posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:24 PM
The article by Curme misses the point made by Carseller4. Tax rates were cut and "tax revenues" INCREASED. Although the deficit may still increase
if the Government spends beyond it's increased revenue, that does not change the fact that tax revenues increased while tax rates were cut! I
believe that is because tax reductions stimulate the economy and the resulting improved economy generates additional tax revenues.
Would you turn down a raise in pay because other family members want to spend more than your raise? Responsible people would take the raise and
attempt to hold down expenses so that their family improves financially.
So the statement made by Carseller4 when he wrote "Tax cuts = Deficit reduction!" is true when the Government doesn't increase it's spending.
Obviously Tax Cuts don't = Deficit Reduction when the Government increases spending beyond the increased revenues. That's a no brainer.
Nevertheless, Tax Cuts do = Increased Tax Revenues!
The article by Curme arguing that the decreased deficit may be short lived misses the point regarding tax cuts. Sure, the decreased deficit may be
short lived if Government increases spending due to increased Social Security & medicare debt, or other expenses. Curme asked, "Where's the good
news? The good news is our deficit is less because of tax cuts regardless of the amount of Government spending. The deficit would be even greater if
tax cuts had not been made.
Curme cites statements made by Mr. Wyss. However, even with the future Government expenses, Mr. Wyss also said,
"That should reduce the 2005 deficit while bringing down war costs next year. Wyss said the deficit should continue to fall in 2006 and 2007."
We have been told by certain people that the "only" way to reduce the deficit is to increase the tax rates. Well, that has been proved wrong.