Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You’ll have to ask the people who think the tax cuts are for the rich.Assuming all republicans are richWhy not...they campaign on tax cuts for the rich.Because a large portion of the people that make up that percentage probably have student loans. So they're voting with their wallets (hard to blame them). Advanced education has also skyrocketed in price
(If unclear, I'm not personally advocating for the policy - just explaining why it's sensical that a large portion of people would).
so its something Biden did to stroke the ones who have student loans and sway their vote
I agree
maybe the GOP nominee in 2024 will campaign promise to forgive $40,000 in auto and home loans if he's elected? that's be ok wouldn't it ?
Define rich.
Are they instead for the almost 50% that pay no income taxes?
This one always gets to me and I just generally don't respond. If someone refuses to acknowledge the difference between allowing a person to keep more of what they earn versus giving money out to someone else then there's just nothing to discuss.
Dunno, I don’t recall benefitting from it. I’ll check my 1040 ez return.
I did not compare tax cuts to loan forgiveness, only the campaigning part.
If there was no debt, youd both have a point. In our reality, it seems reasonable to discuss/compare/contrast the vehicles being used to increase our debt. In our current env, both should be condemed but thats not the case apparently. Would either of you like to take a shot at explain why you think growing the debt via tax cuts is "better" than via loan forgiveness?
The government collected 4.9 Trillion in taxes in FY22. 850 Billion more than last year.
It's pretty simple, if you expand the debt via a tax cut you can always recoup that by reinstating that tax. If you keep taxes where they are and forgive debt or spend and end up with that same deficit, you have less runway now to add revenues to offset spending. Eventually if you keep spending, you run out of people to tax.
The "IFs" in the first paragraph are inconsistent with our reality, so let's go with our reality which is that when we expand the debt via tax cuts we NEVER recoup the money by reinstating the taxes, at least not completely. So, that' puts you in basically the same place as keeping taxes where they are and forgiving debt. If you want to do hypotheticals (see what I did there
) then your first paragraph should also include the scenario where the debt is forgiven but we raise taxes to pay for it. That's as likely to happen as the one you formulated. So, understanding our reality, I don't really understand how those two are all that different. In my view you're merely arguing about which path to more debt is "better".
Both are a huge problem. On the conservative side, the US misses out on about $1T a year in tax collections for a myriad of reasons, none more obvious than the fact we don't have enough people to make sure collections are happening.
If you start from a tax saturation level of 50% and you are going to increase your deficit by either a tax reduction or additional spending there can only be one answer. Reducing taxes will reduce your saturation level below 50%. To tread water if you do the same via spending, debt forgiveness, some other vehicle, you would stay at the 50%, thereby having less room between that and the level you cannot tax another dollar. That was our initial discussion, at least from my viewpoint. We are looking at two options, each with the same deficit at the end of it, one is achieved via a tax reduction, the second being achieved via a spending increase. I don't think mathematically it can be argued which puts us in a worse position because we end up with the same deficit, yet one has now reduced our ability to collect future revenues.The "IFs" in the first paragraph are inconsistent with our reality, so let's go with our reality which is that when we expand the debt via tax cuts we NEVER recoup the money by reinstating the taxes, at least not completely. So, that' puts you in basically the same place as keeping taxes where they are and forgiving debt. If you want to do hypotheticals (see what I did there
To the philosophical/moral one we aren't all that far off..., especially on the bold, but again, that's not our reality and it really doesn't do much to address my question about the two being different in some meaningful way because we both know, fiscal responsibility is lost on both these parties. It's not even worth entertaining the possibility at this point IMO. I find Biden's excuse that forgiveness would have some grandiose impact on our economy as a whole about as laughable as Trump's logic that the tax cuts provided, when they were, would lead to double-digit GDP and they'd pay for themselves that way. Both are nonsensical, so I'm still left wondering why folks see them as meaningfully different approaches.
At the least the blame for the lack of taxes from the loss from the carried interest loophole isn't on the red team anymore.
Depends on what you mean by better.
