For Marco Rubio & Mike Lee, "Family Fairness" is Just Another Name for Buying Votes

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have put out a tax plan which promotes economic growth and "family fairness." The plan's centerpiece is a massive increase to the child tax credit that doesn't phase-out at higher-income levels. On top of the current $1,000 per child tax credit, it would add another $2,500 per child. The tax credit will reduce federal revenues by a projected $173 million a year for the next 10 years—even assuming for big economic growth engendered by some of the plan's pro-growth planks.

Like the Republican plan that created Medicare Part D, the prescription drug plan for seniors, back in 2003, I think the child tax credit is a pretty obvious and cynical attempt to buy votes from a targeted constituency needed for victory. From my latest Daily Beast column:

[The pro-market Tax Foundation ran an] analysis of the Rubio-Lee plan, [with] both static and dynamic scores of the plan. On its static score for the next 10 years, the Tax Foundation found the Rubio-Lee plan meant serious reductions in annual federal revenue. For instance, switching to just two tax brackets of 15 percent and 35 percent would mean $31 billion less each year compared to current law. The full expensing of business equipment would lead to another annual loss of $78 billion, while the changes to the business taxes would cut $210 billion. And the expanded child tax credit would mean the feds would forgo another $173 billion.

Yet in its dynamic score of the same provisions, something different happens. The consolidation of tax brackets yields an average annual net gain of $5 billion, full expensing yields of $115 billion, and the changes in business taxes pulls in a net of $210 billion a year. But the expanded child tax credit? It still shows an average annual loss of $173 billion.

So the expanded child tax credit has nothing to do with promoting growth.

Pinterest

But the child tax credit does have the benefit of targeting middle- and upper-middle class voters with kids under the guise of "family fairness."

In their explanation of the plan, Rubio and Lee claim that the expanded child tax credit is simply a way of abolishing what they call "the Parent Tax Penalty." I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble following the logic here: "As parents simultaneously pay payroll taxes while also paying to raise the next generation that will pay payroll taxes, parents pay more into the old-age entitlement systems." Huh? Parents pay to raise their children, yes. When those kids enter the workforce, they (not their parents) will pay taxes on their wages. Forget those "It's a child, not a choice" bumper stickers. Kids today apparently are to be most valued for their ability to pay into unsustainable old-age retirement plans that need to be scrapped, not propped up….

Questions abound: If the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes is capped, doesn't it also make sense then to phase out the credit above certain income levels? What about all the tax dollars that flow to children (and their parents) during their first 18 to 21 years? And if the expanded child tax credit is supposed to credit parents for future tax payments made by their children (yes, getting complicated), then why are low-income parents' credits "limited to the sum of total income and payroll tax liabilities"? Aren't we crediting parents for their kids' future tax payments?

I'd argue instead that the "family fairness" portion actually has very little to do with the future past the 2016 election. Expanding the child tax credit, especially in a way that keeps the full amount for middle- and upper-class parents while limiting the amount low-income parents can get, is a pretty obvious (and obnoxious) way to buy votes among likely Republican voters. Especially when we all know that the GOP has no intention of trimming $173 billion out of federal spending to pay for it.

Read the full article here.

Last year, Reason TV interviewed Mike Lee "on Killing the Export-Import Bank, Primarying Republicans, And His Mormonism." Watch below:

Comments

[d3x / dt3]

Buying votes and pandering under the guise of social conservatism?

I am shocked. Pardon me while I fan myself and look for my fainting couch.

[designationdirectory]

I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing,
http://www.jobfinder247.com

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Bot, what the hell is going on with you? No intentional/unintentional typos. No ellipses. No second-cousin's ex-wife's roomate's sister? I demand an explanation!

DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION, ANSWER ME NOW!!

[Virginian]

This is why the Republicans are useless. A true conservative party would have put together a plan setting up tax brackets of 10% and 20%, and scrapped thousands of pages of regulations in the same bill, and then passed it through both houses of the Congress and put it on Obama's desk on about April 10th. Make the fucker veto a great tax reform package right as everyone is seeing just how much of their money gets pissed down the drain every year.

The Republicans are tards and very very bad at politics.

[The Tone Police]

But most people DON'T see how much money is wasted at tax time because they get a "big refund", either because they're stupid or because they get the EITC. We're at the point where the productive minority is subsidizing the majority. There's no great demand for tax reform.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Recent history shows that the productive minority is a better motivated voter bloc that can win in off year elections, at the very least.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

That's because they comprehend that Congress exists. The moochers are totes okay with the prez being an elected Caesar because they think that's how it works.

[Paul.]

Tell that to the last guy working for a living in Greece.

[Eric L]

"...they get a "big refund", either because they're stupid ..."

I am amazed at how many of my clients still measure whether they have paid any taxes by focusing on the refund they are getting or on the additional amount they owe rather than the "This is your total tax" amount on lines 12 (1040EZ), 39 (1040A), or 66 (1040). Recently had a client who was upset that she owed an additional ~$1K. She stated that she has never paid that much in income tax. I pointed out from her last four returns that her tax liability was greater in all those years but that she had withheld much more in those years than she did this year. We went through the math several times but she still did not get it.

[Homple]

The magic mind warp of employer automatic withholding.

[Episiarch]

This is why Milton Friedman is pure, concentrated evil. I know he's otherwise pleasing to libertarians, but his contribution to possibly the most insidious way for the government to steal without people getting upset is too much for me to handle. He's a monster who created a monstrous government. Willingly.

[BigT]

The Ephalumps should write a bill outlawing employer withholding so 'the people can use their money the entire year without giving Uncle Sambo an interest-free loan' or something. This would precipitate a wonderful 'come to Jeebus' encounter next spring.

[Ken Shultz]

Last time I looked, some 87% of all income tax receipts were paid by people making more than $75,000 per year.

If you can't run for President and meaningfully slash tax rates without 87% of the benefit going to the "rich", then you're going to have to get gimmicky.

I wish the swing voters were more libertarian, but they aren't.

Personally? I'd like to see some Republican offer to eliminate the filing requirement entirely for people who make less than, say, 35,000 a year. There are lots of excellent libertarian reasons to do that, and accusing Republicans of only trying to protect the "rich" might start to ring pretty hollow. ...especially if the Democrat opposition started whining about how we all have to pay our "fair" share.

[Ken Shultz]

I found the stats here:

http://tinyurl.com/o8eoezg

That's from the National Taxpayers Union.

86.42% of all income tax receipts paid to the federal government were paid by people who make more than $73,354 per year.

People who make less than $36,055 per year paid 2.78% of all income taxes.

If we completely eliminated the filing requirement for people who make less than $35,000 per year, lots of really good things would happen--and if you care about maximizing federal tax revenue, for some reason, note that it would only "cost" the federal government some 2% of income tax revenue!

You're talking about taking a terrible burden off of the working poor--in lots of important ways.

Let the Democrats look straight into the camera and oppose that!

[Eric L]

"...it would only "cost" the federal government some 2% of income tax revenue!"
If that meant no EITC or other refundable credits to all of those filers then would it not be a net increase in tax revenue to the government?

[Ken Shultz]

It might mean that.

If I were a Republican, though, I would emphasize that it helps the poor in other important ways.

The income tax artificially inflates the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take home pay. This would really help the unskilled urban unemployed whose labor is especially price sensitive. Artificially inflating the cost of hiring unemployed people during a recession, like we did, should have been morally unconscionable.

