Please comment thread.

[Ellipsis]

"The worst part about cutting taxes is that you will someday have raise them."

Please comment in anyway you see fit, excuse me for being too general but I am looking for you to interpret it in anyway you see fit. (Bring about any issue that comes to mind).

Note: Admin is free to move this to the pub...I wasn't sure which to place it into.

[TheUniqueOne]

...not if you cut out what does the taxation

[Dr. Haight]

"The worst part about cutting taxes is that you will someday have raise them."

(Bring about any issue that comes to mind).Ummm . . . your opening sentence needs to be edited !?

[omnirook]

Bush cynically cut taxes to garner public support and to please his true constituency, the top 1/10 of 1 percent.

It - or at least its advisors - must have been aware that cutting taxes before cutting expenditures would bankrupt the Federal Government. Then again, looking at its career prior to stealing the White House, one sees that it is a new criminal type - a serial bankrupter.

It's one thing to cut taxes after one has cut expenditures. It's another thing to leave the government w/o an income while increasing its expenditures - which is exactly what it did (it and the other thing that smelled up Washington in the 1980's).

There is not going to be any serious cut in government expenditures. And I will tell you why - the nation depends on the government spending money. Politicians depend on it to get votes and voters depend upon it to get services and jobs. The nation's largest employer is the government. NOBODY is going to cut that, no matter how much fiscal "responsibility" crap he/she talks on the campaign trail.

I'm sick of listening to it. It's bullshit. All they ever manage to cut are services for the poor - which never constituted a significant portion of the government's expenditures, not even at the height of the "welfare state." It's just that it's easy to beat up on the poor. So, they cut services to the poor - and increase the give aways to the rich. Personally, I'd rather give money to the poor. Fuck the rich.

Government expenditures are NEVER going to go down. Swallow it. Then swallow that the government needs tax income to cover its expenses. It's that or a collapsed government and chaos on the streets. Most of us are not tough enough to survive even one night of rioting and looting and raping and burning - so pay the fucking taxes and stop complaining.

I'm not against taxes. I'm against tax cuts for the rich. And I'd force the corporations to pay taxes. Do a Germany - you want to do business here, pay the wages and pay the taxes - otherwise, get out. Even fucking WalMart in Germany pays taxes and pays the required wage. 2,3,4,5 - hundred percent profit is - NOT necessary.

[Krill]

"The worst part about cutting taxes is that you will someday have raise them."

Only if you keep spending the same amount of money on the Government, and only if the overall productivity of the nation does not increase.

Overall, a pretty poorly thought out quote.

[booyalab]

Only if you keep spending the same amount of money on the Government, and only if the overall productivity of the nation does not increase.

Overall, a pretty poorly thought out quote.

it gets even worse....spending cuts are based on responses to requested allotments. It's not like the president is going "ok, Dept of Ed...i realize you're *supposed* to have X amount of money.....but I need a bigger tax refund to buy a new yacht. Sowwee!"
it's more like, "ok, Dept of Ed, you're asking for twice as much money next year as you used last year, but I'm not going to approve that. You only get 25% more money next year as you used last year"
THAT is seriously considered a spending cut. The government is so fucked up.

[darlets]

"The worst part about cutting taxes is that you will someday have raise them."

Please comment in anyway you see fit, excuse me for being too general but I am looking for you to interpret it in anyway you see fit. (Bring about any issue that comes to mind).

Note: Admin is free to move this to the pub...I wasn't sure which to place it into.

It's not about tax rates but tax revenue.

For instance
25% on the first $50000 and 50% on income over $50000

is likely to garner more revenue than

25% on the first $50000 and 85% on income over $50000

due to the higher tax rate being a disincentive to work or declare income. (decrease productivity and increase tax avoidance)

Dropping tax rates and increasing your tax base could in fact increase revenue, hence you dont' have to raise them again.

Also lower tax rates are less likely to be avoided.

You can't look at tax rates in a vacumn.
Governments are about lollipops and smacks, and tax is smack, the more you smack the more the behaviour will be avoided and the less knowledge of the behaviour made known to the Parent (i.e Government)

I know someone who used to work in the Australian Tax Office, if you own the government a small amount of money say less than $10000, you can just immigrate elsewhere and they won't bother about tracking you down because it cost to much.

Like wise, it's more cost effective to raise tax rates than to track down tax avoiders. The government could spend millions on catching tax avoiders but aren't likely to receive more tax back to offset their expenditure, so they'll incur a net loss.

the australian tax rate are

$0 - $6,000 Nil

$6,001 - $25,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$25,001 - $75,000 $2,850 plus 30c for each $1 over $25,000

$75,001 - $150,000 17,850 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000

Over $150,000 $47,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

when the tax system was revised and purposals for a new structure were put forward only one system was suggested to have a higher tax free threshold followed by one tax rate

something like first $18,000 tax free then 40% on all income after that.

Heaven forbid we have a simple tax system with minimum unfairness and disincentive to work.

[demagogic_schizoid]

you will only have to raise taxes if you spend more than you bring in. so no.