What's more important?


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    The government reducing taxes or reducing spending?

    I think it is more important to reduce spending and then once a surplus is realised for a length of time then reduce taxes but I am no economist.

    Seems like the R party has had it backwards for quite some time now?



  • tax’s, by reducing tax’s you increase revanue for the people working and in effect increase revanue for the government.
    now if spending keeps going up, then you fix nothing. but if you cut spending with out the tax cuts then you are spinning your wheels in money as you have cut the diffrence in what the tax cuts would have gained.

    in other words, both are needed to work best, one with out the other dosn’t accomplish what it is ment to do.



  • Reducing spending is definitely more important.

    Tax cuts don’t do much of anything, especially the recent ones that primarily benefit the wealthiest in the country.

    It makes no sense to reduce revenue and spend more.  Completely insane.



  • economist (that are not political groups) have said that tax cuts help stimulate the economy. if you cut the money being taken from the rich guy, he can do one of a few things with it.
    he can invest it, this puts money back into the economy and supports buisness grow.
    he can save it (in a bank not his house/ under his matress gives no benifit to him or the economy i know), if in a bank the money turns into money that can be loaned out by the bank to ether buisnesses or avarage people. ether way the money is back in the economy helping it grow.
    the rich guy can take his money and start a buisness with it, this creats jobs. not much more is needed to say on how that helps the economy.
    all these diffrent things help the economy grow and put money into the hands of the less wealthy IF they work for it. the stronger the economy grows the more money into each persons hands (yes even  more for the rich, but they turn around and it goes right back down again) and in turn gives more money that tax’s can be drawn from, in effect bringing the governments revanue up.
    i’m not saying extream low tax’s around 1% flat will generate great economic benifits, but having extream highs hurt the federal budget just as much but also hurt the general population as well.

    i’m not saying low spending isn’t vital ether, the government should and must cut spending as well in partnership with the tax cuts to get the most benifits from them both.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Pervavita:

    i’m not saying low spending isn’t vital ether, the government should and must cut spending as well in partnership with the tax cuts to get the most benifits from them both.

    Haven’t we just had 7 years of tax cuts and increased spending? Hasn’t seemed to work out to well.

    I love tax cuts as much as the next person but w/out cutting the largess that is government what does it achieve? The gov’t just prints more money to fund it’s largess as the tax revenues diminish and the dollar falls on the global market. Now that would be good news for american manufacturing industries but hasn’t most manufacturing left (NO LONGER MADE in the) USA?

    Getting back to the point if spending is cut wouldn’t we soon realize a surplus? Then with a surplus realised, the dollar’s value increases, we have money for tax cuts, infrastructure programs etc?



  • @Pervavita:

    economist (that are not political groups) have said that tax cuts help stimulate the economy. if you cut the money being taken from the rich guy, he can do one of a few things with it.
    he can invest it, this puts money back into the economy and supports buisness grow.
    he can save it (in a bank not his house/ under his matress gives no benifit to him or the economy i know), if in a bank the money turns into money that can be loaned out by the bank to ether buisnesses or avarage people. ether way the money is back in the economy helping it grow.
    the rich guy can take his money and start a buisness with it, this creats jobs. not much more is needed to say on how that helps the economy.
    all these diffrent things help the economy grow and put money into the hands of the less wealthy IF they work for it. the stronger the economy grows the more money into each persons hands (yes even  more for the rich, but they turn around and it goes right back down again) and in turn gives more money that tax’s can be drawn from, in effect bringing the governments revanue up.
    i’m not saying extream low tax’s around 1% flat will generate great economic benifits, but having extream highs hurt the federal budget just as much but also hurt the general population as well.

    i’m not saying low spending isn’t vital ether, the government should and must cut spending as well in partnership with the tax cuts to get the most benifits from them both.

    I don’t see how tax cuts increase revenue.  That’s too generic to say either way.  Are we talking about a tax on the percentage of profit a business makes?  There is no guarantee that the money saved by reducing that percentage will increase profits to the degree of offsetting the difference.
    People generally just splurge with tax cuts/rebates.  Or what if they invest in another country as many funds do?  There’s just no guarantee that the money is going to produce more, or even make it’s way back to the government.

