You'd be correct if we were talking going down from 95% to 90%, possibly.  But not when we're in the 30% range. Keep drinking the GOP Kool Aid. 

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

OMG. You'd be correct if we were talking going down from 95% to 90%, possibly.  But not when we're in the 30% range. Keep drinking the GOP Kool Aid. 

Has nothing to do with cool aid, its economics, you wouldn't understand.  

[mspart]

17 minutes ago, red viking said:

Cutting taxes increases the deficit, when spending stays the same. 

Cutting spending decreases the deficit, when taxes stay the same.

For the first it depends on what you mean by cutting taxes.   If you mean total tax revenue, then you are correct.   If you mean a general tax decrease passed on to the citizens, it has been shown that this stimulates the economy and produces more taxes than was supposedly reduced.   So in that case, the first sentence is not true.  

Similar for the second sentence although generally speaking, cutting spending has a greater effect on deficit spending than cutting taxes. 

 

From data https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

As you can see there are very few years where revenue actually declined.   During Bush years, and Obama years revenue declined.   There have been many tweeks to tax rates since 1962 but most all gave more revenue growth.  Some were raising tax rates and some reduced, but money coming in grew.  Don't let facts get in the way of making your point though RV. 

mspart

 

 

 

mspart

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

As you can see there ...

This is incorrect.  The red viking is blind.  

[red viking]

...now I see even more why we continue to have bigger and bigger deficits. 

The wingers actually believe that, under normal circumstances, cutting taxes will increase revenue. That DOES NOT HAPPEN all other factors being equal. It's complete pie in the sky wishful thinking. I can have my cake and eat it too. Sure, it can happen once in a while when other factors lead to revenue increases (and the tax cuts aren't drastic), or if the taxes are already incredibly high like they were several decades ago (e.g. 90%).  

Most recently, Trump slashed taxes and the deficit skyrocketed while revenue bottomed. Any reputable economist will agree that the tax cuts were a big part of this. 

But just filter that out and listen to Fox News. 

Edited August 20 by red viking

[red viking]

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-tax-cuts-pay-themselves

 

A.

At current tax rates, the direct revenue loss from cutting tax rates almost always exceeds the indirect gain from increased activity or reduced tax avoidance. Cutting tax rates can, however, partly pay for itself. How much depends on how people respond to tax changes

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

...now I see even more why we continue to have bigger and bigger deficits. 

The wingers actually believe that, under normal circumstances, cutting taxes will increase revenue. That DOES NOT HAPPEN all other factors being equal.

 

But all factors are not equal RV and you know that.   When tax rates go down, that increases speculative business ventures or investment which increases employment all of which increases the federal income.   As much as you deny this very basic economic fact, it is a fact and is the reason that chart I produced just for you shows the truth to your lie.  

If all things stayed the same and there were tax rate reduction, you would be correct.   But things don't stay the same as evidence by the graph I provided.   You bubble is burst, you  might try looking at facts.  

mspart 

[red viking]

When I say other factors, I mean things like normal fluctuations in the economy. Any economics professor will agree that cutting taxes almost always decreases revenue. See the link I posted. That organization is full of tax revenue and economics scholars. 

Do you just disregard anything that comes from an economics scholar? The less educated the more trustworthy? Something like that? 

[red viking]

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-tax-cuts-pay-themselves

[red viking]

Edited August 20 by red viking

[mspart]

Looks like your laffer curve is wrong.   See the chart i posted based on the data I listed.   You continue to discard the lessons of history that are put right in front of you.  

JFK even knew this to be true and gave tax relief which brought in more revenue.  

mspart

Edited August 20 by mspart

[red viking]

See the Laffer Curve. This is VERY basic economics. We once had a 90% tax rate so you'd have a point several decades ago. We're not there anymore. Not even close. 

You should really take a basic economics class. 

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

See the chart i posted based on the data I listed.   You continue to discard the lessons of history that are put right in front of you.  

JFK even knew this to be true and gave tax relief which brought in more revenue.  

mspart

Your chart shows nothing related to the topic. All it does is show generally increasing revenue. Yah, that happens when you have inflation. It doesn't even compare revenue to tax rates. Horrible. if that's the best you can do. That wasn't even what your article was about. Seriously, go look up something specific to this topic actually written by an economist. 

[ionel]

24 minutes ago, red viking said:

See the Laffer Curve.

You seem to have missed the "hypothetical."  But you can't see so ...

[mspart]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

See the Laffer Curve. This is VERY basic economics. We once had a 90% tax rate so you'd have a point several decades ago. We're not there anymore. Not even close. 

You should really take a basic economics class. 

I need to take a class?   You can't even look at the facts and deduce that tax revenue has been increasing every year except as noted.   Also note that from 2022 to 2023, the drop was quite a bit.   Taxes rates did not go down so how do you explain that?   Nothing changed, it was all the same yet revenues fell under Biden.   Why?   You can't answer because it breaks your paradigm.   Biden economic policy has wrecked the country so revenue is down, even though tax rates did not change.   This blows your Econ 101 excuse out of the water.   You don't know what Econ 101 is obviously.   Here's a hint:

You provide an environment (includes less regulations and lower tax rates) that induce entrepreneurship and you get more revenue.   You provide an environment (includes more regulations and higher tax rates) the reduce entrepreneurship and you get less revenue.   That's the economic reality.   With confiscatory tax rates, you will get marked declines in risk taking among entrepreneurs and you will end up with less revenue.   But that is what  you want and you claim revenues will go up when the evidence is against that.

mspart

Edited August 20 by mspart