The other thing is that, a lot of the problems people have with the IRS are problems the working poor have. The IRS may wait much longer to levy your bank account, etc. if you don't make much money, but the people who get that deep into the system are often people who don't have the wherewithal to get themselves out of it.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

That's a goddamned travesty.

Almost half the voter spay no federal income tax. Talk about promoting class warfare.

I vote we have the top 49% pay all the taxes, what say ye?

I vote we have the government give us moar shit and raise taxes to pay for it, what say ye?

The ONLY way to rein in government spending is a tax system that forces every American to pay an equal dollar amount. THEN we'll see who wants more government?

[SoCal Deathmarch]

When it comes to social engineering via the tax code the socons are just as bad as the left.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

Perhaps Rubio and Lee need to answer why they support socialistic tax policies?

[Ken Shultz]

"[The pro-market Tax Foundation ran an] analysis of the Rubio-Lee plan, [with] both static and dynamic scores of the plan. On its static score for the next 10 years, the Tax Foundation found the Rubio-Lee plan meant serious reductions in annual federal revenue....The expanded child tax credit would mean the feds would forgo another $173 billion.

In its dynamic score of the same provisions, ....the expanded child tax credit? It still shows an average annual loss of $173 billion."

Help me out here.

Isn't keeping $173 billion out of the hands of the feds a good thing?

[Homple]

I was about to say exactly that, but you got there first.

[Virginian]

Well there's the argument that if spending isn't paid for with taxes, then it will be paid for with the far more damaging and insidious method of inflation.

[Ken Shultz]

The solution to drunken sailors spending all of our money is not to give them more money to spend.

Remove Prop 13 from somewhere like California, and the government doesn't stop overspending. It would simply spend more.

In the history of the world, has any government ever been so flush with revenue that it decided to cut spending? The world doesn't work that way.

If cutting spending is the last thing governments do--and only do when they have no other choice--then we need to give them no other choice.

And cutting their their revenue off is an absolutely necessary step before they'll cut spending.

[Virginian]

Right but what happens when you cut their revenue is they just kick the can down the road via borrowing.

There is something to be said for the argument that if the voters are going to vote for high spending, they should damn well accept the high taxes that goes with it rather than enjoying all that sweet sweet government spending and giving their children the bill.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Have to agree, paying with interest is worse.

[Ken Shultz]

"There is something to be said for the argument that if the voters are going to vote for high spending, they should damn well accept the high taxes that goes with it rather than enjoying all that sweet sweet government spending and giving their children the bill."

The way the voters express their rage against spending is by insisting on tax cuts.

They insist that they're not willing to pay any more.

I hope they get to that point before inflation kicks in, but I don't think we should sit around and wait for inflation before we start starving the beast. If they'll accept tax cuts when things are going well, then we're getting ahead in the game.

Raising taxes when the economic conditions are bad is certainly harder.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The way the voters express their rage against spending is by insisting on tax cuts.

They insist that they're not willing to pay any more.

The majority of the voters don't pay any federal income tax. Why would they care about spending? Spending means more free shit for them.

[Flaming Ballsack]

So that's half of Romney's 46.4 percenters. The rest pay no federal income tax due to tax benefits and credits. Here's the rest of the breakdown:

22 percent receive senior tax benefits ? the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.
15.2 percent receive tax credits for children and the working poor. That includes the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The child tax credit was enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton, but it doubled under Republican President George W. Bush. The earned income tax credit was enacted under Republican President Gerald Ford, and was expanded under presidents of both parties. Republican President Ronald Reagan once praised it as "one of the best antipoverty programs this country's ever seen." As a result of various tax expenditures, about two thirds of households with children making between $40,000 and $50,000 owed no federal income taxes.

[Flaming Ballsack]

The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.

So when Romney says all of those in the 46 percent are "dependent on government," that's not accurate. Of the estimated 76 million who paid no federal income tax in 2011, 61 percent earned anywhere between $10,000 and $50,000.

[Flaming Ballsack]

But it is true that 42 percent of the 76 million who owe no federal income tax had a "negative liability" in 2011, meaning that in addition to not owing any federal tax, they got a check from the federal government due to eligibility of some form of tax expenditure. But the majority did not.

Eric Toder, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, cautions that the TPC report was a one-year snapshot in a particularly difficult economic year. The number of people who owed no federal income tax was unusually high in 2011, which was still a recession year, he said. Some of the temporary tax credits enacted by Obama in reaction to the economic crisis will soon go away, and the numbers should drop in coming years, Toder said

Are the 46.4 Percenters All Democrats?
Romney also said the 46.4 percent who pay no federal income tax "will vote for the president no matter what," and, therefore, President Obama starts off with an automatic 48 percent or 49 percent of the vote. But that doesn't jibe with polling data.

It's safe to say that most of the 46.4 percent referred to by Romney are in the lower income brackets. According to the most recent Gallup polls of registered voters, 37 percent of those making less than $36,000 a year indicate they plan to vote for Romney. Moreover, as we noted earlier, a sizable chunk of 46.4 percenters are retirees, and among those 65 and older, Romney leads Obama by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent.

[Flaming Ballsack]

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters between Sept. 10 and 16, 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 said they plan to vote for Romney; 50 percent of those making between $20,000 and $40,000 said they supported Romney. The Pew Research Center similarly found in its latest poll that 32 percent of those making less than $30,000 and 42 percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 support Romney ? as do a plurality of seniors.

A map put out by the Tax Foundation of the 10 states with the highest and lowest percentage of filers with no federal tax liability shows that the states with the highest percentage of non-filers are, by-and-large, states that typically vote Republican, while the 10 states with the lowest percentage of non-filers tend to be Democratic-leaning.

That's not a precise measure of the voting habits of those who don't pay federal income taxes, but it suggests Romney is way off when he assumes all of the 46.4 percenters vote Democratic.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/.....ercenters/

[Francisco d'Anconia]

A map put out by the Tax Foundation of the 10 states with the highest and lowest percentage of filers with no federal tax liability shows that the states with the highest percentage of non-filers are, by-and-large, states that typically vote Republican

You seem to think you're at a Republican website?

People vote for more government when someone else is paying for it. Republicans are as guilty as Democrats. You think you've made a point there? You have, you've made the libertarian point. Shitbags vote for free shit at the expense of non-shitbags.

[Ken Shultz]

People vote for more government when someone else is paying for it. Republicans are as guilty as Democrats. You think you've made a point there?

Yes, yes!

The Republicans are the problem.

Don't you see that's the ultimate conclusion of every honest discussion?

Oh, and the Democrats are good.

Good for the poor.

Now you know everything you need to know about everything.

P.S. Libertarians are some kind of Republican = bad.

[Sevo]

Flaming Ballsack|3.14.15 @ 1:39PM|#
"According to a Rasmussen Reports "...

You're an ignoramus; fuck off.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Flaming Ballsack is another sock with multiple operators.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Cancel that, it was cutting and pasting.

[Ken Shultz]

And it was cutting and pasting things that don't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about.

Arguing that we should alleviate the tax burden on the poor seems to have blown his tiny little mind.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

I thought we determined it was that Kizone Kapow goofball?

[Flaming Ballsack]

sry for the textwall frankie-boy but it was easier to show that youre a lying sack of shit and woefuly ignorant of politcs and economics that way. sucks when truth kills the white victim narrative huh?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Moron.

[Sevo]

Flaming Ballsack|3.14.15 @ 1:44PM|#
'sry for the textwall frankie-boy'

sry for the honest ball-suck-boy.
Fuck off.

