Why We Should Increase Taxes?

[Mr. Shaman]

Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes

Don't you just love this bit of reasoning?

Since government can't control spending, confiscate more of the peoples' money so it can keep spending.

That falls under the definition of insanity.

That's odd!

Republicans always referred-to-it as Fiscal Responsibility.

 

[KMAN]

Here's why we shouldn't try to get rid of the deficit by increasing taxes:

1. The objective is to benefit the economy by eliminating the deficit; iow, to encourage growth instead of contraction.

2. Government taxes things like alcohol and cigarettes to discourage consumption, an acknowledgment that taxing something causes less of it.

3. Therefore, increasing taxes on activities necessary for economic growth will result in less of such economically beneficial activities, and at some point, cause an economic contraction.

4. More Taxes = Worse Economy

Sounds reasonable, however there is no basis to your claim that an increase in taxes will necessary slow economic growth. If what you say is correct, then we should be able to see a reduced rate of growth when taxes are increased but we don't. I don't deny that tax increases may have some effect on growth but there are many other factors that effect growth other than taxes.

The conservative's approach is to reduce spending so taxes can be reduced. Reduction in taxes make money available for consumption and investment, thereby increasing economic activities and thus increasing government revenue. But, this is really just a theory that has never been proved but has been preached so long and hard that millions accept it as fact.

there is no basis to your claim that an increase in taxes will necessary slow economic growth.--- You are joking right????

If I take more money away from you that is less you have to spend.... Why not lower corporate taxes so businesses actually want to work here instead of going to other countries with lower business taxes?

 

[boedicca]

We have all the proof we need right now that increasing taxes and going on a spending binge doesn't create jobs.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If lazy fu*king citizens cant survive with the countless gov't handouts we already have, and can't adjust to a smaller gov't, they should fuc*ing move to Europe.....

Not a prob!

They're already doing their banking, there!!!​

"The so-called expatriate accounts are maintained in the same division, global wealth management and business banking, that oversaw the offshore accounts business now under criminal investigation. Prosecutors are investigating whether UBS, the world’s largest private bank, helped up to 19,000 wealthy American clients improperly deposit $20 billion overseas, evading an estimated $300 million a year in taxes."

 

[Immanuel]

If the deficit continues to rise, the government will have to pay higher rates of interest which will add to the deficit problem and will bring on inflation. Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes, however Conservative argue that:

1. Government Spending is out of control . Look at the following graph, which clearly shows that government spending as a percent of GDP peaked in the early 1990’s and has been trending downward ever since. Although spending in absolute dollars has risen, GDP has risen faster. Our deficits are not the result of wild government spending, but rather extraordinarily low taxes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png

2. Raising Taxes will reduce economic growth. If this were true then we should see significantly higher GNP growth as a result of low tax rates and lower GNP growth as result of high taxes. Look at the following chart, which shows the effect of tax rates on GNP.
Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill The Economy

So, why shouldn't we reduce the deficit by increasing taxes?

exactly how would you go about it without damaging the precious veneer-covered reputation of our current leader?

Maybe he should just do like Bush Sr and bite the bullet and say something to the effect of, I didn't plan on increasing taxes, but that was before I got in office and figured out just how bad things really were... except that having been in Congress, he should have known how bad things were!

I do, however, believe that we need to both increase taxes and cut spending.

I fully expect the first part of that equation will happen, the latter part? Ain't gonna!

Why shouldn't we reduce the deficit by drastically reducing spending?

Do you think you could convince even one percent of Congress to agree to cutting another Congressman's pork... let alone their own?

Immie

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When you spend your own money you have to live on a budget. If you could spend someone else's income, you'd spend like there's no tomorrow.

Don't we know THAT??!!!

​

 

[DiamondDave]

Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes

Don't you just love this bit of reasoning?

Since government can't control spending, confiscate more of the peoples' money so it can keep spending.

That falls under the definition of insanity.

That's odd!

Republicans always referred-to-it as Fiscal Responsibility.

1) As told to you and PROVEN so many times, the debt has not decreased since 1957... your chart is disingenuous and obviously from a biased source
2) Do you have to be reminded who passes a budget?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, I disagree with you. Instead of paying more taxes, I think Americans should stop paying ALL taxes to the government until they get the message that the public is tired of their Congressional shopping trips.

