Should we raise taxes?

Californians don't need any more taxes. give us a f'n break. the idiots here should have legalized and taxed marijuana.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
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.

Profitable business? Like the mom-and-pop down the street selling locally made goods, or locally grown food, grosses $300K and takes home a whopping $60K because they've been taxed to death? Those profitable businesses? I should think that the mom-and-pops should be the only businesses getting tax breaks as they are the reason America even has and economy to speak of.

As to Misoir's post, I can see where you're coming from. There needs to be a compromise on both sides. But the compromise isn't revenue, it's where expenditures need to be cut. Neither side is willing to let their pet projects be incised (though, surprisingly, the Democrats have allowed that a cut to Medicare can be made). Interestingly, neither side is willing to make cuts to the military, but that's because both the left and the right love to make war, (for different reasons). And that's a different topic altogether.

The only change that needs to be made to our current tax revenues is the way they are collected, e.g. via flat tax or national sales tax (absent, of course, killing individual income tax completely).

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Wildbob77
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.

Profitable business? Like the mom-and-pop down the street selling locally made goods, or locally grown food, grosses $300K and takes home a whopping $60K because they've been taxed to death? Those profitable businesses? I should think that the mom-and-pops should be the only businesses getting tax breaks as they are the reason America even has and economy to speak of.

As to Misoir's post, I can see where you'rPe coming from. There needs to be a compromise on both sides. But the compromise isn't revenue, it's where expenditures need to be cut. Neither side is willing to let their pet projects be incised (though, surprisingly, the Democrats have allowed that a cut to Medicare can be made). Interestingly, neither side is willing to make cuts to the military, but that's because both the left and the right love to make war, (for different reasons). And that's a different topic altogether.

The only change that needs to be made to our current tax revenues is the way they are collected, e.g. via flat tax or national sales tax (absent, of course, killing individual income tax completely).

/TOA

A VAT rate of 21% in Greece is part of what is killing the damn place too.
This was a real life experiment into raising revenue with a flat tax scheme
That has backfired to no end. It stalls consumption and murders the little guy,
Just a flat sales tax would make me have to pay for the engines of commerce,
The entire infrastructure for things I use once, where as a corporation uses
It millions of times. Are you fully in the tank for an oligarchy? Would you like to
Discuss the very long list of such items, which would be shouldered by single
Use individuals? paying for millions of uses by the elites who benefit very heavily
From public investment, funded with tax dollars is complete foolishness.
Spending was increased and revenue was reduced, both should be optimized
Until this is reversed. Why do conservatives get to dictate the complete terms of
Policy? If the idea is to actually stabilize the budget any book keeper can tell you
Addressing both income and expense is the best way to return to the black.

Why do Democrats think they can have it both ways?

When you want to curb something what do you do? You tax it. Alcohol, tobacco, are prime examples.

So what happens when you raise taxes on income? You curb that income. Tax shelters, underground income, less hiring.

Let's say a huge tax increase is due to hit when you reach $250,000 in a year. Let's say someone earned $240,000 in 10 months. Why work the other 2 months of the year? Take a vacation, after all it's around the holidays....so why not? People do this, and it costs the government extra revenue, because the tax system is so punitive.

For me they should not raise taxes. For the rest of you: yes they should!
Okay, J/K.
Any tax breaks that go to businesses should be directly tied to the number of U.S. based jobs filled by U.S. citizens. Everyone wants tax breaks so that businesses can create jobs. so that is what they should get tax breaks for. If they create jobs in Mexico or India, let Mexico or India give them tax breaks.

reply to post by indisgust


The reason why your state is broke is because of Scientology and the fact that most every big name in Hollywood gives everything to them which screws your state out of the income taxes it would've received.

If a movie makes $100 Billion internationally the taxes paid to the state is none.

reply to post by Indigo5


Stop filling the thread with your facts! Only tax cuts can save us1!!

Honestly though, I agree with Misoir. We need an increase in revenue. Taxes are low, interest rates are low, corporate profits are waaay up and yet...we see no result in the lower 98% of earners.

Why? Because supply-side economics are a failure. We, as a society, have given in to nearly every desire from the proponents of this economic model. Even then corporations and business' across the country outsource their jobs and base their earnings in low tax/no tax states and countries.

We have one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world. Our per capita debt is on par with Greece and Egypt. During the 80's Republicans exploded the debt, the 90's brought in higher taxes and greater revenue, the country was on its way to being debt free by 2015, then the Bush tax cuts, the unfunded wars and deregulation allowed a bubble to pop to destroy the economy and the nations budget surplus that existed in 2000.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Stop filling the thread with your facts! Only tax cuts can save us1!!

Honestly though, I agree with Misoir. We need an increase in revenue. Taxes are low, interest rates are low, corporate profits are waaay up and yet...we see no result in the lower 98% of earners.

Why? Because supply-side economics are a failure. We, as a society, have given in to nearly every desire from the proponents of this economic model. Even then corporations and business' across the country outsource their jobs and base their earnings in low tax/no tax states and countries.

We have one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world. Our per capita debt is on par with Greece and Egypt. During the 80's Republicans exploded the debt, the 90's brought in higher taxes and greater revenue, the country was on its way to being debt free by 2015, then the Bush tax cuts, the unfunded wars and deregulation allowed a bubble to pop to destroy the economy and the nations budget surplus that existed in 2000.

Since all spending starts in the House of Representatives, how in the blue hell did Republicans explode the debt in the 80's? Government revenue quadrupled under Reagan, and Democrats could not spend it fast enough.

Originally posted by Realms
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 ".

well said, but all should pay their fair share.

the only way to get some people to pay taxes would be with a sales tax.

our income tax system is corrupt to it's core, from top to bottom.
no individual or corporation should be allowed to get more than they paid in.
all the subsidies and tax credits to corporations, including agriculture, cut them.
who hasn't worked where the illegals and others are claiming kids that either don't exist or are not in this country.
they pay hardly any taxes and get back 6 or 7 thousands at the end of the year.
and then go on vacation to their country and live in style.

so many people know how to scam the system that for many it's a career.
our social programs are a disaster, it can cost over a hundred thousand a year to take care of one mental case playing mind games.
anyone who sheds personal responsibility, knows how to believe their own lies(bs), drug addict, etc, can make a career out of scamming the system.
now even kids qualify for disability, anyone who understands human nature knows this didn't do the kids any favor.

the military must come home, the cold war ended 20 years ago, yet Guantanamo is still costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions a year.
of our 500+ overseas bases, how many protect the bankrupt USA?

end the occupation of Iraq, the only losers would be the contractors and government personnel.

we don't need to raise taxes, but to eliminate all the give aways.

and bring some moderation to spending on the powerful special interest sectors.

I have been following this topic with great interest. Why is it that every time a fiscal problem arises the Democrats want to raise taxes. I own a small business with 40+ employees. The majority of these employees would be considered upper middle class. I pay well because if a company is to prosper and grow it must have talented and capable employees. Having said that I see up close and personal what a tax hike would mean to them as well as my business.

In 2008 we hit a significant downturn along with many others in this country. The company had large sums of money distributed thru banks in the region. The money put away was for just such an occasion. Many on this board would consider me to be hoarding cash. I was saving for a rainy day. I did not lose a single core employee in the last three years. Many were doing make busy work that was not their original job description. But, they were being paid. Before anyone starts bashing the evil corporations these types of things must be taken into consideration. It is called planning ahead.

In 2010 we hit bottom. I was forced to scale the company back 10% from the top to the bottom. Everyone including me took a 10% pay cut. We survived the worst and are back as strong as ever. A lot of sleepless nights for me worring about where this country was heading.

Why can't the government implement a 10% pay cut across the board? Including spending. Starting with the president all the way down to around the the 25k range per year employee. Everyone accross the board. Stop the "stupid" spending that makes any sane person shake their head in disgust. Simple. Everyone must share the burden. I personally think that my tax rate at 36% is high enough.

Consider what an impact a tax hike would have on a business my size. If the government relents on the Bush tax breaks my business will go from 36% to 39%. At what point do I say enough is enough? I have made enough to retire and live a modest life. I do not want to do that to my people however. My payroll is just north of $1M per year. The taxes my employees pay along with the company's contributions are significant. Add to that my contribution to their health coverage, the 401K contribution, company stock purchase plan, bonuses, overtime, state tax contribution and a safe and healthy work place. It is very expensive to run a business in this country. Add to that raw materials (prices are going up rapidly) electricity, OSHA related costs, insurance, accountants and lawyers and transportation.

Many of the responses I read here regarding greedy corporations I dismiss because it is painfully obvious there is no business experience behind the remarks. Simply put, some remarks are downright stupid. Yes, there are people out here who will say and do anything for the almighty dollar. There are many more like me who are trying to build something to be proud of. I am happy with a 5-7% profit margin. I hardly think that is greedy. Until these people have actually had to deal with the government in a business context they will never know just how hard it is to build and sustain a company in these uncertain times.

I hope that some of you in this audience can relate to what I have said. The small businesses are the backbone of this country. If taxed and regulated out of business what you will end up with is much worse than you see today.

Tired and weary.

reply to post by Misoir


We should raise taxes on those who want higher taxes , if you vote for it you are subject to it .

Originally posted by Carseller4
Since all spending starts in the House of Representatives, how in the blue hell did Republicans explode the debt in the 80's? Government revenue quadrupled under Reagan, and Democrats could not spend it fast enough.

Reagan grew National Debt by 27%, GHWB by 13%, GWB by 27%

en.wikipedia.org...

Effect on tax revenues

Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.

Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when, advocates of supply-side economics claim, tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth. Other economists, however, dispute this assertion.[16][17]

Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[18]

Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[19]

In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"

“ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget.

This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.

en.wikipedia.org...

Folks that claim that Reagan actually modestly increased Gov. revenues by the end of his term do not calculate for the massive inflation, the massive increase in national debt or the fact that he raised payroll taxes.

Supply side economics is only supported by idealogues, not the vast majority of objective economists.

A summary here..

en.wikipedia.org...

We should just skip the BS and get it straight from the horses mouth..

Reaganomics Chief David Stockman Explains How Republican Party Destroyed America’s Economy

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter.

Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.

www.nytimes.com...