[Ken Shultz]

"The majority of the voters don't pay any federal income tax."

Most everyone that works a for living pays income taxes.

Many of them pay at a reduced rate--although it seems like a gigantic burden to them.

And when the government hits them with a levy for a few hundred bucks, it can be incredibly disruptive to their lives.

If the Republicans relieved those people from the burden of even having to file, that would be of huge benefit to tens of millions of swing voters. And if the Democrats fought to keep those people under the thumb of the IRS, ...

That's exactly the kind of situation the Republicans should hope for leading into a national election.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Most everyone that works a for living pays income taxes.

Wrong.

[Ken Shultz]

That 2% of the tax receipts that come in from people that make less than $33,000 a year may not be much of the whole, but to the people who are having what few dollars they earn taken from them in income taxes, it's a lot of money.

In addition to those taxes, there are all sorts of taxes employers have to pay to the IRS--that the employee never sees. Some of that money would go to the employee as salary if they weren't taken from the employer as payroll taxes.

The people who wind up having their bank accounts levied by the IRS' collection arm generally aren't the people making more than $73,000 a year. Those guys have accountants and lawyers, and when the IRS sends them a notice, they can afford to pay it.

The people who end up having their bank accounts levied by the IRS are typically the working poor who can't afford those things.

The people who remain unemployed becasue income taxes artificially inflate the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take home pay--the people who bear the worst of that are people who make less than $33,000 a year. Unskilled people can generally only differentiate themselves on price--and the IRS is artificially inflating the cost of hiring them.

[Ken Shultz]

That 2% isn't much of the total tax receipts, but the working poor are arguably getting hurt by the income tax and the IRS the most.

And it's entirely unnecessary--from any perspective.

If you're a progressive, we could alleviate that suffering on the poor and only take a minimal hit to government revenue. If you're a libertarian, why would you want the government tracking every penny every American earns for all of their lives?

What the IRS does to us by tracking our earnings and spending and making us report it as well makes what the NSA does look like no big deal.

It's just that we've gotten used to it.

[HazelMeade]

The way the voters express their rage against spending is by insisting on tax cuts.

Correction.
Sometimes people insist on tax cuts from themselves only.
They want everyone else to pay disproportionately for the government they consume.

Selectively targeting only certain groups for tax cuts encourages this kind of thinking.
Taxes need to be uniformly spread across the population, as much as possible. Otherwise, you will NOT get the desired result of getting people to vote for less spending.

[Ken Shultz]

See my comment below.

We have to limit ourselves to what the market will give us.

We don't set prices and then tell the market what they will pay. We look at the market, see what the market will give us, and we give the people what they want at a price they are willing to pay.

Right now, the voter market will accept certain kinds of tax cuts but not others.

We have to live with that for now.

I wish the market were buying anything and everything we're selling, but they aren't.

If the only way they'll buy limiting the government's consumption of tax dollars is when it's tied to something like this, then that's what we have to limit ourselves too. We certainly shouldn't settle for nothing--just because the voter market won't give us everything we want.

[HazelMeade]

Horrible argument Ken. The average rate of taxation and spending is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism. Less government interference in people's lives is.

Imagine, for instance, a society in which (say) white men paid all the taxes, and everyone else paid nothing.

Would that society be more libertarian because it had an overall lower rate of taxation?

Or would it be less libertarian because it would unjustly penalize a specific group of people for arbitrary reasons?

I say the latter. Cutting taxes does not make society more libertarian if those tax cuts are designed to unfairly punish or benefit select groups of people. It makes the problem of the government using the tax code to manipulate people worse.

[Ken Shultz]

I have no idea how this relates to the fact that American voters do not want what we want.

There are some things they will accept and other things they won't.

We shouldn't oppose any part of the solution just because it isn't the entire solution.

And we should support any part of the solution we can get.

Which parts we can get is limited by what the American people want.

If they'll only accept a decrease in the amount of money we have to give to the government so long as it's tied to something like child credits, then that's what we should be selling.

[HazelMeade]

Differential taxation of people based on who they are and what their lifestyle choices are is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem.

[Ken Shultz]

The biggest problem is the government consuming too much of our productive GNP.

When that gets to be 100%, we call it totalitarian communism.

When it's 51%, or so, we start calling it democratic socialism.

Keeping that percentage as low as possible is a big part of what capitalism is all about.

We don't want the government redistributing the economy.

If they're going to do it anyway, we want to limit that redistributed percentage of the economy to as small a percentage of GNP as possible.

Every dollar we keep out of the governments' hands is a victory for capitalism.

I'd rather it were done as intelligently as possible, but sending the government more of our economy's productive capacity in the name of not favoring one activity over another is completely missing the point.

Making us all equally unfree is not the ultimate goal of libertarianism. It's like saying that if we're going to keep heroin illegal, we have to keep marijuana illegal, too.

That's foolish.

We take what freedom we can get. If the American people won't support legalizing heroin right now, that's no reason to keep the War on Drugs gunning for marijuana.

This is the same. So what if people with kids get to keep more of their money?

Good for them!

Let's get that for the rest of us, too.

[Ken Shultz]

"We don't want the government redistributing the economy."

We want consumers redistributing the economy.

Keeping as much of the American people's earnings in the hands of consumers (and at the expense of government) is what libertarianism is all about.

Libertarianism is individuals making choices for themselves.

Making choices about how we spend our own money may be our most fundamental freedom.

When the government makes choices for us about how the money we earn is spent? It's kicking libertarianism in the teeth.

And that's what the income tax does. It takes the choice of how to spend money away from individuals and it gives their rightful choice to the government to make for them.

Whatever we can do to limit that fundamental injustice--makes the world a better place.

[HazelMeade]

Libertarianism is individuals making choices for themselves.

Yes, choices like not having kids, without getting penalized for it to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

[Ken Shultz]

You're not being penalized for not having children--but other people get to keep more of their earnings.

If you can't tell the difference between other people getting a break and you being penalized, I don't know what to say.

Justice is not when everyone is treated equally unjustly.

Maybe in Canada.

[Sevo]

"There is something to be said for the argument that if the voters are going to vote for high spending, they should damn well accept the high taxes that goes with it rather than enjoying all that sweet sweet government spending and giving their children the bill."

There's a lot to be said for that, but it won't happen.
Much as I despise the social engineering, I remain committed to starving the beast. Cut taxes and fees everywhere and always. When the debt gets big enough, the public sill notice.

[The Tone Police]

The problem is you're lumping all voters together. The benefits giveaways benefit the poor but the burden falls on the taxpayers. So, it's not taxpayers demanding higher spending and it's not the beneficiaries paying for it. That's how Democrats buy votes.

[Brian]

I think that the more progressive the tax system gets, the more encouraged the masses will be to have a government of arbitrarily large size. After all, they're not paying for it, right?

And it just feeds the myth that we can all live in socialtopia, if we only off-load our taxes onto other people, and come up with great, new, exciting ways to spend other people's money.

For example, if I'm not using drugs, and I'm not paying for the war on drugs, then I don't *think* I have any skin in the game, so what's my incentive to care? Sure, go ahead, feed the criminal industrial complex and boost the economy.

[HazelMeade]

Yes, but not if it's selectively used to benefit only certain groups of people, to encourage "correct" social behavior (such as having babies).

The federal government should not be differentially taxing people based on their lifestyle choices.

[Ken Shultz]

If the only politically viable way to limit the government's consumption of tax dollars is to favor one activity over another, then that's what we should do.

