Increased taxes won't balance the budget

[airdvr 210]

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/2007/Taxes%20and%20Deficits%20-%20Vedder.pdf

The historical evidence suggests that the future tax increases embodied in the recently passed Congressional budget resolution would likely be used to finance additional federal spending, not deficit reduction. A statistical analysis of the relevant data in the 1946-2006 period finds that each $1.00 of additional taxes was associated with $1.07 in additional federal spending. This finding indicates that tax increases have been an ineffective and self-defeating approach to reducing budget deficits.

We need someone in Washington to say enough is enough.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/2007/Taxes%20and%20Deficits%20-%20Vedder.pdf

The historical evidence suggests that the future tax increases embodied in the recently passed Congressional budget resolution would likely be used to finance additional federal spending, not deficit reduction. A statistical analysis of the relevant data in the 1946-2006 period finds that each $1.00 of additional taxes was associated with $1.07 in additional federal spending. This finding indicates that tax increases have been an ineffective and self-defeating approach to reducing budget deficits.

We need someone in Washington to say enough is enough.

1/3 of Americans pay NO income tax at all. You need to reach the middle quintile before the average tax rate becomes slightly positive at 3% and the fourth quintile is only averaging 6%.

Most Americans don't have a personal interest in reduced spending.

[kallend 2,156]

Decreased taxes don't do it either. In fact the evidence is far stronger that decreasing taxes leads to larger deficits.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,121]

To adjust your title - increased taxes AND increased spending won't balance the budget.

You are correct; the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first. Until we do, tax cuts will just make things worse.

>We need someone in Washington to say enough is enough.

No one ever will. Everyone (including you) has their pet projects they absolutely refuse to cut. At best we will get someone with good enough judgment to cut costs where it's doable.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first.

Let's commission a study.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first.

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." [Voltaire]


"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[Channman 2]

Quote

To adjust your title - increased taxes AND increased spending won't balance the budget.

You are correct; the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first. Until we do, tax cuts will just make things worse.

>We need someone in Washington to say enough is enough.

No one ever will. Everyone (including you) has their pet projects they absolutely refuse to cut. At best we will get someone with good enough judgment to cut costs where it's doable.

> You are correct; the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first.

Bill, I agree with you that we should reduce speeding, however I disagree with you concerning Tax cuts making things worse. Why would we continue to give our money to an out of control Congress so they can continue to throw our money away.

I would rather keep my money and pay off my mortgage. Our maybe have additional funds to catch up on retirement savings.

Why not demand that our leaders do the right thing, stop spending more than they can legally extort through a Tax Code from the American people.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first.

Let's commission a study.

OK, but we'll have to allocate some money for it. (I knew that's what you meant)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/2007/Taxes%20and%20Deficits%20-%20Vedder.pdf

The historical evidence suggests that the future tax increases embodied in the recently passed Congressional budget resolution would likely be used to finance additional federal spending, not deficit reduction. A statistical analysis of the relevant data in the 1946-2006 period finds that each $1.00 of additional taxes was associated with $1.07 in additional federal spending. This finding indicates that tax increases have been an ineffective and self-defeating approach to reducing budget deficits.

We need someone in Washington to say enough is enough.

How about the contemporary history of the Clinton admin? He cut spending as he raised taxes, the debt increase decreased every year of teh 8 years and he went from 250B/yr debt increase to 33b his last year. Now, was it the tax increase or the spending cuts or both? Who knows, there was prolly some proportion of each.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Decreased taxes don't do it either. In fact the evidence is far stronger that decreasing taxes leads to larger deficits.

Which all leads back to "spending" as the big problem.

GOP Congressman: "When we decrease taxes, we spend more than we bring in. So let's not decrease taxes. When we raise taxes we spend more than we bring in. When we keep taxes the same, we spend more than we bring in. It seems that there is simply no solution to the problem."

Dem Congressman: "Hmmm. How about not spending more?"

Both in unison: "HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,121]

>Bill, I agree with you that we should reduce speeding, however I disagree
>with you concerning Tax cuts making things worse.

Take a personal example. You owe tens of thousands on your credit cards. What's the smarter course?

1) Do your best to stop using them and pay them off
2) Stop paying your credit card bills and expect someone else to pay them

Tax cuts (i.e. just not paying your bills) just make things worse.

>Why would we continue to give our money to an out of control
>Congress so they can continue to throw our money away.

That strategy is "starving the beast" i.e. if we give them less money they will spend less. The past 8 years has proven that that doesn't work.

>I would rather keep my money and pay off my mortgage.

Wait a minute. Why pay off your mortgage? Why give your money to greedy bankers who will just waste it in sub-prime lending schemes, instead of keeping it in your wallet where it will do you, your family and our economy some good?

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Take a personal example. You owe tens of thousands on your credit cards. What's the smarter course?


3) Bankruptcy

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

the biggest problem is increased spending. That's the problem we have to solve first.

Let's commission a study.

Kinda like my last job? My boss wanted me to write down every hr. how much time we spent DOING PAPERWORK.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How about the contemporary history of the Clinton admin? He cut spending as he raised taxes, the debt increase decreased every year of teh 8 years and he went from 250B/yr debt increase to 33b his last year. Now, was it the tax increase or the spending cuts or both? Who knows, there was prolly some proportion of each.

did he actually cut spending? I suspect we'll find that to be false. He just didn't increase spending faster than the government revenues increased.

It's nearly impossible to cut spending, so the best strategy has been to flat line it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/2007/Taxes%20and%20Deficits%20-%20Vedder.pdf

The historical evidence suggests that the future tax increases embodied in the recently passed Congressional budget resolution would likely be used to finance additional federal spending, not deficit reduction. A statistical analysis of the relevant data in the 1946-2006 period finds that each $1.00 of additional taxes was associated with $1.07 in additional federal spending. This finding indicates that tax increases have been an ineffective and self-defeating approach to reducing budget deficits.

What this says is that any proposals to reform social security should involve private accounts rather than increases in FICA taxes, either in rate or in the limit. The long running 'surplus' has been used by DC to fund deficit spending.

Private accounts, of course, are dead with the market collapse, even though now is exactly the time to be investing. But even if the private accounts consisted merely of Tbills in each person's name, this would be a better return, and would not give DC license to spend more. Might also improve interest rates on our borrowing.