How would you answer this question...

[jrodefeld]

I have had a number of people tell me that if we only repealed the Bush tax cuts, in a few years we would have a balanced budget and we wouldn’t need to cut any spending. This is obviously absurd. But how would you reply to this?

And what do you think of people who make the argument that since the economy was good in the 90s, it was because of a 39% top tax rate. They would say that under Clinton taxes were higher on the “rich” and we “created” many more jobs than we did with the lower Bush tax rates.

How would you respond to these points?

[Vladimir_Ulyanov]

If we only repealed the spending increases we wouldn’t have to raise taxes.

[Merlin]

Because clearly no government has ever promised a balanced budget if only it would be given a tiny tax increase to find itself handling an even bigger deficit after getting the money. Man, how many times do people have to hit the same pole to be qualify as retarded?

[Autolykos]

Essentially those people seem to be arguing a false dilemma - either the Bush tax cuts aren’t repealed and the budget stays unbalanced, or the Bush tax cuts are repealed and the budget becomes balanced. There are plenty of alternatives other than whether to keep the Bush tax cuts.

[John_James]

For the second point, I would send them to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

For the first point I would send them this:

EAT THE RICH!

[gotlucky]

That video was great, JJ. Just emailed it to a couple of people.

[Wheylous]

Or simply show that that although tax rates might have been higher in the 90s, actual government spending as percet of GDP was lower:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1995USpn

[EmperorNero]

@jrodefeld

I have had a number of people tell me that if we only repealed the Bush tax cuts, in a few years we would have a balanced budget and we wouldn’t need to cut any spending. This is obviously absurd. But how would you reply to this?

Free lunch fallacy. Remind them that money doesn’t equal wealth. Money is just an allocation mechanism. The rich don’t spend billions on necessities like food and clothing, so expropriating their money doesn’t release that many resources in to the economy. More money from the rich basically just bids up the price of stuff we already have. The deficit remains the same.

@jrodefeld

And what do you think of people who make the argument that since the economy was good in the 90s, it was because of a 39% top tax rate. They would say that under Clinton taxes were higher on the “rich” and we “created” many more jobs than we did with the lower Bush tax rates.

Economic effects aren’t immediate. Clinton inherited Reagans boom years, Bush inherited Clintons economic stagnation.

[Jargon]

@jrodefeld

I have had a number of people tell me that if we only repealed the Bush tax cuts, in a few years we would have a balanced budget and we wouldn’t need to cut any spending. This is obviously absurd. But how would you reply to this?

Pretty sure this is a lie. In any case, ask them for the math.

And what do you think of people who make the argument that since the economy was good in the 90s, it was because of a 39% top tax rate. They would say that under Clinton taxes were higher on the “rich” and we “created” many more jobs than we did with the lower Bush tax rates.

How would you respond to these points?

Correlation =/= causation. Also there was a republican congress during Clinton’s administration. Also, who knows who is paying their taxes at all? (GE sure doesn’t)