Think of it this way: if the problem is that the government is consuming too many tax dollars, is the solution to raise taxes on everything that isn't being taxed to the same rate?

Doing that won't alleviate the tax burden. It will make the tax burden worse.

Slashing the income tax rate down to the level of the capital gains rate sounds great to me. If you want to raise the tax on capital gains so that it's at the same level as the income tax, that's probably the worst possible outcome.

If the capital gains tax rate is now where we wish the income tax level would be, then the downside of keeping it where it is now is a lot better than whatever benefit you expect to get by raising the capital gains tax to the same level as the income tax.

The goal is to limit the government's consumption of tax dollars.

[HazelMeade]

Taxes aren't everything.

Regulations are at least as important (probably more). Taxing people differently based on their choices is a means of back-door regulation of people's lives.

See the individual mandate.

[Ken Shultz]

The difference you're talking about making is minimal compared to the big picture of limiting the government's access to our earnings.

And if we had to wait until the politicians stop playing favorites before we got tax relief, we'd never get tax relief.

In a democracy? Politicians will stop playing favorites when Jesus comes back. Or maybe Ron's singularity. I'm not willing to wait for either one of those--to get the economic benefit of living under a government that consumes a smaller share of our GNP.

...when I could have those benefits right now by paying attention to what the American voter will accept on my shopping list--rather than pushing everything I want on them that they won't buy.

[HazelMeade]

"We" aren't getting tax relief. The tax relief is specifically targeted at a group of people that doesn't include me.

Why should I vote for a plan that doesn't benefit me, but instead gives someone else a tax break?

And why should they vote for lower spending if someone else is paying for it?

Lower taxes doesn't equal lower spending.

[Ken Shultz]

Do you only oppose the government spending money because it isn't spending money on you?

Or do you see other benefits to living in a more vibrant, efficient, and growing economy?

Also, what you're saying is like the flip side of the way the progressives look at the world.

Other people shouldn't be free to keep the money they earn because it doesn't benefit you?

[HazelMeade]

My point is that *all sorts of people* are not going to see a benefit in voting for something that only benefits select groups of people. And that all sorts of other people are not going to see a benefit in cutting spending, if they are not paying for it.

As I was saying earlier, the tax burden should be spread out as uniformly as possible so that everyone has an incentive to cut spending. Otherwise, you will end up with people basically fighting to get themselves a targeted tax cut, which isn't that different from everyone fighting for their government handout. Things have already gone too far in that direction.

And if history has shown us anything it's that cutting taxes doesn't necessarily lead to lower spending. It just leads to bigger deficits.

[Ken Shultz]

"As I was saying earlier, the tax burden should be spread out as uniformly as possible so that everyone has an incentive to cut spending."

I'd suggest that the tax burden should be spread out so that taxes are paid in as voluntary a way as possible in as efficient a manner as possible--which is by consumers who take the cost of the tax into consideration when they make a purchase.

If anything, I might buy that taxes that really are a burden should be spread out so that everyone has an incentive to cut taxes.

As Greece well demonstrates, spending is only truly limited by people's ability and willingness to pay taxes. You can only finance deficit spending if your tax base can--and will--support paying the interest on that debt. So, again, we're looking at opposition to taxes being the horse rather than spending.

Spending is the cart. The government will never be so flush with tax revenue that it decides to cut spending. It will, however, some day, decide to cut spending when and if the voters refuse to pay any more in taxes.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If there must be 'vote buying' then the version that 'buys' votes by letting some people keep more of their money seems pretty unobjectionable to me.

I've long thought Lee would make a great choice for Paul's VP.

[The Tone Police]

I'll be damned: here I am agreeing with Bo and Ken. Interesting Saturday already.

[np]

FinCEN Blacklists Banca Privada d'Andorra
On March 10, 2015, FinCEN designated Banca Privada d'Andorra, based in the Principality of Andorra, as a foreign financial institution of primary money-laundering concern pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 311). FinCEN also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under which U.S. banks would be prohibited from providing correspondent banking services to Banca Privada d'Andorra or any bank that processes transactions for Banca Privada d'Andorra.

Andorra has no income tax, so it is--or used to be anyways--a well known tax haven like a few others in Europe. You don't want to be on the US or OECD hitlist.

[Slammer]

Hey, Rufus, you're our favorite country!

[Adans smith]

How about the first 20000 is exempt and 15% on all income after that.Then you have capital gains and corp. tax to deal with I guess.Any ideas people? Maybe abolish the corp. tax and 10% on all gains over the same 20000?

[The Tone Police]

What are we doing with the payroll tax?

[Adans smith]

SS and Medicare need to be addressed also,one thing at a time

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I really think that association with SoCons triggers a sense of *ritual pollution* in many libertarians. A SoCon could say "God bless you" and prompt articles about creeping theocracy.

The fact is that we have a Social Security system which relies on current workers to pay retirees. Parents with large families, who spend their resources to produce lots of future workers, are contributing more to the solvency of the system than parents with one or two kids. So on economic fairness grounds alone parents of large families ought to have some tax relief.

Of course, we can argue that the Social Security system ought not to exist, just as we can argue that the 17th Amendment ought not to exist. There's a persuasive philosophical case to be made for both propositions. But do we automatically reject electoral reform for Senatorial elections because, well, the *real* answer is to put the appointment of Senators back with the state legislatures?

That's not just the best being the enemy of the good, it's like refusing to get a car because you *ought* to be able to get around on flying unicorns.

We know that we're stuck with Social Security for the foreseeable future. Just because we don't like it doesn't make any less true. So why should parents of large families be overcharged for supporting the system?

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Oh yay, Socon Tony is back on his decepticon, err reformicon hobbyhorse...

[John Titor]

Now I'm going to imagine this every time Eddie shows up.

[The Hyperbole]

Parents with large families, who spend their resources to produce lots of future workers, are contributing more to the solvency of the system than parents with one or two kids

Isn't that a little circular, yes the kids contribute more while working but will also be a bigger drain when sucking off the gov't teat. Also it assumes those kid will contribute, do you get billed for back tax-breaks when your kid spends his life on the dole?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Kids from stable two-parent, lots-of-kids families are no more likely to go on the dole than kids than kids from other families. Indeed, getting raised by two married parents makes you less likely than a child of a single mother to be on the dole (not to mention the single mother being more likely to be on the dole).

I would certainly pray that when these kids are of working age, they will save for their retirement because they'll know Social Security is gradually collapsing and it's time to get out from under. They would need just a modicum of intelligence to realize this.

[Careless]

Well, yeah, but the ponzi scheme needs a certain demographic pyramid to keep going

[gaoxiaen]

Or not. Schools, parks, etc... for the kids are paid for by everyone, with or without kids. If you want kids pay for them yourself.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Fuck child tax exemptions! It's bad enough I pay half my property tax for the little bastard's educations...but then the breeders get a tax break for having more of the little fuckers.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Then the kids grow up to become workers, and help support the Social Security system, which frankly needs all the support it can get.

And while I'm no fan of the government schools, I would certainly support education tax credits, for parents and for philanthropists, to support the education of kids in schools of choice, a policy which would probably result in better workers in the future, hence even more dough for social security.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I pay half my property tax for the little bastard's educations"

Not necessarily...many parents scrimp and save to provide private education or homeschooling for their kids, and in many cases they don't get any government help - on the contrary, they pay for government schools their kids don't use, putting them in the same boat as you, plus the cost of educating their children.

