Friday, December 10, 2010

Angus vs. Angus

I recently posted (and firmly believe) that, without any spending cuts, the proposed set of "tax cuts" are not real, but rather just represent a temporal re-arrangement of when I will be paying taxes.

Yet somehow, I find myself invested in the cuts passing. I am almost titillated by the prospect of a 2 percentage point cut in the payroll tax.

How can this be?

1. I am an idiot?

2. Maybe I will die before the day of reckoning arrives?

3. More realistically, maybe I can make it into a lower tax bracket (i.e. retire) before the day of reckoning arrives?

4. Maybe large spending cuts are right around the corner?

People, which is more likely; I get to retire before the tax hammer comes down enough or big spending cuts materialize to prevent the hammer from falling?


If this post makes no sense to you, please to refer to point #1 above.

5 comments:

Lee Coppock said...

A bird in the hand. There is always some uncertainty about the level of future spending, and when the debts will be paid (as you emphasize). But more dollars directly to you today? Nothing tricky about that - we likes it!

Steve said...

Just as I was titillated by the $8,000 housing tax credit that fell into my lap at the exact same time I was already looking to purchase a home...yet at the same time realizing that $8,000 was not my money (it was a refundable tax credit, for crying out loud!)

More on topic: I would agree with Lee and say you like the certainty of controlling your own destiny. Maybe you can take that 2% payroll tax cut today and make more in the stock market to compensate for the higher tax rates?

Anonymous said...

Or maybe you just think the government will piss away what ever tax revenue we give them, so the day of reckoning will come no matter what. In other words, less revenue means less spending more revenue means more spending...the deficit will be constant regardless of tax levels.

Mr. Overwater said...

Maybe you've been hanging with Michelle Bachmann:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/bachmann-i-dont-think-tax-cuts-should-be-defined-as-a-deficit-video.php

Richard Stands said...

I tend to agree with Anon, spending increases seem inevitable. There are powerful incentives for legislators to buy power with "free stuff".

If my goal is a smaller federal government, everything that makes that government larger (like increasing revenue now) is working against my interests. Yes, it'll probably mean that revenue will be called for again later (with interest). But refusing to increase taxes now, in a down economy, is refusing to grow the beast today. AA for government spending: one day at a time.

The deficit and debt remain, and are not mitigated as much as they would be if the feds raise taxes and took more. Sad, yes. But taking more feeds the problem; spending less works toward solving it.