(no subject)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right. But to blame the decline in revenue as the problem when revenues are not static is the problem.

Take the person who works on commission. Should he budget planning on getting the same amount of money every year, or should we blame that he got less money one year over another when he falls short?

[prock.livejournal.com]

But to blame the decline in revenue as the problem when revenues are not static is the problem.

I did not do that. I took issue with:

His second line item assumes incorrectly that tax cuts have a cost. They do not - the spending was the problem.

or said another way:

"But to blame spending as the problem when revenues are not static is the problem."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When it's a given that revenues are not static, the responsibility is not on revenues to become static (because they cannot), but rather that spending remain predictable and reasonable (which can be controlled).

[prock.livejournal.com]

When it's a given that revenues are not static, the responsibility is not on revenues to become static.

No one has suggested such.

rather that spending remain predictable and reasonable (which can be controlled).

Both spending and revenues should be predictable and reasonable, and both can be controlled.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How can you control revenues?

[prock.livejournal.com]

prock: Both spending and revenues should be predictable and reasonable, and both can be controlled.

badlydrawnjeff: How can you control revenues?

If you don't have any idea how revenues are managed by governments by now, there's probably no hope in continuing the discussion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I understand how governments attempt to manage revenues. I'm asking you how you believe revenues can be controlled. Are you capable of answering that question? If so, answer it.

[prock.livejournal.com]

It's clear you're using some strange definition of the word control here. If revenues cannot be "controlled", then neither can spending.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

At this point, I think it's safe to assume you cannot answer the question. If that changes, we'll continue.

[prock.livejournal.com]

You're the one who doesn't understand basic governmental budgetary porcess. If you need me to explain it for you there not much hope for this being little more than a remedial civics meson for you. I'll pass.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You claim I don't understand it, but you're utterly unable to explain how a government can control the revenues it receives. Not my problem to fix.

[prock.livejournal.com]

You claim I don't understand it...

You're the one who's asking the question, not me.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I understand that they have revenue projections, I understand that the projections don't typically match reality. I understand full well that the government can say "we'll take in $2 trillion in revenue this year," and they won't take in $2 trillion.

[prock.livejournal.com]

And the government can say "we'll take in $2 trillion in revenue this year," and take in more than $2 trillion.

And the government can say "we project $2 trillion in spending this year," but spend more than $2 trillion.

And the government can say "we project $2 trillion in spending this year," but spend less than $2 trillion.

(rhetorically) How on earth could any government operate without any control revenues or spending?

This is truly the mystery of the ages. Or at least a mystery for you. Please do let us know when you figure this out.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right. What you've described is clear evidence that they cannot control revenues. That's the point. They can, however, control spending.

[prock.livejournal.com]

No. What I described is parallel situations for revenues and spending. If you're saying that under those circumstances you can control spending, but not revenues, it's up to you to explain how on earth a government can intervene to adjust spending, but not intervene to adjust revenues.

Please do tell us.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Easy: the government simply cannot guarantee any level of revenue coming in. It can try to by all sorts of means, but it is fundamentally incapable of actually doing so.

The government is absolutely able to limit its expenditures and adjust to what comes in. There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways.

[prock.livejournal.com]

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of revenue coming in.

True.

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of spending going out.

Also true.

The government is absolutely able to limit its expenditures and adjust to what comes in.

True.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways.

True.

There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that a spending policy will result in predictable ways.

Also true.

If you're trying to make some point about how government controls spending, but not revenue, you're not doing a very poor job of it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of spending going out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually. The government, at any time, can stop spending.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually. As I noted:

"There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways."

If you're trying to make some point about how government controls spending, but not revenue, you're not doing a very poor job of it.

Only because you're simply saying things that aren't true.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Untrue, actually. The government, at any time, can stop spending.

Sure. And the government, at any time, can raise revenue.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually.


If it's true for spending it's true for revenue.

As I noted:

"There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways."

This holds for spending as well.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure. And the government, at any time, can raise revenue.

Can try to raise revenue. They cannot guarantee success.

If it's true for spending it's true for revenue.

How? That doesn't make any sense? Revenue is an attempt to take money from a population. Spending is actual distribution of money. They can control to the penny how much goes out. They cannot ensure that any specific amount comes in.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Can try to raise revenue. They cannot guarantee success.

I'm not sure what you mean by guarantee success, they are the ones with the guns.

They can control to the penny how much goes out.

If they can control to the penny how much goes out, they can also control to the penny how much comes in. It's just a matter of legislation.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Y'know, this may be just me, but it seems real goddamn stupid to cut revenue with tax cuts BEFORE cutting down the spending, especially when a lot of that spending is legislated as being mandatory.

"Oh hey, I've got an $1800/mo house payment I'm having trouble making, so I'll just take a voluntary pay cut! That'll fix my spending problem because I'll be forced to spend less! Hey, why isn't the bank cutting my house payment down to a reasonable size? What do they mean I signed a contract?"

Sounds to me like you might want to repeal that mandatory spending first.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

On this, we agree.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

say this, less rarely, you might possibly want to.