[mad libertarian guy]

That's my situation right there. I pay about $3k per annum for schools my kids don't use, plus another $20k+ for their private school.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Then the kids grow up to become workers, and help support the Social Security system, which frankly needs all the support it can get.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Eddie supports breeding so there is more of a base to steal from. I'm shocked!

Er...no...wait...Eddie REALLY supports breeding because the Pope tells him to.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So...no substantive response to my claim that large families help maintain Social Security, and should be encouraged, until such time as we replace Social Security (and get free unicorns while we're at it)?

Usually, when someone refuses to give a substantive response, it's because he can't.

Prove me wrong.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What the fuck are you talking about, retard? I was very clear that you want to perpetuate one immoral action to pay for another.

And at least Tony has the balls to admit he's a fucking thief. You support the immoral ponzi scheme because the Pope tells you to have a shitton of kids and this political position happens to coincide with what your religious leader is telling you.

So, not only are you an immoral pig like Tony, but you are a fucking liar too.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So...no substantive response to my claim that large families help maintain Social Security, and should be encouraged, until such time as we replace Social Security (and get free unicorns while we're at it)?

Usually, when someone refuses to give a substantive response, it's because he can't.

Prove me wrong.

reply to this

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yawn.

I've proven you wrong (and an immoral pig) twice.

Social security is an immoral Ponzi scheme. Giving my money away to incentivise breeding a larger tax (theft) base doubles and triples down on the immorality.

And you choose the immoral (non-libertarian) position of breeding more theft-stock because it coincides with the position of your immoral, self-admitted communist, theocratic leader.

Sell your theocracy somewhere else, shitbag.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Social security is an immoral Ponzi scheme."

True. Why are you pushing against an open door, when I've already said it's a ponzi scheme?

If you have a politically-feasible to repeal Social Security or give everyone free unicorns, or repeal the 17th Amendment, or whatever, go ahead and promote that plan. Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, large families are getting disproportionately shafted by this system, and it's proposed to give them some tax relief.

If you find yourself denouncing tax relief as "theocracy," you've obviously gone around the bend somewhere.

[The Hyperbole]

How are large families getting shafted? They choose to have a large family then complain because it's a burden to raise them? I'm not seeing the shafting in not getting a break that other people don't get.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Again, school taxes for schools their kids don't use while they approach the poorhouse paying private-school tuition or taking the opportunity costs of homeschooling.

Paying the same as a childless or one-child couple into the federal coffers when they're contributing more to the federal coffers (through future workers) than the smaller families.

[HazelMeade]

So you mean they are getting "shafted" by NOT getting paid for something they do voluntarily, that might eventually benefit people.

Wow, I didn't realize that my NOT paying you for keeping your lawn mowed was giving you the shaft.

[The Hyperbole]

I must of missed the part where the tax break was only for families that don't send their kids to public school, that makes perfect sense.

Also as I mentioned above - yes they may be creating more workers but they are also creating more spongers once those kids get on the Gov't teat. Lastly there is no guarantee that these kids won't be a net drag on the system, at best it's most likely a wash in the end.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

If these kids are dumb enough to rely on Soc Sec - and if SocSec is available for their retirement - then I will eat my words.

Of course, if the kids from large families assimilate their parents' values, then *they* in turn will have large families, and so on, so when the system collapses it won't be their fault.

Meanwhile, the same government that relies on these future workers for payroll taxes is refusing to acknowledge their parents' efforts, taxing them like they were childless or had only one designer kid.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

So just because social security exists means that I who make sub-30k a year should pay more in my taxes so that a family that makes 75k a year can get 10k in subsidies for their four crumb crunchers? Cool story, bro

[The Tone Police]

You don't pay hardly any taxes as it is. The 75K worker is propping up a system that benefits you much more than it benefits him.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Benefits me? How? I paid just under 3,000 in federal taxes this year after my ~700 refund. I got one tax credit for 85 for having a retirement account. I don't pull any government bennies at all, unless you count all the ROADZZ and social contract bullshit that a Lulzy Warren would point to. And yet my best friend and his wife male right around 75k and with their kids pull in enough child tax credit and EITC to make the 46.4%. How does that benefit me more than them?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I don't know about your retirement plans, but regrettably a lot of Americans rely on Social Security for their retirement, and parents of large families are spending a disproportionate amount of resources so their kids, when they become workers, can contribute disproportionately to the support of these retirees.

I'm not sure how your unfair treatment at the hands of the government justifies the unfair treatment of large families, unless you just want them to share your misery.

I think I've made clear that I am just as aware as anyone here that Social Security is a ponzi scheme. I would like it abolished, in the same sense that I'd like the 17th Amendment abolished. OK, now just for laughs, assume it *won't* be abolished. What's the fairest way to pay for it?

Just because Soc Sec *ought not* to exist doesn't mean it *doesn't,* or that people being treated unfairly under the system can't get some relief.

[HazelMeade]

Shorter Notorious GKC:

OMG, it's so UNFAIR that I have to spend a *disproportionate* amount of my income on raising my seven children. Other people should have to pay extra in taxes to help raise my kids. After all, I'm going to sell them to be used as slaves later, so they will get the benefit of the meat-factory I'm running!

[JeremyR]

Whatever people here think we need to realize that Social Security is never going away, at least until it becomes bankrupt.

That's a political reality.

Do we deal with reality, or keep pushing for something that will never, ever happen?

[HazelMeade]

Social Security shouldn't be maintained. Making people have more babies so they can grow up in an overcrowded country with a lower standard of living, so I can have an easy retirement is immoral.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"*Making* people have more babies"

Say, what?

[HazelMeade]

Whatever. "Nudging" people to have extra babies, so I can mooch of those babies in my old age, is immoral.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I would say, "remove the penalties for large families." The current system *disincentivizes* large families.

Bear in mind that the kind of religious wacko-birds who have large families are likely to be the type who (if at all possible) try to provide private or home education for their children while paying high school taxes. So they're already being penalized for having large families. On top of that, when the same government which runs Social Security penalizes people for producing future workers to sustain the system, you've got a problem.

[HazelMeade]

How are large families disincentivized? Because it costs money to have lots of babies? Because people have to pay for their own fucking kids?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Because every penny counts, and taxes don't help? Because if you're putting your large family through private school, you're probably not just paying for your own kids but for the kids of the public-school students?

Couldn't we take a look at the big picture?

[HazelMeade]

What the fuck kind of logic is that? Having large families is "disincentivized" because "every penny counts"? Well, holy shit, Sherlock, maybe you should have thought of that before you had so many kids?

And why shouldn't childless couples get a tax break for not having kids, since they're paying for public schools too?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

As I mentioned, these multi-child parents are raising the future workers who will be needed to refill the government's coffers, giving the government a disporportionate advantage vis-a-vis smaller families, yet that same government gives the large families no credit at all for this. And they may well be getting screwed via school taxes already.

What happened to the fair apportionment of tax burdens?

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Wouldn't money follows the child school choice that could cover homeschooling be a better solution to the problem your pointing out than the Rube Goldberg contraption you're proposing, Eddie?

[Rhywun]

My goodness, and all this time I thought I was getting screwed by the taxman for being a single, childless person. Now I realize I should in fact be forking over even more of my money to other people's kids. Silly me.

[John Titor]

I think I found Eddie's dad.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

People like to talk about how I'm an irrational Papal puppet. Even if that were true you'd still have to show that the Pope is wrong, which you haven't tried to do.

But when it comes to irrationality, the sense of ritual pollution some of you get when "SoCon" issues comes up isn't particularly rational.

[John Titor]

'Ritual pollution'=/=Principled stand against anti-libertarian socon positions. My god, it's almost like libertarians care more about their own beliefs than sucking up to socons! It's almost like many socons, including the one talking to me, consistently hold anti-liberty positions based on their social engineering fantasies. Yeah, there's nothing libertarians love more than compulsive busybodies!

Also, since you're so happy to cowtow to the Pope, you really shouldn't spend all this time attempting to rationalize his positions. Such thought might breed doubt or disloyalty. You really should just be complacently obey your Holy Dictator.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"anti-libertarian socon positions...anti-liberty positions"

OK, just to make clear, you're saying these proposed tax cuts are anti-liberty?

This is what I mean by ritual pollution. Tax cuts become anti-liberty when icky SoCons stand to reap the benefit.

And I've found more diversity of opinion among Catholics than among, say, SJWs or cosmotarians.

[John Titor]

Yeah, a 'tax cut' for the sake of social engineering and propping up a massive government entitlement scheme is just so pro-liberty. Attempting to encourage having more kids so they too can be forced into paying for a broken system that will eventually collapse. Guess those single and childless couples can go fuck themselves as long as the breeders get their 'tax cuts'! Yep, that sure is a libertarian position, only 'ritual pollution' would possibly make a libertarian reject such an open attempt at empty social engineering and favouritism.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"favouritism" - are you some kind of Limey or Canuck?

Assuming the single people (like me) are getting screwed, there are two approaches they can take:

(a) make common cause with the large families who are getting likewise screwed, pooling our political power so as to get more influence, or

(b) tell the large families "up yours, if I'm getting screwed I insist you get screwed too!"

[John Titor]

I speak proper English, as God and the Queen intended, not your colonial gutter English.

...OR what this actually is in reality is larger families getting subsidized for their behaviour (not like they don't get subsidized enough by the single or childless to begin with). There's no 'common cause' it's 'fuck you, I get mine under this broken system if I vote for this guy.' Pure favouritism for making choices that benefit the government and its programs. Pretty anti-libertarian.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Well, I don't think tax cuts for people who need it is anti-libertarian simply because it doesn't simultaneously cut taxes for others.

But be that as it may, if it's not libertarian, so much the worse for libertarianism!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Eddie isn't a libertarian and he doesn't give a flying fuck about SS. He takes this position because it achieves the Pope's objectives and that's the only reason.

It's a way to trick people into doing his Catholic bidding. After all, the church can't make more money without a constant supply of recruits. And with religious numbers down, we gotta make up the numbers somehow.

Fewer people means fewer Catholics which means empty collection plates.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Ah, I see that F d'A has read Lyman Beecher's *Plea for the West,* which outlines a very similar conspiracy theory.

https://archive.org/details/pleaforwest00beec

You really ought to cite your sources.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Never heard of it.

The point, is obvious.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You never heard about your intellectual forbears?

Titus Oates? Maria Monk? Charles Chiniquy? None of these ring a bell?

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Unlike your kind, who have to be told by a college of cardinals or an inquisition or somesuch what is heretical and what isn't, some of us can suss out our own positions using our own intellect...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, a herd of independent minds.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Yep, freedom is slavery an' allat

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I have NO idea what you're talking about.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

If you used Google, you'd know how much I just insulted you.

[John Titor]

Eddie is implying that you're an anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist due to his apparent victim complex. Because suggesting that Eddie (who has stated numerous times his willingness to use government force and/or favouritism to engineer society closer to his religious ideal) is willing to use government force and/or favouritism to engineer society closer to his religious ideal is apparently ridiculous.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Regardless, I'm horribly insulted by being compared to people I've never heard of, who apparently don't like a mythology I don't believe in.

Eddie sure got me there.

[HazelMeade]

As a libertarian, why would you favor having the government meddle in what private choice people make by providing tax credits for "good" choices?

Libertarians should favor a uniform tax code that does as little as possible to influence what people do with their lives.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I've said I'm not a libertarian, but on the issue of Social Security, I agree with the libertarian critique that it's a ponzi scheme.

And government officials are corrupt. And sometimes it rains.

What I've failed to see is what, practically speaking, you propose to do to repeal social security, any more than you've come up with a way to make officials not corrupt, or to make all days sunny.

So until you implement your plan to repeal Social Security, let's talk about a system which penalizes large families. Talk about meddling in private choices!

[HazelMeade]

I would roll it back until it becomes a retirement insurance scheme, like disability. You only get it if your own retirement savings are below a certain point. Then cut the taxes down to the level needed to sustain just the retirement insurance.

How are large families being penalized, I might ask? Oh, wait, I guess you mean NOT giving them a tax cut is the same as giving them a tax penalty right?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Well, let's see...if they're "fundamentalists" they're more likely to use private education while paying taxes for public schools other kids use. And the same government which runs Social Security isn't giving them credit for producing future workers who help out Social Security.

If we were talking about tax relief for cannabis collectives, I think folks here would totally be cheering the idea. But the fear of ritual pollution from SoCons doesn't allow that same cheering when the subject is tax relief for large families.

[HazelMeade]

Ok, I get it. You have nothing.
Not giving someone a tax credit is a "disincentive". Finding something expensive, because (economic reality) it costs money, is a "disincentive". Doing something voluntarily that someday might tangentially benefit others, and NOT having other people forced to pay for it is a "disincentive".

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"having other people forced to pay for it"

I admit I didn't read through the Rubio/Lee bill, so maybe you could show me where it forces people to pay for others more than they do now.

[Rhywun]

show me where it forces people to pay for others more than they do now

One of the bullet points I read is that the tax rate goes up on income over 75K (for a single person), due to the reduction in the number of brackets. And if they don't make babies, they don't get the baby incentive - so... there you go.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Serves me right for not reading the bill.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So the entire premise of Nick's article stands. The Republicans are buying votes by giving tax breaks to select groups over others.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

It's within the realm of possibility that Republican politicians are...politicians, meaning that they offer bills based on how many votes they'll get rather than whether it's a good idea.

But it could *still* be a good idea, nonetheless. Many Congressmen voted for the Bill of Rights for political reasons - appeasing anti-Federalists and others worried about the new Constitution. Was the Bill of Rights wrong?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Fuck you, Eddie. People with kids are no more deserving of their own money than I am of mine. The number of spawn they produce has nothing to do with it.

And the government is not somehow more entitled to my money than those who CHOOSE to reproduce.

And why do I suspect that if there were more voters without kids than with, it'd be us getting the tax break?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Why not ask for one and find out?

[gaoxiaen]

It's already a system that subsidizes large families. Your argument is that the subsidy isn't big enough.

[The Tone Police]

Why are you living somewhere with high property tax if you don't have kids?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I don't. But over 50% of what I pay is for someone else's kids education.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

I told you how much I cut a check for last week.

In spite of a 5 figure property tax bill, I'm still making money off of the system now that I have 3 kids.

[Homple]

"...pay half my property tax for the little bastard's educations...."

Consider it paying back for your education including interest.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

+1 you didn't build that!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I thought my parent's paid for my education?

[Homple]

If your parents paid your way through private school, yes. If not, there was a substantial contribution to your education from people without kids.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Tell ya what...I'll bay back what was spent on me, with interest, if I can stop paying when that debt is repaid...how bout that?

[Homple]

I'm all for that.

[sitnam90]

Fuck that. Kids at public achools get no choice in the matter of whether they attend; they have no obligation to fund an immoral systen juat because it was enforced upon themselves

[Sevo]

BTW, I'm getting a banner ad for Fuaxchontas 'Tell the Rethugs it's time America got a raise'. I presume this is because her name has been mentioned here, and I also presume it is some sort of fed M/W pitch.
You'd think the ad placement software might look for some other conditions before it ran the ad, but I'm glad REASON is sucking money out of that witch's campaign.

[Ken Shultz]

It's a good thing if Warren is squandering her wampum on libertarians, isn't it?

Starve the beast!

[Sevo]

Should we start a whispering campaign, pointing out that Warren is providing financial support to a hotbed of libertarian sympathies?

[John Titor]

Won't work, it's like missionary work. Have to spread The Truth to the pagan/heretic scum.

[Virginian]

So someone the other day was expressing that he didn't think there were very many libertarian litmus tests. I actually think it's the opposite. I think libertarianism is a consistent ideology with political positions derived from first principles, rather than from political expediency. With the exception of abortion, where I think there are libertarian principles on both sides of the issue, and possibly IP laws and foreign policy, I think there is a libertarian position on the vast majority of political questions.

[Paul.]

My current libertarian position is sitting down.

[Vampire]

"The pro-market Tax Foundation"

Lol, taxation is theft, and anything but
pro-market.

[blitz]

I'd argue instead that the "family fairness" portion actually has very little to do with the future past the 2016 election. Expanding the child tax credit, especially in a way that keeps the full amount for middle- and upper-class parents while limiting the amount low-income parents can get, is a pretty obvious (and obnoxious) way to buy votes among likely Republican voters.

How dare they not take more money from higher income people and give it to lower income people. I agree, this whole plan is just a scam to buy votes. Plus, they are creating incentives for American citizens to have children and are thus diminishing the need for immigrants. Therefore, this tax policy is probably xenophobic and surely racist.

[Paul.]

Kids today apparently are to be most valued for their ability to pay into unsustainable old-age retirement plans that need to be scrapped, not propped up....

And now Democrats reading this article be all like, "Huh?"

[prolefeed]

How about the first 20000 is exempt and 15% on all income after that.

How about the first trillion is exempt, and then 0.0% after that?

[Vampire]

Oh no, cause RoAdZ!!! POleeSe!!! And DeFENse!!!.....and CHAoss!!!!!

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

And MULTIPLIER EFFEKT!!1!1, according to the new troll ITT

[HazelMeade]

I wonder why nobody every proposes just increasing the standard deduction.

There's a tax cut that would always disproportionately benefit the less well off.

[mr burns]

The authors claims the plan doesn't promote growth because it doesn't increase federal revenue. Here is clue for the author: growth of federal government revenue is not the same as economic growth.

[blitz]

The authors claims the plan doesn't promote growth because it doesn't increase federal revenue. Here is clue for the author: growth of federal government revenue is not the same as economic growth.

Looks like someone is ignorant of the multiplier effect:

The other important aspect of the multiplier is that to the extent that government spending generates new consumption, it also generates "new" tax revenues. For example, when money is spent in a shop, purchases taxes such as VAT are paid on the expenditure, and the shopkeeper earns a higher income, and thus pays more income taxes. Therefore, although the government spends $1, it is likely that it receives back a significant proportion of the $1 in due course, making the net expenditure much less than $1. Indeed, in theory, it is possible, if the initial expenditure is targeted well, that the government could receive back more than the initial $1 expended.

Here's a friendly tip: Next time do a little research before making a fool of yourself.

[HazelMeade]

This whole comment is so retarded it makes me want to cry.

[blitz]

Let me help you too:

1. An injection occurs in the economy, such as an increase in government spending.
2. The injection increases the aggregate demand in the economy for goods and services.
3. The increase in demand for goods and services causes firms to employ more workers and expand output.
4. As firms are employing more workers, more people have disposable incomes and subsequently the aggregate demand increases in the economy.
5. The increases in aggregate demand causes firms to employ more workers and the effect continues as before.

6. Profit

How else do you think we got out of the great depression, won WW2, got to the moon and are now enjoying all of the benefits of the internet?

[sarcasmic]

Our God Government, who are Washington, Hallowed by thy Name...

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in flyover country as it is in Washington...

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Give us this day our daily welfare, and please don't shoot us or our dogs or flash bang our children in a no knock raid over whatever trifling offense we may have committed to thine name...

[Francisco d'Anconia]

How else do you think we got out of the great depression, won WW2, got to the moon and are now enjoying all of the benefits of the internet?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Except the injection in step 1 is first stolen from the firms and workers in step 4.

They always leave that part out.

[HazelMeade]

It's like a perpetual motion machine. Look, if I harness this crank to this generator to produce electricity, I can use the electricity to turn the crank! Magic electricity multiplier!!!

[Agammamon]

Blitz, Blitz, Blitz.

Go back and re-do History.

The US was *already* rebounding from the Great Depression - which was *extended* due to government 'multiplier' policies like wage controls and extensive forced unionization - when WW2 hit.

It wasn't government spending *during* the war that boosted the economy - the economy rebounded despite this spending.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of government spending during WW2 was sent off to be turned into *scrap*. By your logic, the government should be bombing our own cities to promote growth.

[Agammamon]

Also, for the Keynes multiplier to have even a chance to work requires that there be a *surplus* stored up during economic booms (through a contraction of government spending) and doled out during slumps.

What we've gotten every time is an *increase* in government spending during booms, followed by a *further increase* in government spending during busts.

[Sevo]

Agammamon|3.14.15 @ 6:43PM|#
"Also, for the Keynes multiplier to have even a chance to work requires that there be a *surplus* stored up during economic booms (through a contraction of government spending) and doled out during slumps."

Communism doesn't work, since there aren't and never will be 'new Soviet men'. Keynesianism doesn't work, since there aren't and never will be governments which cut spending in prosperous times.

[Sevo]

"Keep in mind that the vast majority of government spending during WW2 was sent off to be turned into *scrap*."

You increase wealth by converting a good into a more valuable good; you turn a piece of wood into the framing for a house.
It is hard to imagine a more effective destroyer of wealth than war; the ultimate wealth (lives) are sacrificed and turning a highly engineered and fabricated aircraft into a pile of scrap ranks right up there.

[Gilbert Martin]

Another Keynesian Kool-Aid Kid.

Here's a tip for you: no one has never proven that any such multiplier effect actually exists.

[HazelMeade]

This isn't even really Keynesian. It's some sort of degenerate Keynes for retards.

What Keynes actually argued for was to employ unemployed workers and capital, to produce something of value, thus adding to the economy by producing valuable goods and services. The "multiplier effect" would only come out positive because the value of the stuff being produced would get you close to a positive return, and then you would have a few tangential effects of other people spending the money and stimulating further production. He never argued that just handing out money, by itself, would create a positive return. That would only get you the tangential effects.

[blitz]

What Keynes actually argued for was to employ unemployed workers and capital, to produce something of value...

Yes, that was what I was referring to.

For an economy operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier should be zero. Since there are no spare resources, any increase in government demand would just replace spending elsewhere. But in a recession, when workers and factories lie idle, a fiscal boost can increase overall demand. And if the initial stimulus triggers a cascade of expenditure among consumers and businesses, the multiplier can be well above one.

The multiplier is also likely to vary according to the type of fiscal action. Government spending on building a bridge may have a bigger multiplier than a tax cut if consumers save a portion of their tax windfall. A tax cut targeted at poorer people may have a bigger impact on spending than one for the affluent, since poorer folk tend to spend a higher share of their income.