Chances are....those (same) non-paying Americans will be screaming & crying about the pot-holes, in their streets, looooooooooooooooong before the high-rollers run-outta-cash!!​

 

[Big Fitz]

1. You grasp the fundamental problem. Government is spending money with little to no return. It's investing our tax dollars in deadbeats, union bailouts, corporate bail outs, unemployment benefits and other low value but very visible projects. We need a 4 to 1 spending cut for every dollar of taxes raised, IF we allow taxes TO be raised.

2. No, tax increases have never... EVER increased economic activity. The depression of 1920, yes, the Wilson caused depression was solved not with increasing taxes, but by cutting all government spending by 50% and then letting the market do it's job. The result? One of the biggest economic booms in history, till bad ethics and business models caused it to go bust again. Classic free market system in action. But thanks to Keynsian economic theory and socialist programs based on 'we gotta do SOMETHING', that stretched out the crash into the Great Depression, because the market wasn't allowed to function normally.

But, in the world of taxation, the economy IS a zero sum game, while the economy is not. For every dollar you take out of private hands, is money that cannot go towards paying wages or investing, or upgrading a business. The government then spends it on a project that may or may not have any reciprocal economic value, because they aren't held to the same 'profit or die' standard as the rest of the free market. That is why money in government hand is more wasteful AND harms the private sector. So, if you strip money out of the private sector, there can be no growth, or rather the growth if it occurs will be of lesser size and quality than if the private sector did it.

3. If we increase revenues, somehow, to the federal government, what are they going to do with it? since they've been living essentially consequence free for the last 50 years on this ever increasing taxation attitude congress seems to have marinated in, they'll keep doing the same damn things. What's that? Spend it on NEW social programs and votes, like they always do. This process will continue and grow until it has no choice BUT to collapse. That result will happen no matter what we do. It's only a question of how big it will be. And right now, it's astronomically big and bad.

So, although I can see why you'd think you'd want increased taxes, are you the one willing to pay them? You willing to pony up double, triple the dough when you have no idea how it's being spent or a very good idea it's being spent poorly or on things you are against?

Just things to consider while you tout higher taxes for irresponsible governance.

2. I don’t claim that additional taxes will increase economic activity. I believe tax rates have little effect. The belief that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy and lead to real growth is based on the belief that investors will use their tax savings to invest in American industry. In the past most all investments did go to build our industries. Today much of these investments flow oversea building industries in competing nations. Of course tax savings also make dollars available to increase consumption, but so does government spending.
3. The argument against spending money on social programs seem be that the nation draws no economic benefit from these programs. My belief is that these programs are inherently wasteful, but that does not mean there is no benefit.

2. well that's good, but increasing existing taxes is the same thing. What you are suggesting is a distinction without a meaning.

Trickle down economics aka Supply Side economics has worked every time it's tried. In the 20th century, we did so on 3 occasions to phenomenal success. 1920 with Harding/Coolidge, 1960 under Kennedy and the 1980's under Reagan. When you leave money in the hands of the individual, they don't sit there stuffing it into mattresses, for that only loses them money and they know it. So they invest it. Even the little hausfraus and working class schlubs who earned a little extra cash they want to hang on to for a rainy day.

How do they save this surplus cash? They buy stock, bonds, treasuries... something. The money benefits them in their interest and dividend rates as well as then being loaned out by the person they bought the financial product from. The effect is called an economic multiplier. For a small amount of interest, lenders get to invest in bigger projects that earn them more money and allow them to make a profit. This is the nature of banking and investment and it's open to everyone.

Now why does cutting taxes on the rich work best? Because they have the most to spread around. You don't get employed by poor people. The rich also consume the most, and if they decide to blow all that extra dough on toys and services, this stimulates the economy too.

For example, Carver Yachts for instance out of Sheboygan, WI. During the 1970's when Carter was busy punishing the rich almost went out of business. There were luxury taxes that made it too damn expensive to buy American built yachts, regardless of desire. Carver Yachts had betwee 250-400 full time employees on the verge of losing all their jobs. But not only would the loss of those good paying jobs hurt them and their families, it would hurt the community at large because all the services would lose consumer spending as people had no money. The grocery store, the hairdresser, the gas station, the fishing supplies store, the movie theaters. All the little shops and symbiotic businesses that require a productive manufacturer surviving on luxury purchases by the rich who have more money and no idea what to do with it support a community of 30,000 at that time. You end up helping tens of thousands... not just one rich guy or family.

