World Affairs Board - View Single Post

**astralis** · 02-11-2008, 23:02 PM

bluesman,

sounds about right. one other thing to consider- and shek mentioned it in passing- is government spending rates, as well.

while i am for lower taxes, which creates more economic efficiency, the problem with the idea of lower taxes at all costs is that an increase in deficit spending may very well have economic disadvantages that outweigh the economic benefits from the tax cuts.

this depends on the level of deficit spending done, and as you mentioned earlier, the relative size of the tax cut. but this is one of the reasons why i think the bush tax cut (both today and in the first administration) was inadvisable- the negative impact on our fiscal debt (considerable) outweighed the positive impact of cutting (marginal).

now, had bush managed to cut, say, social security or medicare, then i would have been all for it.

incidentally, this is why i'm more for a free-trade president as opposed to a tax-cutting one. given the absolute difficulty of even slowing down government growth (reagan could barely do even this- he didn't even shrink it), and the relatively small impact of further tax cuts (as measured against a $14 trillion economy), the most beneficial economic impact that a president can do is to pass as many free-trade bills as possible, which has the dual benefits of making the economy more competitive and more efficient.

02-11-2008, 23:02 PM	#43 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,944 Country:	bluesman, sounds about right. one other thing to consider- and shek mentioned it in passing- is government spending rates, as well. while i am for lower taxes, which creates more economic efficiency, the problem with the idea of lower taxes at all costs is that an increase in deficit spending may very well have economic disadvantages that outweigh the economic benefits from the tax cuts. this depends on the level of deficit spending done, and as you mentioned earlier, the relative size of the tax cut. but this is one of the reasons why i think the bush tax cut (both today and in the first administration) was inadvisable- the negative impact on our fiscal debt (considerable) outweighed the positive impact of cutting (marginal). now, had bush managed to cut, say, social security or medicare, then i would have been all for it. incidentally, this is why i'm more for a free-trade president as opposed to a tax-cutting one. given the absolute difficulty of even slowing down government growth (reagan could barely do even this- he didn't even shrink it), and the relatively small impact of further tax cuts (as measured against a $14 trillion economy), the most beneficial economic impact that a president can do is to pass as many free-trade bills as possible, which has the dual benefits of making the economy more competitive and more efficient. __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations