Future Tax Increase

Login or register to post comments Last Post 22537 reads   108 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 108 total)
  • Sat, Jul 02, 2011 - 01:58pm

    #11

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder0

    revenue verses spending

I do not think we have a revenue problem, I think we have a spending problem.  I have never heard of the Fed Gov having a spending decrease after a revenue increase.  For many years the Fed Gov has always spent more than they have taken in.  At some point we have to draw a line and say we are not going to keep spending more and raising taxes more forever.  At some point if you keep raising taxes there will be an implosion as fair percentage of the people will no have enough money to meet their current obligations.  I think we should draw the line now.  We need to see real spending decreases.  For instance. the Dept of Education does not educate anybody as far as I know.  Why do we need a Fed Dept of Ed at all ?  If it actually does have some few useful functions, save those and cut the rest.  Free all the people back to the private sector where instead of being overhead they can be productive.  Stop the crazy wars.  That would save a aircraft carrier of money.  We can do it.  We just have to elect politicians with back bone.  Fed Gov spending could be cut say 25% without causing a revolution if we focus on stuff we really do not need.

 

 

  • Mon, Jul 04, 2011 - 10:03pm

    #12
    Useyerloaf

    Useyerloaf

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 08 2011

    Posts: 22

    count placeholder0

    dshields wrote:I do not

[quote=dshields]

I do not think we have a revenue problem, I think we have a spending problem.  I have never heard of the Fed Gov having a spending decrease after a revenue increase.  For many years the Fed Gov has always spent more than they have taken in.  At some point we have to draw a line and say we are not going to keep spending more and raising taxes more forever.  At some point if you keep raising taxes there will be an implosion as fair percentage of the people will no have enough money to meet their current obligations.  I think we should draw the line now.  We need to see real spending decreases.  For instance. the Dept of Education does not educate anybody as far as I know.  Why do we need a Fed Dept of Ed at all ?  If it actually does have some few useful functions, save those and cut the rest.  Free all the people back to the private sector where instead of being overhead they can be productive.  Stop the crazy wars.  That would save a aircraft carrier of money.  We can do it.  We just have to elect politicians with back bone.  Fed Gov spending could be cut say 25% without causing a revolution if we focus on stuff we really do not need.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2011 - 02:48am

    #13

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder0

    The purpose of taxes is….

[quote=Useyerloaf]

Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

[/quote]

Are taxes supposed to punish success or generate revenue?  If the answer is generate revenue, then how are the rates much of an indicator of anything as long is revenue is increasing at least proportionate to the economy.  However, it can still be a spending problem if spending is increasing at a faster rate than tax revenue or the economy at large.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 02:05pm

    #14
    Useyerloaf

    Useyerloaf

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 08 2011

    Posts: 22

    count placeholder0

    goes211 wrote:Useyerloaf

[quote=goes211]

[quote=Useyerloaf]

Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

[/quote]

Are taxes supposed to punish success or generate revenue?  If the answer is generate revenue, then how are the rates much of an indicator of anything as long is revenue is increasing at least proportionate to the economy.  However, it can still be a spending problem if spending is increasing at a faster rate than tax revenue or the economy at large.

[/quote]

 

It should be obvious to anyone that after 40 years of tax cuts that when towns are forced to lay off teachers, firemen, policemen, and turn off street lights there is indeed a revenue problem. The same goes for the country at large. Anyone who’s now paying 35%  before deductions who used to pay 91% is certainly not being punished.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 02:24pm

    #15
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 559

    count placeholder0

    Useyerloaf wrote:goes211

[quote=Useyerloaf]

[quote=goes211]

[quote=Useyerloaf]

Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

[/quote]

Are taxes supposed to punish success or generate revenue?  If the answer is generate revenue, then how are the rates much of an indicator of anything as long is revenue is increasing at least proportionate to the economy.  However, it can still be a spending problem if spending is increasing at a faster rate than tax revenue or the economy at large.

[/quote]

 

It should be obvious to anyone that after 40 years of tax cuts that when towns are forced to lay off teachers, firemen, policemen, and turn off street lights there is indeed a revenue problem. The same goes for the country at large. Anyone who’s now paying 35%  before deductions who used to pay 91% is certainly not being punished.

[/quote]

You are confusing federal income taxes with state and municipal taxes here.  In my area, the state and local taxes, fees. assessments,etc, that fund the services yuo refer to have risen dramatically over the past 15 years…and it still hasn’t been able to keep up with the spending habits of those governmental entities.

