Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Democrats please provide evidence that tax cuts dont work?

I keep seeing people posting how Bush's & Reagan's tax cuts are proven failures. So why don't you give us evidence showing that to be true? And I don't mean to blame tax cuts for what the housing bubble caused.

Have any of you ever thought that the problem in Washington isn't a lack of money but a lack of discipline on how to spend the money they do get? Hasn't the last few weeks shown us how inefficient our money is being spent? Even if everyones taxes were doubled do you really think they wouldn't find a way to spend us further into debt?

Yes the wars cost a lot of money but Democrats & Republicans are to blame for that both parties were behind bringing down Saddam.


No sources just emotional opinions?

Update 2:

Haven’t any of you heard about the housing bubble, do any of you remember $4 gas? Wasn’t that a trigger? That’s why we are in this mess today NOT TAX CUTS. Its easier to blame Bush for his tax cuts then to think I guess? Are tax cuts causing you to lose your job? NO!

20 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Tax cuts don't work because even though it helps us all individually, it brings us down as a nation. Since taxes work as a percentage, it's really the wealthy that keep the nation up.

    Take a million poor people, combine their total taxes, and that sum could essentially add up to one individuals tax percentage who was extremely wealthy. Yet all that money is spent on everyone. If you cut the taxes, that one wealthy persons tax money is lessened, which added up to so much comparatively to the poor, which is now taken from the whole nation.

    That's how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because rich people don't depend on government spending because they can already buy everything they need, yet the poor people are left with potholes and a broken tire, with no money to fix it, then no way to get to their job, which leads to less money..... get the picture yet?

  • 1 decade ago

    Mr P. It seems that nobody wants to answer your question.

    Regan put in place the largest across the board tax cut on personal income and this created economic boom that was in the united states until the mid 90's. From 1980 that is not a bad run. You know Carter attempted the same play as they are trying now, ended up with the unemployment over 10% and interest rates over 20%.

    The taxes are not what caused this economic trouble this time, what caused it was the sub-prime home loans. Those people had no business buying a house that they could not afford, in addition to that they the populace lived on credit cards that they could not afford. So I say it is the sub prime masses that did the economy in, and now they want the government in the same boat, that is why they wanted the socialistic democrats in power.

    In this fasion they can eliminate the capital and redistribute the weath to the lazy. Oh but wait, what if the get an idea that is worth millions, to bad the money is for the government, and the idea is taken by the socialist democrat party.

  • 1 decade ago

    It isn't that they don't work necessarily, its that they don't work as well. See, our economy needs stimulus. There's a gap between what our economy can produce and what people are buying. Because of this, the economy is contracting, people are being laid off, etc. If you cut taxes, you put money in people's (and businesses') pockets, sure. But there's no guarantee they're going to spend that money, which is what our economy needs. It's likely they'll use the money to pay off debts--which doesn't grow the economy, since you're basically paying for money you alredy spent--or they'll save the money, which is as good as not using it at all. On the other hand, if the government takes that same money and uses it to fund an infrastructure project, all of that money goes back into the economy. People have to be hired to do the work for that project, which gives them a salary and money to spend. It won't be just a tax rebate or one time thing but a continuous salary which will pay off debts, be saved and also be spent. Raw materials for that project have to be bought and transported, which helps fund the companies that both make and ship those products. So we can't be sure that money put into tax cuts will be reinvested into the economy, but we can be sure that money spent on a federal project will be reinvested into the economy. Instead of giving people money and hoping they spend it, the government simply spends the money itself, on projects that are--typically--necessary anyway.

    Source(s): See page 9... It shows how much the economy gets in return for every dollar spend toward each program. So the first one, Non-refundable Lump-Fum Tax Rebates, you get $1.01 for every $1.00 you spend to implement them. So the tax cuts actually don't make as much money.
  • 4 years ago

    WHERE THE H WERE THEY IN 2007? but Yea I've noticed a shift, not just with AP but some others as well. A few reasons I suspect, one is simple bottom line..more readers means profit. Another is maybe there is something to the speculation that Hillary will challenge Obama and this shift plays into it. But here's my own bit of fact checking on the GOP claim that " Reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government's general fund." - my question is, what 'general fund'? Don't they mean General Debt?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The issue I have with the Bush tax cuts is that they only served to further concentrate wealth in the top 2%. The result of this currrent downturn will be the same as the previous market drops as the top 2% grab up distressed properties. the end result of this is a widening class rift, where the lower economic strats go backwards and those at the top build yachts with 18 hole golf courses on them. that economic model is not sustainable which is why we have progressive taxation. Otherwise through market manipulation and inheritance you end up with a dozen familes owning everything and everyone else working for minimum wage. We call that Latin America.

    And shouldn't it be incumbent on you to prove that giving our tax dollars away to billionaires benefits the rest of us somehow?

  • 1 decade ago

    The simplest way to see this is to check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics and review the CPI historically. It is nice that they now have a graphing function that shows quite plainly that the republicans in office causes wild fluctuations in the index, an unstable condition that causes anxiety and insecurity at the base consumer level. While Bill was in office the fluctuations are virtually flat indicating a stable, secure feeling in the population.

  • 1 decade ago

    Tax cuts don't work because the people they are given to aren't spending the extra money they are getting from not paying such taxes. You need to give the tax cuts to people that will spend the money and thus stimulate the economy.

    What we have here is not a lack of offer we have a lack of demand people aren't buying because they have no money (or credit) to spend.If you have no one to sell your goods or services to, what good is a tax break for you. You wouldn't hire more people anyway.

  • Phil M
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    If you sell 100 widgets a month to make a profit and your sales decline to 75 widgets a month you're going to need to cut your employee numbers. A tax cut may make you profitable in the short-term, but how does that increase job production?

    You're still only selling 75 widgets a month, you have no need to make 100 widgets any longer becuase you're just flooding the market and further devaluing your products. So why would a tax cut, which allows you to keep more of your revenue, provide any new jobs? How is making more profits off of less product going to incent an employer to hire more people? He isn't going to sell any more widgets due to the economy.

    Tax cuts incent revenue, not production. That is why they aren't that great when it comes to CREATING jobs. It is somewhat effective at keeping the job losses to a minimum.

    By the way, your first question is very different than your latest details...

    Source(s): Business Operations and Management 101 Efficiency. You're talking about fiscal efficiency and forgetting operational efficiency.
  • 1 decade ago

    September 15, 2008......we have the lowest taxes ever......and the economy still crashed.

    I rest my case.

    I could cite stagnant job growth even during the best of times under Bush's tax cuts.

    I could cite a complete destruction of our manufacturing base under Bush's tax cuts.

    I could cite stagnant wage growth (contrasted with the cost of living) since the Reagan tax cuts.

    I could cite the vast gulf of incomes between the top 5% and bottom 95% that has been created since the Reagan cuts.

    Still....I think our current, abysmal, situation is argument enough.

    Tax cuts aren't the solution. Tax cuts only favor the rich and throw pennies to the poor. The Bush tax cuts cost $10,000 for every American (when you add interest), but even people high up in the middle class only save a few hundred bucks a year.......burden vs tax cut .... the vast majority of Americans got RIPPED OFF.

    The ONLY solution is a robust demand side. Strong consumers. You get that by having good jobs - a manufacturing base and happy workers.

    The age of supply side (throw money at the rich) economics is OVER.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The deficit is the best proof you can get. But you will say that the deficit is because of the spending but the problem with that is that the spending is what is increasing the revenue. So we are ending up with more deficit and more spending. We need to collect the fruits of our spending with higher taxes where the money is at the top.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.