3. Have you ever considered a cost effect analysis of say Welfare? Or unemployment insurance? Or Medicare? Or food stamps? Or school lunch? Or social security?

How exactly do these things help society? Now mind you, it is good to help those in need. But at what point does help become enabling? Yes, we should help those who lost their job. But for how long? When does help become better than working? How does this help society? Case in point. I have a friend who has stated flatly, they are not getting a job till their unemployment benefits are near running out because they make better money on unemployment than they do by getting some interim job that pays half as much. It's like a paid vacation!

I've been on unemployment, and maybe I'm the freak, but I was revolted by it. I hated it. I wanted a job. I've had to use assistance on a few occasions of my life, but realize that I do not belong there, but they make it sooooo tempting to just keep lining up for the benefits. Best example was when I got food help from a private charity. Every week, I was able to go get groceries donated from all over. You would not believe this, but I ate BETTER on this than I could on my own. I had food to give away to others because I couldn't eat my allotment fast enough! I comforted myself knowing that my local area was so abundantly blessed that people could give with such generosity, and I should not take advantage of it. But like I said, I think I'm the freak.

That is the ultimate crux of all social spending. Finding that sweet spot of helping without enabling. Right now, it has been foisted by a local radio host that MN social services could be slashed 40% and there would be little to no degradation in service to the community. Most of the savings would be culled from abuse and fraud and over staffing. The state of Florida is #1 in medicare payments. They receive over 1 BILLION dollars in aid, and almost all of that in the Miami/Dade area. This one area is sucking down over half of all payouts from Medicare, if the information I've see is correct. Do you think this nation could benefit from better policing of the charity for fraud and waste? I do.

You must not confuse kindness for weakness and charity for duty. We are called to help those in need, but we cannot be made slaves to the needy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Perhaps you should actually look into how an economy works, what a boom is, what a false boom is, what an economic bubble is, the hidden intergovernmental spending of Clinton, and so many other things

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

 

[Big Fitz]

Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill The Economy

....As in Bill Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction, that gave us THE GREATEST ECONOMY THIS COUNTRY'S EVER EXPERIENCED!!!!​

Deficit reduction. Who allowed for that? Oh that's right, the republican revolution of 1994 and Hillarycare's failure.

Of course, gutting the military and intelligence agencies to create the "peace dividend' sure looked pretty too.

More strawmen than corn in that field.

 

[DiamondDave]

Perhaps you should actually look into how an economy works, what a boom is, what a false boom is, what an economic bubble is, the hidden intergovernmental spending of Clinton, and so many other things

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

Again... do you know how an economy works??

Hmmm... let's do a little scenario here...

You promise to make peanut butter sandwiches to bring to school tomorrow for anyone that pays you $1. The hype is everywhere because you have made releases stating various reasons why your peanut butter is the best and you give assurances you can deliver to everyone and anyone who wants it. Demand is going so high that you realize you can charge $2, and they are still ordering. You go to $3, $4, and eventually to $5 a sandwich. You are offered loans and advances by people who want to make a little money off your business and you gladly accept to buy supplies, etc. You buy the best bread, knives, baggies, etc. But when it all comes down to it you really don't know how to make a good peanut butter sandwich. You have no way to actually deliver or produce the amount ordered. You only take in 10 sandwiches the next day. More money still is rolling in because all the info is not out that you really don't have the capability to deliver. But you take it all anyway, getting further and further in the weeds. Now, you take a snapshot. Looks like the economic situation you are in is great. You're taking in much $$$, your expenditures seem under control, and you and those investing in you seem happy. Why? Because you have gobs of cash and they see some good 'signs'. Looks like you are a financial genius. Until everything collapses like a deck of cards around you. You get sued and lose money, those who invested lose money, those people selling you supplies lose money because you and others like you suddenly do not buy any more supplies. People who ordered lost money. Supplies go to waste as they are not being used and you can't get money out of spoiled goods. Everyone is worse off than before. But you still have the gumption to put on your resume that you were the leader and architect of a business that drew in gobs of money and 'business'.

