Skip to content

The unseen, unsung tax cut benefit.

October 25, 2017

The uproar over tax cuts and deficit neutrality overlooks one crucial element.

Forget the delirious “resist” rhetoric and the cockamamie conservative values braying, and think about this.

The very nature of the desired results from tax cuts, if realized, should decrease the need for government spending on many public assistance programs.

Conservatives might find that they could reduce spending on public assistance, since fewer people should need to utilize it.  That cuts spending without any hardship to anyone, unless of course liberals get into office and simply raise the poverty income levels accordingly.

If income levels increase as much as forecast, liberals would lose some of the ever-popular “free stuff for everybody” and racial warfare talking points they have relied upon to keep their base enslaved for so long. Perhaps that might force them to find an actual platform beyond identity politics.

Of course that makes a lot of assumptions.

First, it assumes that the economy would improve drastically, providing many more jobs and higher wages due to competition. Second, it assumes we don’t go to war with North Korea. Third, it assumes that the new jobs available would include enough non-tech, non-social service jobs to provide full employment to a wide cross-section of the public.

Most importantly, it presupposes that Congress would actually cut spending, or at least redirect spending to areas currently underfunded, rather than just raising the budget every year.

Granted, that’s a lot of assumptions but if realized, they could give taxpayers a path forward to control Washington’s insatiable appetite for our money.

Typically, if we give politicians more money to spend, they do just that. If income taxes go down, other taxes rise or they find new things to tax.

Moving forward

A new budget will be due in just six months. That might be the time to start reining in spending, and stop the pernicious Washington habit of giving with one hand and taking with the other.

One way around that problem would be to earmark a certain percentage of increased revenues for deficit reduction, and  once beyond that need, establish a rainy day fund, a government savings account if you will, similar to those required in state governments.

Another would be to be able to temporarily move already allocated funds from an overfunded program to an underfunded one easily, instead of having the overfunded program invent something new so it could keep the money.

Perhaps we could even include our retirees in some of this prosperity, given that they often don’t get any actual inflation relief, as noted in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of this USA Today piece. Many retirees are reporting that while their checks are going up 2%, premiums for the other government health insurances, i.e. Medicare Part B,C and D, are going up 35% or more.

In another retirement income assault, the President’s protestations notwithstanding, who thinks it’s a good idea to make future retirees LESS able to provide their own retirement income? What better way to stretch Social Security revenue than to make it unnecessary for more people?

Of course all of this is moot if Congress keeps playing its silly political games and fails to lower taxes, or does so insufficiently.

Those mental giants in Washington wouldn’t do that…would they?

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: