Compromise: Raise taxes 10%, reduce spending 10%

Is this something that you could support?
View it as a compromise. Raise taxes by 10% for one year, but also reduce government spending by 10% during that same year.

Suppose that this was the only way to be able to raise taxes, and the only way to be able to reduce spending, through this type of a compromise. Would you be willing to support it?

The government is in some deep debt, and something probably needs to be done to address it. If the government keeps overspending now, it is probably going to result in some big problems later, probably some very painful cuts in the future. But to try to minimize that, we need to make some sacrifices today.

The Right typically advocates for reducing government spending and making cuts as a means to solve the problem, while the Left typically advocates for increasing taxes to address the problem. How about do both at the same time?

 

I just wouldn't believe it. We've tried these types of compromises in the past and Congress always reneges.

My idea of a compromise is, give me the Balanced Budget Amendment, then we can talk tax increases.

 

What if the tax increases were tied together with the balanced budget amendment under the same legislation?
The legislation would also expire after 1 year.

Or would you be okay with the deal, but you want the other side to take the first step and prove they will follow through with their side of the deal first?
(Like maybe cut spending by 10% the first year, and then you will be willing to have taxes raised 10% in the second year)

 

Oh I want the balanced budget amendment first. No tax increases before then.

I wouldn't trust a tied together legislation like that. The requirements for a constitutional amendment are different; they would have to be separate legislation. However once it's passed through Congress and is off to the states to approve, then I would be open to tax increases.

The thing is, there is no way to avoid tax increases to balance the budget, so eventually, there will be tax increases, and big ones, no matter what. But any tax increases done without a requirement to balance the budget will instead just go to increase spending for Democratic initiatives, or at least that's the history.

 

That's using microeconomic principles in a macroeconomic environment.

Oh, it's also economic suicide.

 

Advocates, yes, but they never actually do it. Last time they held the purse they cut taxes and hiked spending by 20%

 

Surprise, leftist opposes BBA.

 

I don't think they oppose it any more than the right. Dems would balance it by raising taxes. GOP would balance it by cutting funding to programs which are supported by the Dems, like Social Security, unemployment benefits, healthcare, education and such. Neither side will ever agree, so the whole topic is nothing but politicians pretending to be for it, when the truth is that they have zero interest in reaching any kind of compromise.

 

Pssst, I got that from economists.

Psst again, we're not in the 1800s...

 

We've been in debt, most of the time, since Alexander Hamilton.

Take it up with him...

 

Economists uniformly agree that budget deficits are good? Heh!

 

Well no, I'm for a balanced budget amendment, and I don't particularly care how it's balanced; whether by spending cuts, tax increases, or both. I've already posted (#2) that I'm open to tax increases after we have a balanced budget amendment, but until then, no sale.

 

Well, I just explained why its not going to happen.

 

Then I guess you're in the wrong thread.

 

You are thrashing around blindly, again.

You have to build the future you want to live in, and that means investing...

 

Well, if differing opinions are not tolerated, then I suppose I am in the wrong place.

 

Investing is good, but I don't think you know what that means in context of annual budget deficits.

 

I was wondering if you would understand.

Debt is really the wrong word, the wrong way of looking at this. When we invest in science and technology and education and defense and infrastructure, we are investing in the future. You have to build the future you want to live in.

A lot of money does get wasted, esp. tax cuts for the rich. But that doesn't change what the Modern world is, and that's something we build.

 

OK it's clear that you don't understand. Annual budget deficits are not the result of investing in the "future." I assume though, that you think almost everything in the federal budget is an "investment."

 

This place is such a hoot.

None of what you see around happens magically, it's the result of planning, investment and work. Streets don't just appear...

I just pointed out that a lot of money is wasted, work on those reading skills.

I can suggest a few books for you. Let's start with an easy one, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, by Jane Jacobs. For a couple decades, it was a popular first book in Econ 101 classes. I read it in a single day.

 

Of course, because the reason we run budget deficits are streets! It's all so simple now!

Did that book define the difference between government spending as an investment and as...spending? I'm not sure you are getting that.

 

You have accidentally lurched into the general vicinity of your problem.

Read it.

 

Well since this thread isn't a book club (there is another thread for that) why don't you simply make the argument that the book is making?

 

What I said is that you need to read a few books. What she says is that cities are an irreplaceable web of economic activities, a pool of businesses, workers, lenders, academics, governments that can help, etc. It's really, really good. There's no numbers, it's in the classic French tradition, and it doesn't take long to read. It was called a classic before it was even published, it's a gem.

But if we're limited to one book, it would have to be the Price of Inequality by Stiglitz.

 

OK so that's your argument for continuing permanent deficits?

OK.