Welcome to the peanut butter version of the 90's boom economy

 

[Big Fitz]

Perhaps you should actually look into how an economy works, what a boom is, what a false boom is, what an economic bubble is, the hidden intergovernmental spending of Clinton, and so many other things

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

Again... do you know how an economy works??

Hmmm... let's do a little scenario here...

You promise to make peanut butter sandwiches to bring to school tomorrow for anyone that pays you $1. The hype is everywhere because you have made releases stating various reasons why your peanut butter is the best and you give assurances you can deliver to everyone and anyone who wants it. Demand is going so high that you realize you can charge $2, and they are still ordering. You go to $3, $4, and eventually to $5 a sandwich. You are offered loans and advances by people who want to make a little money off your business and you gladly accept to buy supplies, etc. You buy the best bread, knives, baggies, etc. But when it all comes down to it you really don't know how to make a good peanut butter sandwich. You have no way to actually deliver or produce the amount ordered. You only take in 10 sandwiches the next day. More money still is rolling in because all the info is not out that you really don't have the capability to deliver. But you take it all anyway, getting further and further in the weeds. Now, you take a snapshot. Looks like the economic situation you are in is great. You're taking in much $$$, your expenditures seem under control, and you and those investing in you seem happy. Why? Because you have gobs of cash and they see some good 'signs'. Looks like you are a financial genius. Until everything collapses like a deck of cards around you. You get sued and lose money, those who invested lose money, those people selling you supplies lose money because you and others like you suddenly do not buy any more supplies. People who ordered lost money. Supplies go to waste as they are not being used and you can't get money out of spoiled goods. Everyone is worse off than before. But you still have the gumption to put on your resume that you were the leader and architect of a business that drew in gobs of money and 'business'.

Welcome to the peanut butter version of the 90's boom economy

Thanks for reminding me also of the dot com bubble, the beginning of liquid credit (Bernake's loose money policy) and home lending insanity based on a false financial backing premise based on fraud(The freddie mac/Fannie Mae debacle).

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill The Economy

....As in Bill Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction, that gave us THE GREATEST ECONOMY THIS COUNTRY'S EVER EXPERIENCED!!!!​

you mean the tech bubble and the deregulation that allowed too big too fail financial companies to exist?

The tech-bubble? You mean...Allowing The Marketplace (i.e. Wall Street) To Regulate Itself??

As-far-as too-big-to-fail goes....we've got Phil Gramm (John McCain's economic-advisor) to THANK, for launching that!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0&feature=related]YouTube - American Casino[/ame]​

 

[Big Fitz]

2. No, tax increases have never... EVER increased economic activity.

WRONG!!

​

Put up or shut up, moron. What tax increase has been directly linked to increased GDP. Oh, and war and natural disaster don't count. Why? Because it's like breaking windows to stimulate the economy. It doesn't look at lost resources.

 

[DiamondDave]

sham-man

Give up while you are behind, newbie troll

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Eliminate the capital gains tax and jobs would skyrocket.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....the way all o' those BUSHCO tax-cuts did the same, huh???

Now....when can we expect all o' those jobs The Idiot Son promised everyone????

(Oh, wait....he's workin' on his library, now....)



When you suggest a different-outcome, this time....with capital-gains cuts...I'd have to defer to The Master o' quotable-quotes:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A]YouTube - Bush "Fool Me Once..."[/ame]​

 

[DiamondDave]

And there we go.... less the 30 posts into this new troll's career and we have the precedent for 'But, but, but, but Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosshhhhhhh'

 

[Big Fitz]

And there we go.... less the 30 posts into this new troll's career and we have the precedent for 'But, but, but, but Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosshhhhhhh'

Well, you had that idiot Robert Kennedy blaming Haliburton and Booooosh for the oil spill. You know, that man on audio alone sounds like a spastic 70 year old woman?

But yeah, I'm done discussing economics with a troll who could get a sidewalk lemonade stand into trouble with the SEC. Thanks for beating me to the punch on this one too Dave. LOL

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And you can also have the extra bucks to pay it off by spending less to have more of your EXISTING income be used towards that debt reduction.

DAMN!!!

That almost made sense!!!