As far as federal income tax goes, I am sick of the IRRESPONSIBLE nature of the spending irrespective of any change in rates.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 02:35pm

    #16

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder0

    Fairness

[quote=Useyerloaf]

It should be obvious to anyone that after 40 years of tax cuts that when towns are forced to lay off teachers, firemen, policemen, and turn off street lights there is indeed a revenue problem. The same goes for the country at large. Anyone who’s now paying 35%  before deductions who used to pay 91% is certainly not being punished.

[/quote]

But you did not answer the question.  Did tax receipts decline due to the rate declines or did revenues increase over this time?  If you believe in government spending, you should not care about rates.  You should care about maximizing revenues.

Also how has the size and cost of the teachers, firemen, and policemen changed over the past 40 years?   I will bet that their growth has been at a far higher rate than revenues or GDP.

I also find the attitude that you should be happy to pay 35% when you could be paying 91% a bit disturbing.  That is morally equivalent to saying a black man should be happy during the Jim Crow era because alternatively he could have been a slave.  To me at least, it is not about how things have improved, its about fairness.  Trying to fix fundamental fairness with the tax code is just two wrongs trying to make a right.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 03:36pm

    #17

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder0

    Fair

[quote=goes211]

[quote=Useyerloaf]

It should be obvious to anyone that after 40 years of tax cuts that when towns are forced to lay off teachers, firemen, policemen, and turn off street lights there is indeed a revenue problem. The same goes for the country at large. Anyone who’s now paying 35%  before deductions who used to pay 91% is certainly not being punished.

[/quote]

But you did not answer the question.  Did tax receipts decline due to the rate declines or did revenues increase over this time?  If you believe in government spending, you should not care about rates.  You should care about maximizing revenues.

Also how has the size and cost of the teachers, firemen, and policemen changed over the past 40 years?   I will bet that their growth has been at a far higher rate than revenues or GDP.

I also find the attitude that you should be happy to pay 35% when you could be paying 91% a bit disturbing.  That is morally equivalent to saying a black man should be happy during the Jim Crow era because alternatively he could have been a slave.  To me at least, it is not about how things have improved, its about fairness.  Trying to fix fundamental fairness with the tax code is just two wrongs trying to make a right.

[/quote]

But what of population increases? Why is this not considered? Would we not expect that municipal services would rise proportionally to population? And if corporations are outsourcing jobs to China, and as a result destroying the tax base, they are in fact directly externalizing their costs at the expense of the rest of us. So both the rates would need to go up on average, and the services provided would have to go down.

What exactly is fair, and fair for whom.

I believe you would find if there was equality among tax payers, corporate and individual, and profit seekers were not allowed to externalize their costs without accountability, that the generalized tax rate would fall and services could map properly to population increases.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 04:28pm

    #18

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder0

    Of course population changes matter

You are correct.  Population increases must also be considered.  I did not mean to imply that it was as simple as the ratio of cost vs. revenue.  Hopefully most of the population growth will be captured in GDP growth ( that is if GDP was true measure of the economy which it is not ).

My main points were if you need revenue, then worry about revenue.  Worrying about rates is just a distraction.  Also trying to fix the injustices of the world, after the fact with changes to the tax code, will probably just result in legal plunder.

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 06:30pm

    #19

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 983

    count placeholder0

    Delusional Thinking Politicians

It’s just like a running a business or a family’s household expenses. When you face deficit, you have to do one or both of the following:

1. Increase income by earning more
and/or
2. Decrease expenses by spending less

Anyone who approaches addressing the deficit problem by envisioning only spending cuts (and some are even more delusional as to envision further tax cuts as well)… is delusional.

Especially delusional are the politicians who voted for all the extra spending and all the extra tax cuts, and now want to only work only on reducing spending.

The future deficit problem will have to be addressed by both spending cuts and tax increases, or it won’t be addressed at all.

Poet

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 06:54pm

    #20
    tictac1

    tictac1

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 25 2009

    Posts: 124

    count placeholder0

    The Roman Empire conquered

The Roman Empire conquered the world on a 1% tax rate, up to 3% in times of war.  Ask yourself, why do our world governments need 30%, 40%, 50% of our earnings?  It’s silly to say “Americans pay less tax than other civilized countries”.  Getting robbed the least does not mean we are not robbed.

Like us, the Romans debased their currency, which led to oppressive taxes (by ancient standards, we should be so lucky) and economic hardships.

My opinion is that we have WAY too many welfare recipients.  By that, I mean public employees that do not produce anything.  The DOD alone is responsible for vast amounts of wasteful spending, through both bureaucracy and wars of aggression that immensely profit our war-based corporations through wealth confiscation, and the corporations that rebuild the stuff we bomb.  We pay to rent those bombs til they drop, then we BUY the bomb, then we pay for the school/hospital/what-not to get rebuilt.

“That’s what government’s for.  To get in a man’s way”  -Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly series

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 108 total)

Login or Register to post comments