WANTED: Thoughtful Answers to Some Serious Questions

OK, I the interest of listening to the other side, I have a few questions. They are serious questions; questions that demand serious and thoughtful answers. So, given that we are being told Obama’s re-election means the people of this nation believe he and his Administration/Party have the best answers, could some of the Obama supporters on the RNL please tell me:

Why are spending cuts never considered as a means of cutting deficit spending?

Given that you can reduce the deficit without having to raise taxes by as much as one penny simply by cutting spending, why is this option never seriously considered?

Exactly how does one raise taxes without suffering a corresponding reduction in actual receipts received?

The laws of economics and history both seem to hold that increasing taxes reduces tax receipts. If this is not the case, I would like a detailed explanation supported with empirical evidence so I can consider whether or not the historic economic opinion to the contrary has actually been in error.

Given that a robust and growing economy can increase tax receipts without raising taxes, why don’t we ever address policy that would actually aid in the creation and growth of business?

This is actually connected to tax increases because, if it is going to cost more in taxes than can be made by starting or growing a business, then the motivation to do either is removed. Conversely, if increasing taxes reaches the point where maintaining current efforts conveys a net negative cost/effort benefit, people are actually motivated to cut back and/or close business. Furthermore, additional rules and regulations effectively translate to tax increases on business, which are then transferred to consumers. So, I need someone to explain and illustrate how tax increases on business can actually lead to economic growth because everything I see seems to indicate they are actually inversely connected.

Why is it “fair” to disproportionately place the tax burden on those deemed to be “rich.”

First, I need someone to define “fairness” for me.  All I have to define the term “fair” is the dictionary, and the dictionary definition would seem to indicate a lack of “fairness” in a system where 10% of the people pay for 50% or more of all tax receipts while 50% of the people pay no or actually collect taxes.  So I need this explained.

Second, given that “fairness” would seem to indicate that the government is supposed to treat all people fairly, but “progressive” income taxes do just the opposite.  By grouping people into tax brackets, you set one or more groups of citizens above or below others and then treat each group according to different standards.  Not only is this actually regressive (by definition), it is not “fair” according to the dictionary definition.  In truth, it would seem to actually punish people for success, which is actually a disincentive to start and/or grow business — the exact opposite of what I would assume we all want.  So I would need to have someone explain how the “progressive” tax system is “fair.”

Finally, are there enough “rich” to tax and what is the top rate we will need to set to close the deficit gap?

This may seem like a silly question, but it is a matter of simple mathematics.  To me, the numbers seem to indicate that there is nowhere near enough “rich” to close the deficit gap — even if we tax them at 100%.  So, if you guys are correct, then I must be missing something in the numbers.  I will have to admit I need this explained as well…please.

OK, there are my questions.  They are offered in good faith and I sincerely seek honest and thoughtful answers to these questions.  I am willing to listen and give due consideration to serious and thoughtful answers.  If you can make your case, I will probably even change my positions — because that’s how I work: I’m governed by reason.  HOWEVER, if the only reply you can muster is the usual denials, rejection of premise, straw man, and ad hominem attack, please, don’t reply to this post.  All you will do is illustrate that you are insincere in your assertions to want to come together.

About these ads

17 thoughts on “WANTED: Thoughtful Answers to Some Serious Questions

    • Yes, sir. The boss gave me one a while back. Although….now that I think about it, it is rather restrictive in the scope of types and limited in number of fish I’m allowed to catch. ;-)

  1. Why are spending cuts never considdered? They are.

    But BOTH sides are guilty of refusing to cut their pet projects. Probably the largest single cost to the american taxpayer is the american military. Untouchable according to the right. As are farm subsidies. Oil subsidies. the list goes on.

    And let’s not forget- Obama put forth “the grand bargain” to Boehner. Offering substantial cuts to many longtime democratic untouchaple projects. In exchange for some tax increases. And Boehner was willing- until the Norquist/tea-party faction threw a fit…

    • But BOTH sides are guilty of refusing to cut their pet projects. Probably the largest single cost to the american taxpayer is the american military. Untouchable according to the right. As are farm subsidies. Oil subsidies. the list goes on.

      OK, I’ll accept the criticism in principle, but I would counter by asking you why those on “the Left” are always so eager to cut spending on Constitutionally authorized purposes while protecting spending on areas that are not Constitutionally authorized? The Constitution does limit the areas of governance over which the federal government is given control. How much would it help our fiscal situation were we to limit our spending to those items and leave the States to fund whatever social programs they desire?

      If we could agree to these spending limits, then I would be an even louder advocate than I already am in cutting spending on “pork” — even on the “Right.”

    • Intangible,

      That’s sort of an answer in and of itself, isn’t it: they’re great at tearing down, but what have they ever really built.

      To be honest, and I mean this with no malfeasance of heart, but I sometimes think of the Left as the cowbirds of politics: always kicking others out of and taking credit for the nest they just built.

  2. You just need to believe. You just need to trust in Obama. Here, take a hit. Everything’s gonna be all right. Did you get your Obamaphone yet? Unlimited texting? Wow, sweet.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s