    The only thing you can always count on is limiting spending.  No business can operate by reducing revenues and increasing spending.  You can control spending a lot easier than revenue, so you go there first.  Simple economics.  From there you can reduce revenue.

    But wait!  Taxes can aid the economy as well, contributing to infrastructure, grants for research, social services, etc.  Think about this…universal health care would allow many companies to ignore healthcare costs, which are expensive.

    Anyway, I just think it’s clear to go what hurts you more and can be controlled easier.



  • i think you missed what i’m saying.
    BOTH need to happen to have an effect.
    if the government lowers taxes but then spends more, there is no benafit to the government as they just spent the extra $ with out doing any thing good with that money.
    if the government cuts spending but dosn’t cut tax’s then yes the government will have money on hand, but it won’t be as much as if they cut the tax’s as the tax cuts stimulate the economy. also with the US huge dept the surpluss should go there any way to break the dependancy on other nations, but thats a diffrent issue.

    the doller fell because the fed just printed more money and flooded the market with cash, this was due to increased spending. the tax cuts did prove though to provide more cash to both the government and the people. unfortunutlly that cash isn’t worth as much as it was before.
    it’s a balance, both must be done for ether to work properlly.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Pervavita:

    i think you missed what i’m saying.
    BOTH need to happen to have an effect.

    The question is: which is more important?



  • tax cuts worked to generate more cash.
    as of now we are taking a large chunk of the money from buisnesses (secound largest in the world, wounder why so many move over seas), if the buissnesses keep more money then they can invest more into workers. this brings money back to the people.
    taking more money from the buisnesses means they don’t hire as many people, or they move over seas. this means less jobs in the US and more people on public assistance.
    cutting spending (if we are talking ear marks) means less tax’s need to be take and more money can be used on stuff that is needed.
    cutting spending on public assistance may be cruel by peoples standards, but it helps in making those who can work go to work. i’m not saying drop the program, but there are plenty of people on them that don’t need them.
    as for government run health care: thats a totaly diffrent issue, but lets say we go with that, how on earth is that cutting spending by the government?

    i know what the question is, i’m saying that they are directly tied as nether can work with out the other.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Pervavita:

    i know what the question is, i’m saying that they are directly tied as nether can work with out the other.

    Ok, great. We are getting somewhere.

    Isn’t this exactly what the current administration has done for the past 7 years? Cut taxes and increased not decreased spending? It doesn’t work!

    And isn’t that why McCain railed against Bush’s tax cut bill and exactly why he didn’t vote for GW’s tax cut plan? There was NO spending cuts.

    As a biz owner, who employs 11 people, I must also say that simply cutting my companies taxes doesn’t mean I’ll hire more people. It isn’t that simple.

    And for the record, I feel cutting gov’t largess s/b the first objective. Then cut our taxes. It’s like drafting into law an immigration plan w/out control of the borders. It doesn’t work that way.

    My states Dem gov, has proposed a spending bill that assumes revenue from companies that don’t even exist in the state yet!!! It is crazy, this is the same thing. Keep my taxes but cut gov’t in half!



  • if you mean we are now getting some where with me because i just said, you need both. then you need glasses, i said that clearlly in my first responce and have said it each time after. one can’t work with out the other. you keep saying i’m wrong untell now and bring up that the current administration was only doing tax cuts.
    sorry to break it to you but i keep saying it and you just now cought it.

    now on to the rest.
    McCain opposed the tax cuts, yes; but he only just resently came out and said he was against it because there was no spending caps. before it was because they don’t work. thats what people call…. whats the word. oh ya a flip.
    on that, we know the government dosn’t work well, you have to push things one at a time some times. i still think the best bet would have been vote yes on tax cuts (it would save him face AND get him half way to what you are saying he wants and we all know is the best thing). then he can fight the other fight. one battle at a time, he had the easy one layed infront of him and he said it was not the fight to fight because it wouldn’t work then recanted to say it was the wrong fight.

    As a biz owner, who employs 11 people, I must also say that simply cutting my companies taxes doesn’t mean I’ll hire more people. It isn’t that simple.

    i know that, if you read all i wrote i said that hiring more people was ONE option, the others were investing in other companies or saving in banks (again investing but indirectlly). but as your a smaller buisness you could also invest in your workers to provide them pay raises or you could simply take that money and try to grow your buissness more and then latter hire more employes or do another option.
    i’m no economist, but these are simple ideas. you have more money in your pocket (or bank) the more others can use and benafit.

    again tax cuts AND spending cuts are BOTH needed together to work proper. one with out the other is only a half donky (not Dem but other word for donky) attempt at fixing the problem.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Pervavita:

    if you mean we are now getting some where with me because i just said, you need both. then you need glasses,

    My eyesight, luckily is good but I understand what you mean.

    @Pervavita:

    i said that clearlly in my first responce and have said it each time after. one can’t work with out the other. you keep saying i’m wrong

    I’m not saying you are wrong. No-one is wrong here. We agree. Bush’s tax cut only plan wasn’t as helpful to the general economy as the combo of the two. My argument is that if you had to choose between the two “what’s more important?” tax cuts vs spending cuts, I believe spending cuts are better alone than tax cuts.

    @Pervavita:

    McCain opposed the tax cuts, yes; but he only just recently came out and said he was against it because there was no spending caps.

    So if I find some quote in the arizona papers saying differently you’ll take back the proposed flip?

    @Pervavita:

    it would save him face AND get him half way to what you are saying he wants and we all know is the best thing).

    Wouldn’t that be great!

    @Pervavita:

    again tax cuts AND spending cuts are BOTH needed together to work proper. one with out the other is only a half donky (not Dem but other word for donky) attempt at fixing the problem.

    but alone spending cuts are preferred!  😄



  • show me

    i still say they both are all but useless alone. but if i had to chose, it would be tax cuts. atleast then i pay less and if the tax cuts don’t work as planned the fed can’t spend as much… forcing spending cuts.
    of course both only work once the fed decides to stop printing money in effect forcing the doller down AND stop driving us further into dept. spending less dosn’t help if it’s still more then what the fed makes.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Pervavita:

    show me

    I’ll try. Stay tuned.

    @Pervavita:

    atleast then i pay less and if the tax cuts don’t work as planned the fed can’t spend as much…

    they will simply print more money my friend!

    I could be wrong in my assumptions. Maybe there is an Keynesian economist amongst us that can show us which is better?


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @JWW:

    @Pervavita:

    show me

    I’ll try. Stay tuned.

    I couldn’t find anything.  :oops:


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I think it’s not a choice between more important, less important.  Is it more important to eat food or breath?  Well, you’ll die if you don’t breath and you’ll die if you don’t eat food.  So I guess they’re BOTH important.

    Currently we had a president who cut taxes which did increase revenue (we’ve had record tax funds into government just about every year) but he also increased spending.  Now, not ALL of that increase was his fault.  We were attacked and so we did get bi-partisan support to go to war.  But some of it WAS his fault.

    Now, we just had a study done, I think it was in Time Magazine but it could have been another publication, that basically said that if you give the rich a tax break they tend to spend more money in the public sector and it is the increased spending in the public sector that creates demand for products and services and increased demand drives the need to increase supply and thus creates jobs which reduces unemployment and eventually raises wages due to a decreased supply of people needing jobs.

    I find this totally hilarious, because I believe there was a powerful politician who basically said the same thing in the 1980s that gave us the economic stimulus package that generated the economic utopia of the 1980s and 1990s.  I wonder who that was.  Can anyone remember?  Was it Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter?  Oh shoot, I just KNOW it has to be one of those guys….  Anyhoo, perhaps the solution to the problem is two fold:

    1)  Gut the Federal Government.  If the US Constitution does not explicitly give responsibility for something to the US Government, then the US Government should cut all funding to that area and inform the states they will have to pick up the slack, somehow.  This alone should cut the Government budget by at least 33% (since I believe the Military is in the 40-50% of the budget atm.  I don’t have hard numbers on that, so don’t think it’s a coups if you come up with numbers that show my statement is wrong.)

