Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012 | 2 a.m.
If you are like me, you have found nothing consequential in the presidential debates. I feel insulted when a question is asked, and the candidates give answers, using material they are prepared to use that has no direct relevance to the original question. How are we supposed to learn more about what these guys are all about? Certainly not from their bashing of each other.
I would like to simplify one of the strategies I am hearing from one of the candidates — to cut expenses and cut taxes, which means income to the Treasury, too.
Suppose you are a 40-year-old man with a family of four and earn $50,000 a year. And suppose you find that you are spending about $10,000 a year more than you earn. Your debt rises every year. Not good. Now, suppose you examine your budget carefully and find a way to reduce annual spending by $5,000. While this is a step in the right direction, further suppose that your employer decides to cut your pay by $10,000 a year. With less money being spent, and less money coming in, where will the reduction of your overall debt come from?
Any serious attempt to lower the debt will result from a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending. A tax cut only makes sense if our slowly improving new jobs creation takes us to a place where these new workers’ income taxes begin to flood the Treasury in a meaningful way.