The "cost to government" of a tax cut... huh?
posted by CS | 12:00 AM 
Preach it, brother Ron:
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!
2 Comments:
I'd feel better about liking tax cuts if we could also get a system of concomitant spending caps instituted as well. Otherwise these cuts are meaningless masturbatory measures designed to distract uneducated and unwary voters who continue to demand increasing amounts of ill-ftaed government-financed social engineering. Forget another empty short-term tax cut -- what about the future, Social Security, the national debt, and the average savings rate of below negative 2 percent?
Stickster, I hear ya.
The plan (if there is one!) I would favor would look something like this:
1. Balance (cut) the existing budget with existing revenues (taxes). No funny numbers. Use GAAP standards. Hire an outside accounting firm to check the #s in real-time. Hire a 2nd firm to check the findings of the 1st firm. Create financial incentives for each firm's accuracy.
2. Have an analysis done (by the GAO) of redundancies. Subtract whatever savings they estimate from 20% of the total budget. E.g. - if they come up with $200 billion savings, subtract this from $500 billion, which is approximately 20% of the existing budget. Take the result - $300 billion - and broadly further reduce the entire budget another 12% (i.e. - cut every department's funding 12%).
3. Take the $500 billion "savings" and apply 2/3 to the National Debt. Refund 1/3 of it to the taxpayers. By taxpayers, I mean people who actually paid taxes. To keep things simple, divide the amount to be refunded by the number of taxpayers. Rather than cutting a costly check to each, permit taxpayers to deduct this amount (plus 5% interest for the time the treasury retains the $$) from their following year taxes. Or, provide the option to do that - or take the proceeds immediately in the form of a check, incurring a nominal processing cost. The idea is to get the gov't streamlined, like banks, where it affects customers' actions based on direct financial incentives.
My general point is that this should not be an either/or proposition. We should cut the budget, pay down the debt, AND reduce taxes all at the same time.
Post a Comment
<< Home