School Question about Katrina and Taxes

self

[sofiakp89]

I am 16 years old and in the speech and debate team at my high school. Our current topic for debate is: "Should the United States federal government fund Hurricane Katrina relief and rebuilding by ending President Bush's tax cuts?" I strongly disagree with the proposition, but I need more evidence and reasons to back up my argument. Suggestions and facts would be greatly appreciated!!

[Americanwolf]

With the tax cuts, they act to stimulate the economy. Because it puts more money into the pockets of the taxpayers, they in turn spend more either on goods or services which increase the money that business have and that increases the amount of taxes that are eventually paid via the business...

That is a very basic economic overview of how I understand the tax cuts to work..

If we were to eliminate the tax cuts to create a temporary increase in the tax money the federal government received from the taxes it would cause the economy to slow down, and stagnate.. which would cause prices to rise creating inflation.

If that occurred the monies need to rebuild the Gulf Coast area would be harder in the long run for the fed to recoup..

That is a very basic argument again the tax cut unfortunately I have no place to really tell you where you can get the data to support this, perhaps some of the other freepers may have a better direction or a clear explanation.

[FDNYRHEROES]

So how much taxes do you 16-year old high school students pay and how much do you expect to get back with the tax cuts?

[weegee]

You mean legit sources like the LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, 60 Minutes, AP, bwaah ha ha, I can't go on!

[weegee]

I think his complaint is that "rich" people will get more tax dollars back than he will get.

[FOXFANVOX]

Here's a good reason that the tax cuts should not be rescinded. The tax cuts have INCREASED the revenue to the federal government. The recession we just came out of was shorter and milder due to the cutting of taxes.

The reason cutting taxes is not totally sucessful is that the government proceeds to spend the additonal revenue and thus the increased revenue is not always apparent to a citizen who doesn't read the statistics or understand the economics of taxation. Both Republicans and Democrats in the current congress have spent wrecklessly. Fiscal discipline would be far more effective than higher taxes!

Pres. Regan cut taxes as well and the federal revenue increased. But, he also served with a congress that increased spending and so it "appeared" that tax cuts caused increased deficits, when, in fact, they were caused by increased federal spending.

Raising taxes at this time will hurt the economy even more than it is has been hurt by the war and natural disasters.

If your teacher learns nothing else, perhaps he/she could understand that reallocating income [which is what higher taxes really do] is far less efficient than letting the free market solve the problems that arise. You can compare the Post Office with United Parcel Service (UPS) to show the difference between private and public funding.

Hope this helps a little; at least you are on the right side of the discussion. 8)

[Americanwolf]

no actually... like... a good economics web site..or a freeper that actually understands the tax cuts better then I do...

If the kid is legit... (ref: post 12..)

and is on a debate team they are going to have to cite their sources.... just trying to help out after making and Arse out of my self... thats all... :)

[Americanwolf]

Thanks... I kind stumble through something like that... :)

[steve8714]

A better way to finance this would be to target some extra tax breaks for companies who rebuild...plus, the LA and NO pols can't steal tax breaks.

[Americanwolf]

"the LA and NO pols can't steal tax breaks" That is going to be the big thing, how do they keep the corruption to a minimum... That is why I think the house and senate really need to think out the amount they are going to give to NO and LA...and how they are going to do it... if you give straight cash it is as good as gone.

[weegee]

I understand and did not mean to take issue with your recommendation.

I DO take issue with the basic library resources at many schools that offer the long since discredited basic daily and weekly publications I mentioned above.

I am not talking mere bias, I am referring to their exposed lies, fraud, and hoaxed news items and sources.

They are completely untrustworthy as a reference point in my mind. You can consider the "facts" in those publications but should also consider the source and seek additional information before running with the detail for justification on either side of an argument.

[FOXFANVOX]

Hey, what's your daughter doing up at almost midnight!

Just kidding. Hope post #25 helps give her some starting points. Nice that at least she is not asked to write or debate about Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt.

[sofiakp89]

I understand and agree with the general idea that tax cuts stimulate the economy and I also know that the topic for debate is pretty much b.s., but I have to make a case by tomorrow. I was just looking for more specific facts and am not really sure where to search. Thank you for trying to help, though.

[spunkets]

Ask Williams That's a list of his writings on tax policy. I'd guess taxaiton 101 would be a good place to start. Walter William's home page has a search engine to retrieve his excellent writings on various econ topics.

If taxes are raised now, the economy will suffer. What will happen is that money will be taken out of present commercial channels all of a sudden and those businesses will suffer. Jobs will be lost and bills won't get paid. That means tax revenues will drop.

The money then goes to pay laborers and for supplies to rebuild, but then since taxes are higher, the rebuild costs more than the taxes were raised. The temporary boost for them that amounts to inflationary pressure, because demand hasn't really changed and the rebuild is not really producing economic output... yet.

You can also google Milton Freidman, University of Chicago, economics...

[Polybius]

hmm when i debated in high school we were suppose to have our evidence from legit sources like magazines and papers not websites...bye bye troll...

"... legit sources like magazines and papers...."

Did you forget your < /sarcasm> tag?

Times have changed.

"Magazines and newspapers" are no longer "legit sources ". They are merely soapboxes for political agendas.

We, on the other hand, are not merely a "website".

We are a collection of thousands of conservative minds with real world experience who just happened to usher Dan Rather into retirement.

Give the kid a break.

She chose to ask us rather than trust Time, Newsweek or the New York Times.

[Americanwolf]

no problem best of luck!

[Americanwolf]

If you had taken time to read down the thread I appologized... or perhaps like i was, you were quick to jump... I appologized and tried to help.. so perhaps we should all take a few minutes are read on before we jump again.

[Americanwolf]

Check posts 13 and 21

[Americanwolf]

"am not talking mere bias, I am referring to their exposed lies, fraud, and hoaxed news items and sources."

I will not argue with that fact at all If you go back and read some of my past posts... I constantly rail against the MSM and their yellow journalism...(It is a shame that so much of the crap the MSM puts out is acceptable as legit news.) :)

[tarator]

Thank you all for welcoming Sofia to FR and for the useful information. It's not easy being a 16-years old with a conservative world view.

Now, most of the answers here revolve around the idea that reducing taxes leads to economy growth and indirectly to increased budget revenues. This may be correct, but saying "we should have a smaller government now, so that we can have a much bigger government 5 years down the road" is not very conservative.

Where does Congress draw authority to tax us in order to provide for disaster relief in the first place? What ever happended to "Not yours to give"?

[Polybius]

I understand and agree with the general idea that tax cuts stimulate the economy and I also know that the topic for debate is pretty much b.s.,....

Watch your "b.s." language, young lady. Your Dad is lurking. ;-)

but I have to make a case by tomorrow. I was just looking for more specific facts and am not really sure where to search. Thank you for trying to help, though.

It is a "b.s." topic, however, as it seems a question specifically designed to embarrass President Bush.

While such a tactic might be fair game in politics, it is not fair game in a public school civics class when 16 year olds are asked to refute it.

I would turn the embarrassment right back at them.

Point out that the taxes on "The Rich" that John Kerry talked about so much were really taxes on working people. Only "income", not "wealth" is taxed.

If the school Principal's spouse made just as much money as the principal did, that family would be considered "Rich" by Kerry's rhetoric.

The truly "Rich", however, do not pay taxes on their wealth. The truly "Rich" do not need jobs. If they work, it is merely a power trip, as in Kerry's case, or a hobby.

Teresa Heinz, John Kerry's wife, inherited over $550 million, tax free, at the death of her Republican Senator husband.

John Kerry, is living off of that $550 million as Teresa Heinz's husband and paying no taxes on that wealth as it is not "income".

In your debate, propose that the hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth owned by the Kennedy's and Teresa Heinz be taxed for Katrina relief.

Whether or not a Wealth Tax is a good idea is another can of worms.

However, on short notice, that tack will serve the purpose of embarrasing those who tried to embarrass President Bush with a cheap shot.