    2)  Slash taxes.  If number 1 is implemented, states will have to double, triple or even quadruple taxes (in the case of some states, this will mean they will have to start taxing) but this change should have less of an impact on the individual’s pocketbook.  For one thing, it is MUCH cheaper for Illinois to run a program for Illinois then it is for the US Government to run a program for Illinois, primarily because the other 49 states are like children and will want the same program too if it’s being provided at the Federal level.  That alone means it is 98% cheaper for Illinois to run the program then it is for Uncle Sam.

    2a)  Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs and thus, the programs will be much more efficient at accomplishing the tasks that they are designed for. (Even more so if States are wise enough to apply the same procedure to themselves, allowing the counties to administer the programs instead of the state as a whole.)

    2b)  And, since no government body is good at anything, and if the Feds do not enforce a monopoly, this will allow private industry to supplement the failures of the states and maybe take over the program entirely at an even more efficient manner.

    2c)  And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government.  For instance, if you live in Chicago it’s only a 30 minute drive to Wisconsin or Indiana.  That gives you a choice of three nations in the alliance.  If you live in Colorado you have a choice of eight nations in the alliance!  Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, depending on what part of Colorado you live in these may be more or less convenient then other states.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @Cmdr:

    1)  Gut the Federal Government. 
    2)  Slash taxes. 
    2a)  Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs
    2c)  And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government.

    I’m with you 100%! on the above points. 100%.

    Jenn for pres 2012!



  • If the government cuts spending, than they don’t need to tax as much. One leads to the other.

    Sadly, “cutting spending” is not understood by most of our civic servants.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Wouldn’t it be completely hillarious if you gave Senator Joe Blow a budget for the year and he did what he normally does?  You know, spend it in a few weeks and then come back for more and you told him “Heck no, you had your money, if you wasted it that’s your fault.  I’m not giving you more money to save your can.  However, I’ll gladly release a press report telling your constituents that you are now broke and will have to stay home for the rest of the year.”

    Betcha it would take ONE year and senators would suddenly figure out how to hire and listen to accountants to keep their budgets on track without overages!

    You never see Project Managers in the real world running out of money after only 8% of the project was completed.  Well, you do, but they are normally FIRED.

    You never see someone succeed in going to court and telling the Judge that they should not have their Car Repoed just because they missed the last 40 payments. (Illinois is currently 40 months behind on paying contractors for the state.  According to ABC News a couple of months ago.)



  • @JWW:

    The government reducing taxes or reducing spending?

    I think it is more important to reduce spending and then once a surplus is realised for a length of time then reduce taxes but I am no economist.

    Seems like the R party has had it backwards for quite some time now?

    Well, if I were working in government, I wouldn’t want the programs I was in charge of or in head of to get reduced budgets.  It would make me sad.  It would make me feel like I had a smaller thingy than my neighbor.

    Big huge glorious cost overruns - that’s what’s really important.  Lets me hold my head up proud like a real Democrat.  I’M in CHARGE.  I command a budget worth TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.  What is this “spending oversight committee” you speak of?  WORMS.  THEY only have THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for their budget.  I am WAY more important.



  • As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @M36:

    As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”

    Amen.

    Honestly, I know that you cannot run a government like a corporation.  The only way to do it would be to strip the people of the power to elect their leaders and only appoint leaders based on merit.  (This is why we have Public Administration, btw.  Merit based people put in power to run the day to day operations and advise the elected leaders how to work best.)

    But, common.  If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more!  At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending!  (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)



  • @Cmdr:

    But, common.  If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more!  At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending!  (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)

    Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget.  But you knew that, right?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Jermofoot:

    @Cmdr:

    But, common.  If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more!  At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending!  (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)

    Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget.  But you knew that, right?

    Yes, but what you did not notice is that I said they should need to get 2/3rds majority to approve spending BEYOND the money brought in and then get the President’s signature.

    A budget is just a simple majority vote.  However, that budge better balance right because they’ll need to find an extra 16 Senators and a lot more Congressmen to sign off on it if we need to take out a new loan!



  • The US Constitution specifically grants the power that ALL spending legislation originate in the House of Representatives.  Not the Senate, not with the President… but the House of Representatives is given the primary “power of the purse”


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

54
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts