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.