Is raising taxes during a economic downturn good or bad

[achiro]

for the economy?

[JohnnyMack]

According to most, raising taxes ever is a crime against humanity, puppies, children and apple pie.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

raising taxes is ALWAYS bad, IMO. You don't increase tax collection by raising taxes, you tend to fuel people looking to shelter money so they can keep as much as possible.

[bonkuba]

From what I have seen over my short lifetime.....lower taxes and the economy seems to respond favorably.....raise taxes......most people (even me).....say **** it and don't spend as much, etc,etc,etc.

[mdklatt]

Increased deficit spending buys short term economic gain at the expense of long term economic pain (with interest). But that's what Americans excel at, so carry on.

[badger]

It will be interesting to see if these state programs encouraging people to make up for their unpaid back taxes works.

When I lived in Wisconsin, we had a state "Tax Amnesty Program" that had that "Cheatin' Heart" song in the background on both radio and television ads calling out the 5 percent of Wisconsinites that didn't pay taxes. Hardly anyone took up the state's offer to make good on back taxes and as such, the state lost a lot of money (millions, if I remember correctly) because of that huge ad campaign.

If states could find a way to get people to pay back taxes, that would be a start. However, the mentality of "I didn't make any money this year, so I don't need to pay any taxes" in businesses and the self-employed runs rampant, according to a local accountant.

If states could find a way to help people have more control on how much tax they pay or to outline tax structures and requirements better, they might not have as many deadbeats.

As for just plain increasing taxes, if it's something you have to do, then you have to do it - but yes, I'd probably hold onto money more than go out and spend it if I knew higher taxes were coming due.

[bonkuba]

Understood......BUT.....if we could get the idiots (with an F in front) on both sides to stop spending so much $$ we wouldn't need the higher taxes, etc,etc.

BTW....I am still waiting in line for my bailout. I have had a hard time as of late. Too many new Porsches and Spa treatments. I was thinking of giving myself a 2 mill bonus from my company and closing down....but need the gov to help me do that. Sorry just a rant.......****ing idiots.

Honestly, I wish a hole in DC would open up and swallow up every f'n one of these slimy bastards. But, there would be many waiting in line to replace them I guess........so what to do.

[Lott's Bandana]

I've always thought taxes should be a tool for providing NECESSARY governmental services, not a playing card for hurting/helping the economic cycle.

Reminds me of Kudzu...

[soonerscuba]

for the economy?
It makes me a sad panda that there are so many that have decided that taxes work on an up/down, good/bad scale of logic that isn't representative of the system whatsoever.

So, I guess the short answer is both. One of the neat thing about American taxes is the ability to sector change tax burden to fill need. For example after 9/11 Bush wisely extended depreciation deductions on property, something a flat tax could never accomplish. So, I am of the opinion that during this crisis we need to raise a modest amount at the top end, I wouldn't cut anybody (but that's neither here or there) in the middle, and wouldn't increase capital gains. There is a silly jump in logic some in which we can increase revenue by lowering rates, which is unabashed nonsense given that the rate would have been 1% decades ago (and Republicans would be clamoring how it's socialism and the rate should be .33%).

Basically I think things are going to suck for a while, there is going to be a massive revenue hit this year because of decreased capital gains, and it will take a few years to get the credit markets back in shape. And FWIW, every president ever. minus W, thought it was a good idea during war.

[Chuck Bao]

It depends.

Ideally, the government should use deficit spending with lower tax rates and higher government spending during periods of slow or negative economic growth; and, compensate with budget surpluses and raising taxes during periods of high economic growth.

Republicans always forget the second part and that's the major reason for our current problem.

The American consumer does not need to be encouraged to spend more. That policy got the average American household too far in debt and the country's trade position too far in the red. Instead, the American consumer needs to be encouraged to save.

Also, higher personal income taxes is not going to lead to Americans moving overseas, unlike the business or corporate sector.

The corporate sector should be encouraged to spend / invest, but only in America.

It will not be popular, but I believe that the best remedy to our current economic problems would be to:

1) Raise personal income taxes across the board.
2) Lower corporate income taxes through special tax breaks for companies that invest in America and hire Americans.
3) Encourage savings by completely eliminating capital gains tax.

Other countries offer very attractive investment incentives. For example, Thailand has the Board of Investment that grants companies five and 10 year tax holidays for new investments. This should run afoul of the WTO, but it doesn't.

My other big grip is that people are getting a bum deal on investing their life savings. Honestly, I don't understand the system, but the way the 401k plans seem to be locked up by the tax system seems like the real travesty to me. It is their hard-earned life savings. It has already been taxed. Now, these people are seeing it evaporate in the stock market and they are afraid to do anything about it. Stop that nonsense!

[Lott's Bandana]

My other big grip is that people are getting a bum deal on investing their life savings. Honestly, I don't understand the system, but the way the 401k plans seem to be locked up by the tax system seems like the real travesty to me. It is their hard-earned life savings. It has already been taxed. Now, these people are seeing it evaporate in the stock market and they are afraid to do anything about it. Stop that nonsense!

This is what is scaring to death every Joe SixPack in the country over 55yo.

[OklahomaTuba]

A major tax increase = Change you can believe in.

Good thing we will have groups like ACORN spending our hard earned tax money.

[OklahomaTuba]

This is what is scaring to death every Joe SixPack in the country over 55yo.

Good thing they will have social security and those public pension plans to fall back on.

Oh, wait, nm.

[soonerscuba]

Good thing they will have social security and those public pension plans to fall back on.
Remember when you wanted to put them in the market? Good times.

[badger]

Pretty much every recent tax increase proposal has been voted down in Tulsa recently (well, aside from Vision 2025, but that was because it gave everyone in the county a toy to play with). It will be interesting to see if Tulsa votes YES or NO on this upcoming "ficks teh rhodes nowz!!1!" five-year initiative. It is something solely for property owners and I've heard it will cost an extra $15 for every $300,000 of property you own per month.

The naysayers on said tax increase have complained that only property owners are paying for this and that everyone should have to pay in some way, perhaps through income or sales tax. But then, others chime that it isn't fair that someone passing through Tulsa and buys a pair of shoes in a mall should have to pay for Tulsa streets. The naysayers chime back that they drove Tulsa streets to get to the mall and should have to pay for them.

I personally don't care how they get paid for. I just want better roads. If that comes from my income, fine. If it comes from my purchases, fine. If it comes from my ownership of a home, fine.

:les: JUST FIX THE DAYUM STREETS, ALREADY!

That's my two cents on tax increases :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Remember when you wanted to put them in the market? Good times.
And I still do.

The market will come back. Social Security will not.

Unless you don't mind retiring at age 85 to get your $200.00 a month SS check.

Good times indeed.

[batonrougesooner]

The government needs to do what we all do when faced with a budget difficulty. Reevaluate where you are spending money and cut out unnecessary spending. It hurts sometimes to give up stuff "you just can't live without" but any hard look at a household budget will reveal plenty of pork that can be shed while you get things straightened out.

However, if you had the ability to go to your boss and demand a raise anytime you thought you needed more money without being required to take a hard look at expenses, I guess you would really never have any incentive to hold down spending.

Can someone please tell me how a federal tax rate of 39% (not to mention state and local taxes, FICA, etc) can be morally justified?

This is insane.

[OklahomaTuba]

Pretty much every recent tax increase proposal has been voted down in Tulsa recently (well, aside from Vision 2025, but that was because it gave everyone in the county a toy to play with). It will be interesting to see if Tulsa votes YES or NO on this upcoming "ficks teh rhodes nowz!!1!" five-year initiative. It is something solely for property owners and I've heard it will cost an extra $15 for every $300,000 of property you own per month.

The naysayers on said tax increase have complained that only property owners are paying for this and that everyone should have to pay in some way, perhaps through income or sales tax. But then, others chime that it isn't fair that someone passing through Tulsa and buys a pair of shoes in a mall should have to pay for Tulsa streets. The naysayers chime back that they drove Tulsa streets to get to the mall and should have to pay for them.

I personally don't care how they get paid for. I just want better roads. If that comes from my income, fine. If it comes from my purchases, fine. If it comes from my ownership of a home, fine.

:les: JUST FIX THE DAYUM STREETS, ALREADY!

That's my two cents on tax increases :D

A little tax increase here, a little tax increase there.

It won't be too long until we will just work all day long to pay for all the taxes gubment wants.

[OklahomaTuba]

Can someone please tell me how a federal tax rate of 39% (not to mention state and local taxes, FICA, etc) can be morally justified?

This is insane.

Ask our next VP, he thinks higher taxes aren't just morally justified, but Patriotic!

[badger]

A little tax increase here, a little tax increase there.

It won't be too long until we will just work all day long to pay for all the taxes gubment wants.

Meh, then we can all just join the masses that pay no taxes at all :D

[JohnnyMack]

As expected this thread is like a bat signal for Tuba.

:les:TAXES ARE EVIL!!! SO IS BARACK!!!

[soonerhubs]

1)Which candidate wants to cut federal spending?

2) Is this a good or a bad thing?

[JohnnyMack]

Increased deficit spending buys short term economic gain at the expense of long term economic pain (with interest). But that's what Americans excel at, so carry on.

I'm going to Starbucks and the Apple Store, want me to pick you up on the way?

[Frozen Sooner]

1)Which candidate wants to cut federal spending?

2) Is this a good or a bad thing?

Which candidate has supported PAYGO as part of his platform?

Is this a good or bad thing?

[mdklatt]

I'm going to Starbucks and the Apple Store, want me to pick you up on the way?

I say "bleh" to both.

Starbucks just replaced the travel agency in the Union. Which isn't much more than 100 yards away from the existing Starbucks on campus corner.

[JohnnyMack]

I say "bleh" to both.

Starbucks just replaced the travel agency in the Union. Which isn't much more than 100 yards away from the existing Starbucks on campus corner.

:les:JOKE RUINER!!!

[mdklatt]

Can someone please tell me how a federal tax rate of 39% (not to mention state and local taxes, FICA, etc) can be morally justified?


What level of taxation is "morally justifed"? Please show your work.

[mdklatt]

1)Which candidate wants to cut federal spending?


Neither.

[soonerhubs]

Which candidate has supported PAYGO as part of his platform?

Is this a good or bad thing?

I get the impression that you've mistaken my honest question for a political argument. I honestly want to know which one supports spending and which one does not. I think Federal Spending has it's good side when it helps with education and what not, but I also admit it has a bad side (and yes, I concede that the Iraq War is expensive).

PAYGO sounds good from what I've read (not much), and which candidate supports it b/c I don't know. :D



Neither.

Therein lies the problem with our government.

[Frozen Sooner]

Pardon me, I did.

Both campaigns have claimed that they will cut spending. Obama at one time was a strong supporter of PAYGO, though he hasn't talked about it much recently.

Obama major claim that he will cut federal spending stems from his belief that we can withdraw from Iraq quickly. This may or may not be feasible.

McCain's major claim is that he will veto any bill with earmarks. Earmarks aren't as big a part of federal spending as he portrays them, but this would probably help some.

[mdklatt]

I can't find the link, but I saw a breakdown of both candidates' economic plans (of course those keep changing) that showed that even though McCain called for less spending overall, his tax breaks would result in a larger deficit than Obama's plans.

Do you want to pay more now or more later with interest?

[soonerscuba]

Can someone please tell me how a federal tax rate of 39% (not to mention state and local taxes, FICA, etc) can be morally justified?

This is insane.A) Because the American government is a a Republic consisting of representatives from the people which levy a static system of finance. It's doesn't have to be moral.

B) 35% is the highest bracket (not 39%) which is on a progressive scale, so brackets of income are taxed and added (not the total sum). The vast majority of the country pays less than 25%. You owe taxes to the American government because it more than likely provides an environment conducive to your income, basically, it's hard to be an investment banker in the Congo. Lastly, compared to other industrialized nations with similar production and entitlement schemes, our income taxes aren't too bad.

[badger]

:les:TAXES ARE EVIL!!! SO IS BARACK!!!

Get it right. <sigh> Let's go over the technicalities, shall we?

(1) When referred to in some regard of respect, that person must always be referred to by his full name, never simply by his first name alone or his last name alone, unique as they are. The name must always be "Barack Hussein Obama."

(2) Emphasis must be placed on the middle name, so that the name is not simply "Barack Hussein Obama," but rather, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama."

(3) When referred to on a Fox News show as the resident Republican right-wing voice, that person must still have emphasis on the middle name, however, less emphasis on the first: "B. HUSSEIN Obama."

(4) When referred to with his running mate, this person along with his running mate must now be referred to with particular emphasis on certain syllables: "Obama Bi... den."

(5) Such references with said running mate is only done for laughing out loud purposes (i.e. "teh LULZ") and therefore, added letters are added to "Obama Bi... den." or simply changed for added lulz: "Obsama Bin Laden."

(6) Or, to simplify in all future references, this person can simply be referred to as "that terrorist running for president," or "that Muslim running for president" or "that liberal that will tax us to death."

Now that you have the memo, please don't turn it into a mass e-mail.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Question-thread title, is Hilarious. Speck.

[achiro]

I can't find the link, but I saw a breakdown of both candidates' economic plans (of course those keep changing) that showed that even though McCain called for less spending overall, his tax breaks would result in a larger deficit than Obama's plans.

Do you want to pay more now or more later with interest?

I saw that as well but as I understood the counter argument, it didn't take into account McCain cutting funding to unneeded programs.

[achiro]

Also, higher personal income taxes is not going to lead to Americans moving overseas, unlike the business or corporate sector.

So are you of the opinion that raising corporate taxes will cause companies to move out of country? and with it, the loss of jobs?

[Chuck Bao]

So are you of the opinion that raising corporate taxes will cause companies to move out of country? and with it, the loss of jobs?

Yes, I am.

I will repeat some of my previous post here.


The corporate sector should be encouraged to spend / invest, but only in America.

It will not be popular, but I believe that the best remedy to our current economic problems would be to:

1) Raise personal income taxes across the board.
2) Lower corporate income taxes through special tax breaks for companies that invest in America and hire Americans.
3) Encourage savings by completely eliminating capital gains tax.

[mdklatt]

it didn't take into account McCain cutting funding to unneeded programs

That won't happen. Government spending will not decrease until taxes increase to reflect the true cost. There is no incentive to reduce government spending as long as we can just increase the deficit. There is a real cost to the deficit, but nobody pays attention because that cost keeps getting passed on down the line. Or maybe it's finally caught up to us, but we'll never know because the dems and pubs keep blaming everything on each other even though neither of them have any willingness to kill the goose that lays gold plated rotten eggs.

Even when you can get the politicians to agree that it's time to cut government, it's all fun and games until your own slice of gubmint cheese gets threatened. I wonder how many of the civilians who work at Tinker are in the "down with government spending!" camp?

[achiro]

Yes, I am.

I will repeat some of my previous post here.

So we completely agree on this. So why on earth would anyone want to raise taxes on that sector? and why in the HELL would anyone vote for someone who's entire tax plan is based on doing so???:eek: ;)

[achiro]

That won't happen. Government spending will not decrease until taxes increase to reflect the true cost. There is no incentive to reduce government spending as long as we can just increase the deficit. There is a real cost to the deficit, but nobody pays attention because that cost keeps getting passed on down the line. Or maybe it's finally caught up to us, but we'll never know because the dems and pubs keep blaming everything on each other even though neither of them have any willingness to kill the goose that lays gold plated rotten eggs.

Even when you can get the politicians to agree that it's time to cut government, it's all fun and games until your own slice of gubmint cheese gets threatened. I wonder how many of the civilians who work at Tinker are in the "down with government spending!" camp?

You're a glass half empty kind of guy aren't ya.:D

[mdklatt]

You're a glass half empty kind of guy aren't ya.:D

It's a glass half empty kind of world. :cool:

[Chuck Bao]

So we completely agree on this. So why on earth would anyone want to raise taxes on that sector? and why in the HELL would anyone vote for someone who's entire tax plan is based on doing so???:eek: ;)

Good point. achiro. But, I don't think either of them are campaigning on corporate tax rates. They are both still trying to entice voters with some sort of personal income tax reduction sillyness.

[achiro]

Good point. achiro. But, I don't think either of them are campaigning on corporate tax rates. They are both still trying to entice voters with some sort of personal income tax reduction sillyness.

My understanding is that Obama wants to raise corporate taxes.
From Forbes:
ON TAXES

McCain: Pledged not to raise taxes, then equivocated, saying nothing can be ruled out in negotiating compromises to keep Social Security solvent. Twice opposed Bush's tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Promises balance budget in first term, says that is unlikely in his first year.

Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes.$80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage-interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes

[achiro]

and I will add that I know Forbes is very right leaning but everything I have seen(including some stuff at huffington) goes from saying he wants to raise corporate taxes to he wants to eliminate corporate loopholes/tax breaks which of course will raise those taxes without actually raising them.

[mdklatt]

My understanding is that Obama wants to raise corporate taxes.


Do you want to pay the bill now (higher taxes) or later with interest (higher deficit)?

[JohnnyMack]

My understanding is that Obama wants to raise corporate taxes.
From Forbes:
ON TAXES

McCain: Pledged not to raise taxes, then equivocated, saying nothing can be ruled out in negotiating compromises to keep Social Security solvent. Twice opposed Bush's tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Promises balance budget in first term, says that is unlikely in his first year.

Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes.$80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage-interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes

Even if they don't raise taxes if they would just cut out all the tax breaks and loopholes that allow these corporations to not pay any taxes at all I'd be happy. If we ran a company the way we run the Govt we'd be out of business.

[achiro]

Do you want to pay the bill now (higher taxes) or later with interest (higher deficit)?

Oop, wait a minute. If raising the corporate taxes will cause companies to leave then not be here to pay taxes, increase the loss of jobs, thereby eliminating those income/payroll/SS taxes...is that a good thing? Does that help to pay the bill now?

[achiro]

Even if they don't raise taxes if they would just cut out all the tax breaks and loopholes that allow these corporations to not pay any taxes at all I'd be happy. If we ran a company the way we run the Govt we'd be out of business.

But isn't cutting out the tax breaks just raising the tax without actually raising it? Is that a good thing for the economy? Will corporations leave to go to a country with a lower corporate tax rate and incentives, thereby cutting tax revenue, jobs, etc?

[JohnnyMack]

I think the "Corporate Tax Rate" is like the BoogeyMan. Scare tactics to make people think these big corporations are being oppressed.

[JohnnyMack]

But isn't cutting out the tax breaks just raising the tax without actually raising it? Is that a good thing for the economy? Will corporations leave to go to a country with a lower corporate tax rate and incentives, thereby cutting tax revenue, jobs, etc?

I dunno. The corporations have the gun to our head, not the other way around.

[mdklatt]

Oop, wait a minute. If raising the corporate taxes will cause companies to leave

Now hold on. One of the Republican talking points is that "Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do." If so, why does the corporate tax rate matter at all? They can just pass the tax increase along to consumers, just like how they don't profit at all from tax loopholes because they immediately lower prices by the same amount.

[achiro]

Now hold on. One of the Republican talking points is that "Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do." If so, why does the corporate tax rate matter at all? They can just pass the tax increase along to consumers, just like how they don't profit at all from tax loopholes because they immediately lower prices by the same amount.

So to start, I assume you don't think they will leave if the rate goes up?
Second, if they stay and just pass the cost down, is that good for the consumer? good for the country? How is that a good thing?

[batonrougesooner]

A) Because the American government is a a Republic consisting of representatives from the people which levy a static system of finance. It's doesn't have to be moral.

B) 35% is the highest bracket (not 39%) which is on a progressive scale, so brackets of income are taxed and added (not the total sum). The vast majority of the country pays less than 25%. You owe taxes to the American government because it more than likely provides an environment conducive to your income, basically, it's hard to be an investment banker in the Congo. Lastly, compared to other industrialized nations with similar production and entitlement schemes, our income taxes aren't too bad.

He is proposing 39% I understand that it is not the total sum, but his point is that he wants to raise taxes on everyone making $250,000 per year or higher. Just because you make a certain amount of money, why should the government have any more of a claim on that money than if you only made $100k or whatever? Why does the american public just shrug this off without any concern about the fairness of such a plan? He states that for those of us who are "working americans" whatever that means, will get a tax cut. His implication is that if you have done well and make over a certain amount of money, you don't deserve a tax cut and that you are not one who "works". It's classwarfare and most of America either doesn't see it or doesn't care.

THe people who pay the most in taxes should be the first in line for a tax cut IMHO.

The thing that gets me on this is that doesn't everybody want to strive to succeed and do well financially? Doesn't everybody someday aspire to make $250,000 a year? Why would you want to punish those who you ultimately want to emulate?

I'm all about paying our fair share of taxes. Fair share of roads, police military ect. What I don't get is why is it that if you make more money, your fair share is larger than somebody elses fair share? With a 39% federal tax rate, plus an increase in FICA taxes past the current $100k or so cap, makes earning that extra amount of money prohibitively expensive. Why bust your *** and do the things you need to do to make 300, 400 or even 500k per year if your returns diminish to such a point that it hardly seems worth it? Is that the kind of attitude we want to perpetuate in America?

The following link probably deserves it's own thread but I thought I'd place it here as well. Finally Obama appears to be riding his own "Straight Talk Express"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/

[achiro]

Please, lets not change the subject from corporate taxes just yet.

[mdklatt]

So to start, I assume you don't think they will leave if the rate goes up?

I'm saying that the pubz can't have it both ways. If corporate tax breaks are completely transparent (they'll pass along the savings to us!) then why aren't corporate tax increases? The reality is that corporations will pocket some of the money when the get a tax break, and eat some of a tax increase, at least temporarily. It's possible that raising corporate taxes will send them elsewhere.



Second, if they stay and just pass the cost down, is that good for the consumer? good for the country? How is that a good thing?

They won't pass the entire cost down, at least not in the short term. So is an extra dollar better off in the hands of business or consumers? The answer is, as with everything else in economics: It depends. Thinking long term, less tax revenue now is either going to have to be made up somewhere else, or added to the deficit. You can't get something for nothing, and "Voodoo Economics" is just that.

Let's look at McCain's idea for a gas tax holiday as an example. Even if you naively assume that oil companies wouldn't pocket some of that money, lower gas prices at the pump would mean less money in the highway trust fund. Now you get to choose from the following options:

1) crappier roads
2) higher state taxes
3) privatization (toll roads)
4) larger deficit now, higher taxes later

[Vaevictis]

What I don't get is why is it that if you make more money, your fair share is larger than somebody elses fair share?

To understand the premise, I'll borrow from Warren Buffet, who articulated (approximately) the following: Take all these fabulously wealthy people as children and dump them in sub-Saharan Africa. Fast forward to today. What do you think their wealth status is likely to be?

In short, those folks who benefit more from society (eg, earn more) have a greater responsibility to support it.


With a 39% federal tax rate, plus an increase in FICA taxes past the current $100k or so cap, makes earning that extra amount of money prohibitively expensive. Why bust your *** and do the things you need to do to make 300, 400 or even 500k per year if your returns diminish to such a point that it hardly seems worth it? Is that the kind of attitude we want to perpetuate in America?

We're well short of that point. Remember that our top marginal rate used to be well north of 90%, but now it's short of 40%. If you can earn an extra $100k over $500k, is it really going to change the calculus much if the government takes $45k instead of $35k? I'll grant you that it starts to change as the tax rate change is higher, but I think we're well short of that point.

EDIT: And note that in this case, a 5% change really yields them taking $39k instead of $35k. I really just don't see too many folks saying "Oh crap, the government's only gonna leave me with $61k instead of $65k this year for that portion of my income. I guess I'll quit working."

[mdklatt]

Just because you make a certain amount of money, why should the government have any more of a claim on that money than if you only made $100k or whatever?

Who else is going to pay the bills? Should we raise the tax rates at the bottom so we can lower them at the top? Would you be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant that people who make more than you didn't have to pay so much? What are you willing to sacrifice in the name of "fairness"? Everybody in favor of a flat tax or Fair Tax or whatever assumes that they'll end up paying less. So who has to pay more?



The thing that gets me on this is that doesn't everybody want to strive to succeed and do well financially? Doesn't everybody someday aspire to make $250,000 a year? Why would you want to punish those who you ultimately want to emulate?

This is the Big Lie that the upper class Republicans use to get middle class Republicans to do their bidding. "Don't punish us, because work hard enough and one day you'll be one of us!" Most people may aspire to be in the top 1% of earners (the group Obama wants to raise taxes on) one day, but it's obviously mathematically impossible for that to happen.




I'm all about paying our fair share of taxes. Fair share of roads, police military ect. What I don't get is why is it that if you make more money, your fair share is larger than somebody elses fair share?


What's your definition of "fair"?

[batonrougesooner]

Perhaps we should lower the bills. Or perhaps the bottom 40% of earners who pay no federal income tax should pony up their "fair share" as well.

Why do we insist on only targeting those making the most money to pay the vast majority of federal income taxes?

I think a fair share of taxes would generally be found in a flat tax system but I'm not against a small movement towards higher taxes for the higher earners like the more "progressive" system we have now. My point is that 35% as we have now is pretty damned high considering the other taxes that are paid. Look at how if affects the individual. 35% to the feds, another 6-7% to the state, FICA taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and a slew of other taxes and fees to all levels of government. Pretty soon you are looking at 50% if not more of all money an individual earns going to some tax or another. If you add in Obama's 39% fed rate and unlimited FICA rate, I think it becomes obscene.

How much does the government have to take from us before we stand up and make them understand enough is enough?

[mdklatt]

Perhaps we should lower the bills.

As I said before, that will never happen as long as we're not paying the bill in full. We can't make rational decisions unless we know the true cost.



Why do we insist on only targeting those making the most money to pay the vast majority of federal income taxes?


The phrase "you can't get blood from a turnip" comes to mind. The people with the most money pay the bills because nobody else can afford to. If they want national defense and nice roads they're going to have to pony up.



I think a fair share of taxes would generally be found in a flat tax system but I'm not against a small movement towards higher taxes for the higher earners like the more "progressive" system we have now.


You're confusing fair with arbitrary. Does somebody earning $500,000 use exactly ten times the government services as somebody earning $50,000? Maybe the ratio is only 7:1. Or maybe it's 12:1. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. There's nothing inherently "fair" about making everyone pay the same percentage.




How much does the government have to take from us before we stand up and make them understand enough is enough?

Which government services that you personally benefit from are you willing to cut back on so that we can reduce government spending?

[achiro]

It's possible that raising corporate taxes will send them elsewhere.

OK so since you've agreed on this, how is this good for the economy?
You seem to be ok with the thought of a big government paid for by high taxes. So if the corporations start leaving, taking jobs with them how in the world des that help anyone? Do we just raise the taxes even more on those that stay?

[achiro]

To understand the premise, I'll borrow from Warren Buffet, who articulated (approximately) the following: Take all these fabulously wealthy people as children and dump them in sub-Saharan Africa. Fast forward to today. What do you think their wealth status is likely to be?

In short, those folks who benefit more from society (eg, earn more) have a greater responsibility to support it.

That Buffet quote is moronic in trying to compare Africa to the US. The US is a place where ANYONE has an opportunity to be wealthy and succesful. I've heard this before and I totally agree... If you spread the wealth evenly across the board in this country, in a short time the wealthy would be wealthy again, and the poor would be poor again. We put ourselves into every situation we are in. Our decisions, good or bad, are what determine our success/failure in everything we do, business, relationships, family. It is so stupid to me when I hear people bitching and moaning about their current situations and try to blame their boss, boy/girlfriend, mother, father, etc.

[achiro]

Who else is going to pay the bills? Should we raise the tax rates at the bottom so we can lower them at the top? Would you be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant that people who make more than you didn't have to pay so much? What are you willing to sacrifice in the name of "fairness"? Everybody in favor of a flat tax or Fair Tax or whatever assumes that they'll end up paying less. So who has to pay more?
Decreased Corporate taxes=increased corporation growth=increased jobs=increased government revenue. Thats how it works, its not a theory, its what has happened.

You are getting off base here though, I still ask how is increasing taxes on corporations good for the economy if it causes them to leave?
Argue all ou want on the other points but I just don't see how Obama's plan is good for anyone when it will cause loss of business, a loss of jobs, and ultimately a loss of revenue then of course an increase in spending.




This is the Big Lie that the upper class Republicans use to get middle class Republicans to do their bidding. "Don't punish us, because work hard enough and one day you'll be one of us!" Most people may aspire to be in the top 1% of earners (the group Obama wants to raise taxes on) one day, but it's obviously mathematically impossible for that to happen.

Wow, you are destined for greatness with that attitude. Who gets to be the 1%? Why not me? Why not you? Who gets to decide? The day that all folks make the decision that you just did is the day that this country is doomed to fail. Sure there are a lot of folks that decide that they are happy in the middle class where they are and thats fine if they are happy with it but its the folks that strive to be that one percent the entrepeneurs(sp?) that spark growth in our economy. Without people striving for more...well it wouldn't be a good thing.

[achiro]

Oh and I might add that I really wouldn't have as much of a problem with increasing the taxes IF Obama wasn't planning on "rebating" that tax back to people that don't even pay taxes in the first place.

[SoonerInKCMO]

That Buffet quote is moronic in trying to compare Africa to the US. The US is a place where ANYONE has an opportunity to be wealthy and succesful.

If you think Buffet's quote is moronic, I don't think you understand it. He's making exactly the same point that you are - that anyone can make it in the U.S. - and that very few can in Africa. He's also making the additional point that since we're in a place where anyone can make it, those that do have a greater obligation to support the system that has allowed them their great wealth.

[achiro]

He's also making the additional point that since we're in a place where anyone can make it, those that do have a greater obligation to support the system that has allowed them their great wealth.
And it's moronic IMHO. It confirms that those living off the system(mostly) are the ones that will not take responsibility for themselves. As I said, they have just as much of an opportunity as anyone else to "make it" so why should someone else have an "obligation" to them?

[SoonerInKCMO]

It's not an obligation to 'them'; it's an obligation to the system that has facilitated their accumulation of wealth.

[mdklatt]

Wow, you are destined for greatness with that attitude. Who gets to be the 1%? Why not me? Why not you? Who gets to decide?

Call me crazy, but I don't equate greatness with how much money someone has.

I don't see the point of voting against my own economic interest in the short term when there's a small chance it might benefit me in the long term. But then again, I don't buy lottery tickets or go to casinos either.

[mdklatt]

Decreased Corporate taxes=increased corporation growth=increased jobs=increased government revenue. Thats how it works, its not a theory, its what has happened.


Really? Like in the last eight years?

[Vaevictis]

The US is a place where ANYONE has an opportunity to be wealthy and succesful.

This is, of course, his point.


I've heard this before and I totally agree... If you spread the wealth evenly across the board in this country, in a short time the wealthy would be wealthy again, and the poor would be poor again.

'Wealthy' is relative. A sub-Saharan African's idea of wealthy may be very, very different than an American's. And the primary reason for that difference is because our society is structured in a way where it didn't end up in the ****ter like things did in some places in the world.


We put ourselves into every situation we are in. Our decisions, good or bad, are what determine our success/failure in everything we do, business, relationships, family. It is so stupid to me when I hear people bitching and moaning about their current situations and try to blame their boss, boy/girlfriend, mother, father, etc.

In America, sure, for the most part. That's a function of the way our society is set up.

But go over to some poor bastard in a violent, unstable BFE country whose only education revolves around the best way to machete someone to death, and maybe how to grow some crops, and try to say it with a straight face.

[tommieharris91]

I don't know where to put this, but I'm against raising capital gains and dividends taxes. I think both are disincentives to save/invest, and Americans do not need to more incentives to spend their money right now. The US is the only country in the world that taxes corporations twice on their earnings.

Of course, if those taxes are taken away, then the taxes on the highest levels of income need to be raised. Cutting those taxes without raising another tax would just put our country further into debt.

[tommieharris91]

Decreased Corporate taxes=increased corporation growth=increased jobs being outsourced=decreased current account= increased government deficit. Thats how it works, its not a theory, its what has happened.


Fixed.

Anyway achiro, you're arguing with someone who complains about oil companies opressing people with high gas prices, then when prices fall, he complains about environmental damage.

[mdklatt]

you're arguing with someone who complains about oil companies opressing people with high gas prices, then when prices fall, he complains about environmental damage.

Really? Who might that be?

[tommieharris91]

Really? Who might that be?

Were you the one who complained about people wasting gas on I-35 now that prices have fallen?

[achiro]

Anyway, back on track...
If increasing payroll taxes=loss of corportions=loss of jobs=loss of tax revenue, then why do it?

[JohnnyMack]

Anyway, back on track...
If increasing payroll taxes=loss of corportions=loss of jobs=loss of tax revenue, then why do it?

Because your President needs cash to fight a war and hand out stimulus checks and spend 700bn on a bailout?

[achiro]

Because your President needs cash to fight a war and hand out stimulus checks and spend 700bn on a bailout?

I guess that confirms it. You have no real idea why you are voting for Obama. When a real question is brought up, you change the subject because you don't know the answer.

[JohnnyMack]

I guess that confirms it. You have no real idea why you are voting for Obama. When a real question is brought up, you change the subject because you don't know the answer.

I was just havin' some fun. Try posting without the corncob shoved up your *** once in a while.

[mdklatt]

Were you the one who complained about people wasting gas on I-35 now that prices have fallen?

Yes, but when I have ever said anything about oil companies oppressing people? I think even $4/gallon is too low because that's still not anywhere close to the true cost, and when the true cost is hidden we can't make rational choices.

[Condescending Sooner]

Oh and I might add that I really wouldn't have as much of a problem with increasing the taxes IF Obama wasn't planning on "rebating" that tax back to people that don't even pay taxes in the first place.


That's what drives me crazy. Many moons ago when I worked in retail, my minimum wage employees who worked about 20 hours a week and paid no taxes, would get back huge tax refund checks. Meanwhile, I always had to pay extra.

If you paid no taxes you get no refund, dammit!

[mdklatt]

Anyway, back on track...
If increasing payroll taxes=loss of corportions=loss of jobs=loss of tax revenue, then why do it?

Were taxes higher or lower under Clinton? Was the economy better or worse?

[mdklatt]

That's what drives me crazy. Many moons ago when I worked in retail, my minimum wage employees who worked about 20 hours a week and paid no taxes, would get back huge tax refund checks. Meanwhile, I always had to pay extra.


What was stopping you from working 20 hours a week and bringing home the real money, then?

[JohnnyMack]

Anyway, back on track...
If increasing payroll taxes=loss of corportions=loss of jobs=loss of tax revenue, then why do it?

I don't think we as individuals or corporations can continue to have our cake and eat it too. Some people think "taxes" is the dirtiest word in the English language. One trick ponies who will always vote for the candidate who talks about lowering taxes or no new taxes. They've been conditioned into thinking that we don't need government interference in our lives. I happen to disagree. I like the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes:


"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."

Corporations want the freedom to do as they please and we're expected to believe that with that freedom they won't violate the publics trust. For a good part of our nation's history they've proven irresponsible when they've pushed at removing themselves from these ties to the social contract.

That being said I am not a proponent of allowing corporations (no matter the size) of avoiding paying taxes back into the government that provides them the freedom and protection to operate within its borders. If a corporation doesn't want to pay taxes and wants to move its company to a different country that has a more favorable tax status, I think said country and said corporation will only enjoy that luxury for a temporary amount of time as it will be clear that once country B builds its infrastructure to a point it can sustain the new business it has attracted it will have to start charging the corporations and the people to maintain it. You know, kind of like the United States did after it left old King George?

[achiro]

I don't think we as individuals or corporations can continue to have our cake and eat it too. Some people think "taxes" is the dirtiest word in the English language. One trick ponies who will always vote for the candidate who talks about lowering taxes or no new taxes. They've been conditioned into thinking that we don't need government interference in our lives. I happen to disagree. I like the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes:



Corporations want the freedom to do as they please and we're expected to believe that with that freedom they won't violate the publics trust. For a good part of our nation's history they've proven irresponsible when they've pushed at removing themselves from these ties to the social contract.

That being said I am not a proponent of allowing corporations (no matter the size) of avoiding paying taxes back into the government that provides them the freedom and protection to operate within its borders. If a corporation doesn't want to pay taxes and wants to move its company to a different country that has a more favorable tax status, I think said country and said corporation will only enjoy that luxury for a temporary amount of time as it will be clear that once country B builds its infrastructure to a point it can sustain the new business it has attracted it will have to start charging the corporations and the people to maintain it. You know, kind of like the United States did after it left old King George?

wKjxFJfcrcA

[Scott D]

A little tax increase here, a little tax increase there.

It won't be too long until we will just work all day long to pay for all the taxes gubment wants.

you know it's funny. tax increases aren't partisan at all. Your guy wants to raise tax A but not tax B, his "opponent" is more interested in raising tax B but not tax A. Either way, the regular folks get jobbed because politicians tend to draw their tax lines in the sand based upon the special interests they are in the pocket of.

[achiro]

you know it's funny. tax increases aren't partisan at all. Your guy wants to raise tax A but not tax B, his "opponent" is more interested in raising tax B but not tax A. Either way, the regular folks get jobbed because politicians tend to draw their tax lines in the sand based upon the special interests they are in the pocket of.

The point I am trying to make is mainly on the corporate taxes though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing.

[SoonerInKCMO]

The point I am trying to make is mainly on the corporate taxes though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing.

I don't think it's such a great idea. In fact, I don't like income taxes on corporations at all. Corporations don't have income - the people that own them do.

What do you think about the idea of getting rid of all corporate income taxes and having shareholders pay personal income tax on capital gains?

[mdklatt]

I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing.

I know you saw JM's answer: Because a deficit is a bad thing. Your premise that raising corporate taxes will automatically mean doom and gloom is not true, either.

[Scott D]

The point I am trying to make is mainly on the corporate taxes though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why it would be a good thing.

It really depends on what the taxing is, and why it's being done? If it's done as a punishment to outsourcers that's one thing. If it's done in a grandiose idea to placate "blue collars" it's a bad thing.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

we are facing a recession with a severe credit crisis.

Hebert Hoover raised taxes, installed protectionist measures, and restricted the flow of capital. 1929 turned into 1932 with an 89% drop in the stock market and a long depression.

I hope president Obama is not Hoover II.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I love socialist Oblahma's tax/wealth redistribution scheme. He will destroy personal incentive and people will not work hard and the lazy arses of society sitting around waiting for the government check will get more money and do nothing for it or produce nothing with it...

[Condescending Sooner]

What was stopping you from working 20 hours a week and bringing home the real money, then?

Oh, I don't know, maybe pride and a work ethic. Something that is getting rarer all the time.