One cannot deny the multiplier effect; there are just too many obvious examples of its positive effects. Public schools (educated/productive workforce multiplier), roads (transportation multiplier), subsidized/free health care (healthy/productive workforce multiplier), etc. It is quite clear that these investments have returned a value many times greater than the initial cost.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Double down on stupid.

And if the initial stimulus triggers a cascade of expenditure among consumers and businesses, the multiplier can be well above one.

As was evident in the rapid economic recoveries of the Great Depression and Recession, the Depression recovery taking 12 years (would have been longer but was interrupted by the forced austerity of WWII) and the Recession recovery which is 7 years and counting.

[blitz]

...the Recession recovery which is 7 years and counting.

We have failed to let the multiplier act unimpeded

Government spending does not "take money out of the economy." In fact it puts money into the economy, creates jobs and lays the foundation for future prosperity. The decline in government spending shown in the charts above is the reason that the economy remains sluggish and jobs are still hard to get. Just look at that chart showing what the stimulus spending did for the job situation. But since the stimulus ended, Republicans have obstructed every effort to continue to use our government to help our economy.

Government spending promotes economic growth, both short term and long term. From my @ 5:34PM post:

Public schools (educated/productive workforce multiplier), roads (transportation multiplier), subsidized/free health care (healthy/productive workforce multiplier)

We would not be nearly as rich a nation as we are now if our past elected leaders had not had the foresight to wisley invest in the well being of the American people.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

HAHAHAHA!

Shorter blitz:

We just didn't pour enough down the shithole.

TRILLIONS! Wasn't enough.

Retard.

[blitz]

Wait, just so I am clear. We both acknowledge the positive role government can have on economic growth but we are in disagreement as to what specific programs that the majority of spending should be directed to maximize that growth.

[Agammamon]

Beyond a minimal government, as an arbiter of last resort (enforcing contracts, settling disputes, etc) then no - we don't acknowledge the positive role of government.

We tend to find that every 'good' thing government does is countered by a larger 'bad' thing.

FCC, for example, created to settle disputes among broadcasters, is now the national censor.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Wait, just so I am clear. We both acknowledge the positive role government can have on economic growth but we are in disagreement as to what specific programs that the majority of spending should be directed to maximize that growth.

Sure. The government can have a positive role in economic growth if it does one simple thing (and that only).

Stay out of the economy completely.

The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

[Sevo]

Dunno, Frank. It might be the least messy way to get roads built. Maybe.

[Agammamon]

One cannot deny the multiplier effect; there are just too many obvious examples of its positive effects. Public schools (educated/productive workforce multiplier), roads (transportation multiplier), subsidized/free health care (healthy/productive workforce multiplier), etc. It is quite clear that these investments have returned a value many times greater than the initial cost.

And you, like so many like you, continue to make the fallacy that unseen costs aren't real.

You point to roads as an economic multiplier (ignoring the many, many roads that do not give a net increase in wealth such as Alaska's 'Bridge To Nowhere') but you ignore what could have been done with that money if it wasn't spent on the road.

If nothing else, road creation is driven primarily by *political* concerns, not by economic necessity. This is an expected result, indeed the only result possible, from a system where the people who decide where and when to build a road bear no responsibility for its funding or utility.

[Sevo]

"One cannot deny the multiplier effect; there are just too many obvious examples of its positive effects. Public schools (educated/productive workforce multiplier), roads (transportation multiplier), subsidized/free health care (healthy/productive workforce multiplier), etc. It is quite clear that these investments have returned a value many times greater than the initial cost."

It is not clear at all. Perhaps roads might return more than costs; neither of the other two have been shown to do so. And it ignores the initial loss in wealth inherent in *any* tax transaction.
In a free transaction, both parties end up with an increase in value. This is obvious on the face of it, in that each offer something they value less to receive what each values more.
In the case of taxation, that is not true at all; there is a net loss of value.

[HazelMeade]

The problem is that government is really shitty at determining what things to spend money on that will produce a net value.

The market has been shown over and over to be more efficient at allocating capital and labor to optimal uses. For a very simple and obvious reason: Markets are driven by price signals, governments are not. Governments are driven by political expediency. They will spend money on things that benefit politically connected interests and buy votes. They have to they would be retarded not to considering that that's how they win elections. By contrast markets are compelled to produce goods that satisfy demands in the market place according to the revealed preferences of actual consumers voting with their wallets.

The only time government spending could be superior is if the market is in a severely dysfunctional state, to the point where there are vast amounts of unused capital and unused labor, basically idling. That may have been the case during the depression, but it's not the norm, and it certainly not the case now.

[Sevo]

HazelMeade|3.14.15 @ 7:41PM|#
"The problem is that government is really shitty at determining what things to spend money on that will produce a net value."

So we have the circumstance where the taxes are coerced, lowering the overall value to begin with, and then the problem that the distribution of capital is unlikely to ever match the revealed needs, given the 'public choice' issue.
Hey, Blitz! How about some detailed rebuttal?

[Tybus]

I've also gotten blood from a turnip. The secret is to beat it with a stick in the right spot.

[Vampire]

How can Blitz claim to help someone out when completely ignoring economic history?

Blitz, you can help yourself by looking up John Law. His actions showed the failure of Keynesianism before the guy and his future worshippers / followers were even born.

The reason this crap is regurgitated and repeated is because these folks face no consequenses for their actions. They do not go to their neighbors house to rob them, nor do they cut up their media of exchange, give them half and tell them how doing such a thing benefits the economy. They do not have to put up their homes, or other property to back up their theories. Instead, they gamble away the purchasing power of future generations, with no risk to themselves. Folks like Krugman, who's household would; if he followed his own advice; fail miserably. Instead, he makes money from the gov't, politicians, special interests and bankers that benefit at the expense of individuals both now and in the future by peddling his nonsense that has failed miserably numerous times. If these theories were so great, the gov't wouldn't have to go around forcing everyone to participate through the barrel of a gun.

[Agammamon]

How about we throw a bone to the *childless*?

After all, my non-existent children aren't consuming you tax dollars by going to school, uninsured trips to the emergency room, nor are they going to break into your garage and steal your tools in the middle of the night.

Oh, and don't forget - #Overpopulation Contributes To Global warming #Geometrical Versus Exponential

[HazelMeade]

i agree. Let's all fight over which groups should get special targeted tax cuts. Everyone else is doing it.

[north of y'all]

Sorry if covered already...comments tl;dr for me today.

Am I to understand that buying votes with tax liability reduction (albeit, only for some) is the same thing as buying votes with an increase in spending by creating a new social welfare program?

A tax cut, even a stupid one like this, at least can potentially lead to a reduction in spending...I am a dreamer, I know. Creating a new spending program cannot. They don't strike me as the same thing at all.

[Sevo]

"A tax cut, even a stupid one like this, at least can potentially lead to a reduction in spending...I am a dreamer, I know."

That's pretty much what's being discussed; 'starve the beast' vs one more vote-buying scheme.

[Doug Heffernan]

The child tax credit has to go - I'm sure it will before any version of this plan is actually implemented. The best way to help those parents is with top tax rate reductions. Why can't he just explain the economics here, namely the self-evident truth that tax breaks for the wealthy are good for the poor. It isn't as a hard a sell as it may first seem, given the connection to growth.

[jay_dubya]

" The tax credit will reduce federal revenues by a projected $173 million" this should be $173 Billion with a B. I dont usually harp on typos but this one is relevant.