Fair enough...I didn't get this from your initial question I was attempting to answer. My viewpoint is from the here and now and reality of what goes on in DC day to day. From that perspecitve, and how they actually behave, I see no meaningful difference to the average person on how they grow the debt. The burden we are going to have to pay is is going to be the burden regardless of how they get there. The the economic philosophies of how they get there likely don't matter. This is why people compare the two. Philosophically, I don't disagree other than to point out in your hypo, it assumes (or I assume it assumes) that we don't raise our debt ceiling. That's when the tax saturation might be valid, but again, you are coming from a philosophical perspecitve. I also assume you make your stopping point at 100% I'm coming from a "reality of how DC is completely screwed up and operates" perspective. Thanks for explainingIf you start from a tax saturation level of 50% and you are going to increase your deficit by either a tax reduction or additional spending there can only be one answer. Reducing taxes will reduce your saturation level below 50%. To tread water if you do the same via spending, debt forgiveness, some other vehicle, you would stay at the 50%, thereby having less room between that and the level you cannot tax another dollar. That was our initial discussion, at least from my viewpoint. We are looking at two options, each with the same deficit at the end of it, one is achieved via a tax reduction, the second being achieved via a spending increase. I don't think mathematically it can be argued which puts us in a worse position because we end up with the same deficit, yet one has now reduced our ability to collect future revenues.The "IFs" in the first paragraph are inconsistent with our reality, so let's go with our reality which is that when we expand the debt via tax cuts we NEVER recoup the money by reinstating the taxes, at least not completely. So, that' puts you in basically the same place as keeping taxes where they are and forgiving debt. If you want to do hypotheticals (see what I did there
To the philosophical/moral one we aren't all that far off..., especially on the bold, but again, that's not our reality and it really doesn't do much to address my question about the two being different in some meaningful way because we both know, fiscal responsibility is lost on both these parties. It's not even worth entertaining the possibility at this point IMO. I find Biden's excuse that forgiveness would have some grandiose impact on our economy as a whole about as laughable as Trump's logic that the tax cuts provided, when they were, would lead to double-digit GDP and they'd pay for themselves that way. Both are nonsensical, so I'm still left wondering why folks see them as meaningfully different approaches.
If you want the economic reasons behind it, you must look at things in vacuums and isolate them. The reality is one is rarely tied to the other, we merely spend like drunken sailors. Of course the willingness to pay more to reduce debt is merely a theoretical one, it will never be the case. But again, if you end up with the same deficit, it is beneficial to do it from lower taxes rather than increased spending because proportionally to fix the problem, you at least have that incremental tax revenue to go after to fix the issue down the road because there is going to be more ability to pay those taxes going forward due to a lower saturation point today. If you want to say both are bad, that's fine and I'd agree. But there is definitely a difference in which creates a more recoverable situation, even though we continue to spiral this plane down toward the ground I'd rather have the option with more altitude to try and fix it.
At best, it's not contributing to the problem anymore. It might not be making the problem worse now, but it certainly helped create the major problem we still have. Need to be doing a better job at setting the bar if this is where we're at.
It's not either/or....it's both. The IRS is woefully understaffed and the tax code is nothing more than all the benefits for the wealthy they didn't have the balls to put in actual legislation. Been this way for decades and decades. There's no question that some have been attempting to "starve the beast" in terms of a functioning IRS and it's costing us taxpayers trillions every year. If people will take a second and pay a little bit of attention, they'd see a recurring theme.
You're conflating two topics. One is the amount of tax the government takes from us. That I haven't talked about at all. The other is how they spend the money they are provided via taxes. The comment above is about the second part. Once it's established that we "owe" (quotes are specifically for you) them $X, it's on them to be good stewards of that money and use it to fund the legislation/laws that they pass. Neither group is doing that. Instead, they are intentionally misappropriating money to use elsewhere as they want to, ignoring the funding of our laws/processes that THEY create merely because they don't like them or think them unfair. Look at IRS funding. Look at our border. Look at Social Security. We can keep going, but I think you get the point. Instead of growing a coalition to CHANGE these programs, some think it acceptable just to ignore them financially and hope they go away. That's ********* IMO, but a great many seem to be fans of the approach.
I think you missed the sarcasm there, GB.
Kirsten Sinema, D, held up the spend plan to ensure that this was excised and she got her wish. This was her sole demand for her vote. From now till eternity the carried interest loophole still existing is on the blue team.
Lets remember that the reason starve the beast is around is largely because the IRS turned political under Obama and persecuted conservative groups. To get that funding back it's incumbent on the IRS to show that they're a non partisan group again. That's hard to do - it's terribly easy to lose trust and hard to get it back.
Oh ********...come on dude!!!
my fiscal conservatism doesn't really have a sense of humor and for sure knows no political favoring.I think you missed the sarcasm there, GB.
And they say Republicans are the party of the rich. Bollocks, I say! Take a gander at Ms. Sinema.
Oh ********...come on dude!!!
That concept has been around since before Obama was even born. We see it deployed frequently...it's not a unique tactic being used against the IRS.
Our border is a GLARING example of "starve the beast"...that's the concept we are talking about. Anything else?Oh ********...come on dude!!!
That concept has been around since before Obama was even born. We see it deployed frequently...it's not a unique tactic being used against the IRS.
man that's an easy way to avoid talking about the IRS literally targeting conservative
if the concept has been around and is frequently deployed can you point to the IRS being guilty of targeting liberals for politics ?
i doubt you can
No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.
I understand and I agree in reality we very well may end up in the same place from a deficit and debt situation, neither party has been responsible. I would disagree though on the debt ceiling changing things. I'm not staking my belief in there being a limit to the debt, it's just a situation of when we are even in a worse debt spot than we are today, it's easier to come back and raise revenues from lower tax rates than higher ones. If we end up owing $40T and our average effective tax rate is 28%, it's easier to raise revenues to fix the issue than if we end up with a $40T debt at a 40% effective tax rate. That's why it's my belief that it matters very much on how we get there.Fair enough...I didn't get this from your initial question I was attempting to answer. My viewpoint is from the here and now and reality of what goes on in DC day to day. From that perspecitve, and how they actually behave, I see no meaningful difference to the average person on how they grow the debt. The burden we are going to have to pay is is going to be the burden regardless of how they get there. The the economic philosophies of how they get there likely don't matter. This is why people compare the two. Philosophically, I don't disagree other than to point out in your hypo, it assumes (or I assume it assumes) that we don't raise our debt ceiling. That's when the tax saturation might be valid, but again, you are coming from a philosophical perspecitve. I also assume you make your stopping point at 100% I'm coming from a "reality of how DC is completely screwed up and operates" perspective. Thanks for explainingIf you start from a tax saturation level of 50% and you are going to increase your deficit by either a tax reduction or additional spending there can only be one answer. Reducing taxes will reduce your saturation level below 50%. To tread water if you do the same via spending, debt forgiveness, some other vehicle, you would stay at the 50%, thereby having less room between that and the level you cannot tax another dollar. That was our initial discussion, at least from my viewpoint. We are looking at two options, each with the same deficit at the end of it, one is achieved via a tax reduction, the second being achieved via a spending increase. I don't think mathematically it can be argued which puts us in a worse position because we end up with the same deficit, yet one has now reduced our ability to collect future revenues.The "IFs" in the first paragraph are inconsistent with our reality, so let's go with our reality which is that when we expand the debt via tax cuts we NEVER recoup the money by reinstating the taxes, at least not completely. So, that' puts you in basically the same place as keeping taxes where they are and forgiving debt. If you want to do hypotheticals (see what I did there
To the philosophical/moral one we aren't all that far off..., especially on the bold, but again, that's not our reality and it really doesn't do much to address my question about the two being different in some meaningful way because we both know, fiscal responsibility is lost on both these parties. It's not even worth entertaining the possibility at this point IMO. I find Biden's excuse that forgiveness would have some grandiose impact on our economy as a whole about as laughable as Trump's logic that the tax cuts provided, when they were, would lead to double-digit GDP and they'd pay for themselves that way. Both are nonsensical, so I'm still left wondering why folks see them as meaningfully different approaches.
If you want the economic reasons behind it, you must look at things in vacuums and isolate them. The reality is one is rarely tied to the other, we merely spend like drunken sailors. Of course the willingness to pay more to reduce debt is merely a theoretical one, it will never be the case. But again, if you end up with the same deficit, it is beneficial to do it from lower taxes rather than increased spending because proportionally to fix the problem, you at least have that incremental tax revenue to go after to fix the issue down the road because there is going to be more ability to pay those taxes going forward due to a lower saturation point today. If you want to say both are bad, that's fine and I'd agree. But there is definitely a difference in which creates a more recoverable situation, even though we continue to spiral this plane down toward the ground I'd rather have the option with more altitude to try and fix it.
No....it's really not. Our border has been a problem for decades and it started with the lack of funding to process people correctly/efficiently through the proper channels. It would do you a little bit of good and read some relatively unbiased history on our border problems and not just take the word of our current US media machine. They are leading you astray terribly
They have you focused on symptoms instead of the actual problem. Though, you'll get no disagreement from me that this admin has clearly continued that poor decision making. I expect nothing less. Neither "side" here gains anything by solving the problem.
No....actuaries have done massive amounts of study on this....it's pretty accurate. You could bet your kid's life on it. And you're right, 87K IRS agents/processors likely isn't enough to collect on all we are missing out on.
Hear what you want I guess....I explained what I was saying about as clearly as I could in the other reply.
Sure it is - provided the mathematical analysis shows that a significant % of people cheat their taxes and hiring that amount of agents will pay for more than the cost of those agents' salaries.
I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.
With the excess revenue that the hiring of 87k IRS agents will produce, sure...
I don't know if "allow" is the correct term, but I'd fully support a policy whereby we give undocumented people tax ID numbers so they can pay taxes in exchange for some sort of set time they may remain in the country. Treat it like a work VISA.
