Should we raise taxes?

Our Congress is held up at the present moment on the debt ceiling talks due to the issue of raising more funds through higher taxation on the wealthy. Democrats have agreed to enormous spending cuts amounting to four trillion dollars along with most other Republican proposal. So what is holding up the debt ceiling raise? Democrats are unwilling to vote for cuts without raising funds and Republicans are unwilling to vote for raising funds.

As I must admit raising taxes is never the best answer but it is not always the wrong answer. Since Democrats have agreed to near unprecedented spending cuts to balance the budget it seems only rational for the GOP to give on taxes. A truly responsible fiscal hawk knows that debt is much worse than taxes on an economy and given that a failure to raise the debt ceiling could result in repercussions completely unknown then businesses would obviously be hesitant to invest due to risk of possible default or dramatic market reactions.

"raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary" – Prescott Bush (R)

Why would Mr. Bush say that? Because like the Republicans prior to “deficits don’t matter” Reaganomics adherence he knew taxes were not a communist scheme to destroy America but rather could be used as an important tool in balancing budgets. That is why I am going to side with the Democrats on this one and agree that Republicans are not being intelligent here, they must be willing to compromise some. This is not a loss at all, it is an unprecedented win, so why not agree to a minor tax hike on the wealthy and begin to shrink the deficit?

Originally posted by Misoir
Our Congress is held up at the present moment on the debt ceiling talks due to the issue of raising more funds through higher taxation on the wealthy. Democrats have agreed to enormous spending cuts amounting to four trillion dollars along with most other Republican proposal. So what is holding up the debt ceiling raise? Democrats are unwilling to vote for cuts without raising funds and Republicans are unwilling to vote for raising funds.

As I must admit raising taxes is never the best answer but it is not always the wrong answer. Since Democrats have agreed to near unprecedented spending cuts to balance the budget it seems only rational for the GOP to give on taxes. A truly responsible fiscal hawk knows that debt is much worse than taxes on an economy and given that a failure to raise the debt ceiling could result in repercussions completely unknown then businesses would obviously be hesitant to invest due to risk of possible default or dramatic market reactions.

"raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary" – Prescott Bush (R)

Why would Mr. Bush say that? Because like the Republicans prior to “deficits don’t matter” Reaganomics adherence he knew taxes were not a communist scheme to destroy America but rather could be used as an important tool in balancing budgets. That is why I am going to side with the Democrats on this one and agree that Republicans are not being intelligent here, they must be willing to compromise some. This is not a loss at all, it is an unprecedented win, so why not agree to a minor tax hike on the wealthy and begin to shrink the deficit?

Why? I mean it would just be more money for the Fed Gov to squander. They should take a page out of Calvin Coolidge's book and cut taxes AND spending by 50%. Then sit back and let the laws of economics take effect. Unemployment would go down to 3 or 4 %, GDP would grow significantly, business would boom, and more importantly the amount of taxes received by the Fed Gov would increase drastically. None of this will happen, because that means that the Fed Gov would have to give up some of their power and control over the day to day lives of people, and we can't have that now can we.

reply to post by Misoir


We don't need to raise taxes. We need to freeze and reclaim the bank accounts and assets of the criminal theives that stole the money and got us in this mess. I hear no one speak about reclaiming what has been stolen. Its like lick our wounds and ignore the obvious.

I don't think it's as easy as just raising taxes. You can go ahead and do it but then consider what it will mean in terms of people's disposable income... you know, the stuff they say actually moves the economy.

But you know what I don't get? How come the threats always come in where it's like, "either we raise taxes or your social security/medicaid/medicare gets cut!" Why are those our only two options? The easiest fix, IMHO, is to just slash the size of the federal government, and bring the troops home. It seems so straightforward! Also, I heard on some news broadcast somewhere that whatever money the gov't DOES get will likely go towards interest payments (which I assume they mean the interest they pay to the Federal Reserve for printing our currency? IDK.) Anyway, why not make like Iceland and tell the Fed Reserve to F-off, and that they'll get their interest payments when our economy is in working order?

Besides, I am honestly to the point where I don't see any real difference between any Republicans or Democrats out there. I think they both suck, as they just pander to the voters to get elected - and then nothing ever changes anyway.

reply to post by Misoir


Misoir, I've written at length recently on the subject. The issue is not revenue, but class warfare.
Please let me explain.
Many have opined about the benefits of raising taxes. They have used the Clinton era, and have gone even farther back to support the idea.
My response to those who feel that raising taxes (on the rich) have been this.
If raising taxes works, then why are the states with the highest taxes failing?
If raising taxes works, then why aren't the progressive and liberals vouluntarily giving more?
If raising taxes works, then why is there such opposition to a flat tax that would provide "revenue" and equalize it?

The last point is perhaps the most critical.

If you equalize, then there would be parity and not a false class dichotomy to generate something even more valuable than tax-money.
Political revenue. Pushing a political objective.

Forgive the long-wined response, but thanks for providing a forum for it.

An important tool in balancing budgets?

Like armed robbery is an important tool for keeping crack in the pipe.

Is this even a question?

All the tax money previously collected has been spent and given away without taxpayer consent. People can't afford houses, food, gas, education, medical...they have no jobs and no prospect of a secure future.

Raise taxes? Take more from those that can't afford anything and give it to those living in mansions and eating caviar? Really?

Then what? After they steal those taxes, raise them again? I guess it won't be enough until people are slaving away in fields and factories for food and fuel allotments, fighting in their wars and dieing for their greed.

Back to the question.

Raise Taxes? No.

Even as a Canadian (Taxes? You ain't seen nothing) I would say this is offering my 2 cents worth but I have only 1 cent to offer.

reply to post by Misoir


You do understand that raising taxes on an already stressed economy isn't a valid option right? You want to control the debt? Ok then, allow me to enlighten the readers with a small list that identifies the " squandering " of tax payer monies.

* Remove all unconstitutional welfare programs. ( these entitlement programs are the largest burden on the tax payer)
* Cut military spending by 40% ( its not like we take heavy losses like we did in WW1 and WW2 )
* Eradicate all foreign aid
* Cut taxes, by doing so you put money back into the pockets of the consumer, which does what? you may ask.....proven history of economic stimulation.


Suggesting raising taxes does only two things....allows more Federal income, and the pissing away of tax payer dollars....oh, but less we forget, its all in the name of " security ".

I think that the first thing that we should do is get rid of 90% of the tax breaks that we give to profitable businesses.

If you're making billions, you should be paying a good portion of that to the Feds.

We should increase taxes on businesses that outsource labor. I think the taxes for this should be so big that there would be an incentive to use US labor.

We should slap a 25% tax on all goods imported from countries where we have a trade imbalance. For years China has been going to address this trade imbalance but they've done nothing.

We should have across the board cuts in welfare. There should be no welfare for immigrants. If you want to immigrate to this country, you should be able to support yourself. If you need assistance, it will be an airline ticket back home and you can never come here again.

reply to post by Wildbob77

We should increase taxes on businesses that outsource labor. I think the taxes for this should be so big that there would be an incentive to use US labor.

This is something that would even the playing field.

Well Done!

reply to post by Wildbob77


With most of your response I would agree, just one area I dont.

If you're making billions, you should be paying a good portion of that to the Feds.

You do understand that the top 2% of the richest Americans pay the most in taxes annually right?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

www.american.com...

And with that, the " billionaires " you speak of, are already contributing more than their fair share. The statistics dont lie.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I have always been a proponent of import tariffs and am glad to see another economic nationalists here who shares my views on that point at least.

reply to post by Realms


I was thinking in terms of corporations.

I'm well aware that the rich pay the taxes and that the poor receive taxes.

I also think that in no case should you ever get back more money from the Feds in taxes then you pay in.

If you're poor, figure out how to improve your life.

reply to post by Wildbob77

If you're poor, figure out how to improve your life.

EXACTLY...to many people believe its the roll of the government to provide for its people...and it is clearly not. To many sheep out there are lazy, and are nothing more than a burden on the tax payer.

...heres an unique thought (joking) - this tax issue is like suggesting that a smoke alarm should be installed in a home thats already burning...

...the federal government should stop spending money they dont have on WAR and this bs concept that we should police the world... problem solved...

I will only accept higher taxes if they DRASTICALLY cut spending.

reply to post by Misoir


The challenge with the question you pose is that you are seeking a logical answer for a desired remedy of a fundamentally flawed system of government.

The government is so incompetently run and corrupt today - you name the causes and give them the priority you like, such as corporate influence, special interest influence, sheer incompetence, illogical foreign/war policy, misguided spending decisions, dozens of others.

Raising taxes until the systemic problems can be remedied only extends the implementation of an actual remedy. Cut the government back to its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, institute some reasonable reforms to the funding process, aka balanced budget amendment, line item veto, independant auditing of government, including the Fed, increased transparency. Get to a place where the majority of the systemic problems are corrected and then adopt a fiscal approach that makes sense. Might be tax hikes, it will certainly be spending cuts, but as it stands today, taxes should not be raised. The system is far to broken to continue to invest in it and if this game of brinkmanship works and we can ultimately get at least moderate reforms, this debt crisis will be a significantly positive event.

As long as the government is spending money on culverts to protect toads (regardless of whether it is spending $1 or $100M), funding performance art and investing in legacy weapon systems that are irrelevent by the time they are built and deployed, it is immoral to confiscate more money from the citizens.

The government views the wealth of the citizens as theirs. They clearly demonstrate on a daily basis how they have no respect for the labor of others and without exemption violate the public trust on practically a daily basis. Until that is corrected, they should not get an additional dime from the tax payer.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Why? I mean it would just be more money for the Fed Gov to squander. They should take a page out of Calvin Coolidge's book and cut taxes AND spending by 50%. Then sit back and let the laws of economics take effect. Unemployment would go down to 3 or 4 %, GDP would grow significantly, business would boom, and more importantly the amount of taxes received by the Fed Gov would increase drastically.

And Coolidges tenure was immediately followed by a soaring deficit and the great depression. Ronald Reagans supply-side economics also created a false boom period followed by a severe econimc downturn.

Horse and sparrow. 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'"

We have known the folly and dishonesty of supply-side economics since the 1890's.

The only reason the philosophy persists despite being repeatedly disproven by history is due to the fact that it benefits powerful and wealthy interests who hold the purse strings of our politicians.

We need to have a healthy consumer class/middle class to maintain prosperity. The middle class needs tax breaks at the expense of the wealthiest. That money will return to to the wealthy as consumption jumps and businesses profit and hire more employees to meet demand. That cycle is self perpetuating.

Simply giving more money to the wealthy without creating demand for investment? That is like trying to start an engine by simply blowing gas through it. Demand is the Engine and we need a healthy and prosperous concumer base for the economy to succeed. The Gas (Money) will sit in the tanks until that engine is repaired and adding more gas won't start the engine.

When I was having my identity crisis I realized that the debt was out of control, this was the sanity
I saw in conservatism. But upon seeing the efforts to balance and address debt, I see
The effort is not genuine. I think there needs to be a huge effort which uses all approaches

Cut spending including foreign aid and military
Remove regulations that impede base commerce (not wall-street)
Close tax loopholes
Impose tariffs or enforce trade agreements
And
Eliminate the Bush cuts

That is balanced, that is measured and I approve (worth squat I know)

Notice that nobody cares to address Eisenhower's taxation? it is just ignored

Raise taxes on any company who outsources 1 job overseas and to any oil company. Make the well to do group pay a higher share.

If all 3 are done there will not be any need to raise the debt as well as guaranteeing that no social program has to be cut and to keep cops, firefighters, civil service workers.