• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the U.S. raise taxes to pay off the national debt

Should the U.S. raise taxes to pay off the national debt

  • Yes, a lot

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Yes, a little

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • No

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Actually, taxes should be reduced

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Idk

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Total voters
    29
Canell

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The US national debt is constantly rising and approaches 17 trillion. Should taxes be raised to pay it off?

What's your solution to the problem? :)
 
I would go for raising taxes. BUT not until they show that they are willing to actually want to reduce it. They can do that by cutting the 5 biggest spending programs that the government has in half. Until then.... No.
 
Yes, I think that if we're serious about paying off the national debt, we need to raise taxes. However, I think that bare minimum, every dollar of tax increases should be met by a dollar of spending cuts. Ideally I'd like to see more cuts than tax increases, but I think we're well past the point where either option will solve the problem by itself in a reasonable time frame.
 
No. Our tax code is a ridiculous spaghetti nightmare. Not even the IRS understands it.

We don't need nominal tax rate increases. We need dramatic tax code simplification, similar to that which was proposed by Simpson Bowles.
 
Canell said:
The US national debt is constantly rising and approaches 17 trillion. Should taxes be raised to pay it off?

What's your solution to the problem? :)
Click to expand...

Everything should be drastically cut first before even considering the idea of raising taxes. With all this reckless and needless spending going on it is unconscionable to even suggest a tax increase. All foreign aid and other assistance should be cut. All over seas bases should be closed and moved to the US along our borders. We should stop funding CIA programs that interfere with other countries. We should cut funding to NASA and encourage private space missions. Cut all over lapping and outdated agencies. Cut any programs that spies/watches on US citizens,the government has no business spying on its employers. Cut funding to all white house aids and ban white house aids and interns(it is the job of our elected officials to read and understand the bills before voting yes for them, not interns aids or who ever else). Instead of elected officials in DC living in their own apartments or houses in while in DC they should live in barracks similar to what lower enlisted Army soldiers live in and they should eat in chow halls similar to what infantry soldiers(when I was in the army grunts usually had the worst chow halls on post) in the early 2000, and late 1990s ate in(this is mostly to remind every elected official that they are the tax payer's bitch). Cut all grants, that money shouldn't be given out anyways.Let states run the national parks. I am sure other **** can be found that needs to be cut as well.
 
jamesrage said:
Everything should be drastically cut first before even considering the idea of raising taxes. With all this reckless and needless spending going on it is unconscionable to even suggest a tax increase. All foreign aid and other assistance should be cut. All over seas bases should be closed and moved to the US along our borders. We should stop funding CIA programs that interfere with other countries. We should cut funding to NASA and encourage private space missions. Cut all over lapping and outdated agencies. Cut any programs that spies/watches on US citizens,the government has no business spying on its employers. Cut funding to all white house aids and ban white house aids and interns(it is the job of our elected officials to read and understand the bills before voting yes for them, not interns aids or who ever else). Instead of elected officials in DC living in their own apartments or houses in while in DC they should live in barracks similar to what lower enlisted Army soldiers live in and they should eat in chow halls similar to what infantry soldiers(when I was in the army grunts usually had the worst chow halls on post) in the early 2000, and late 1990s ate in(this is mostly to remind every elected official that they are the tax payer's bitch). Cut all grants, that money shouldn't be given out anyways.Let states run the national parks. I am sure other **** can be found that needs to be cut as well.
Click to expand...
All of this is noble and I agree. However, the biggest culprit to our spending problem is the lack of control of entitlements. All of the stuff you named is more likely to happen, including Senators living in barracks, before that happens.
 
No, for the very practical reason that if they did raise taxes, they'd just spend more and not use any of it to pay off the debt. They should stop spending so much and learn to live within their means.
 
I still believe we should replace our current tax system with a flat, deduction free, credit free, no exceptions, progressive tax system. As government expenditures increase or decrease the tax percentage raises or lowers to cover all expenses. Anytime new legislation is passed the tax adjustment to cover it must be included in the bill. I think this would go a long way to cutting government spending. People are a lot less supportive of wasteful or unnecessary spending when they can see how it directly affects their pocketbooks.
 
Flat or progressive. It's one or the other. Not knocking the concept just want to know if I'm agreeing with what.



Baralis said:
I still believe we should replace our current tax system with a flat, deduction free, credit free, no exceptions, progressive tax system. As government expenditures increase or decrease the tax percentage raises or lowers to cover all expenses. Anytime new legislation is passed the tax adjustment to cover it must be included in the bill. I think this would go a long way to cutting government spending. People are a lot less supportive of wasteful or unnecessary spending when they can see how it directly affects their pocketbooks.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Flat or progressive. It's one or the other. Not knocking the concept just want to know if I'm agreeing with what.
Click to expand...

Both ;)


Progressive brackets based on income but everyone in a particular bracket pays a flat percentage with no deductions or exceptions.

Just an example:
(income)

$0-30K, 3% tax
$30+k-60k, 6% tax
$60+k-120k, 9%
$120+k-200K , 15%
Ect..

You get the idea.
 
OK, I'm not being a grammar nazi. But the term "flat tax" is more commonly used to describe a single rate system. The term "progressive" is exactly what we have now, a tax percentage that increase a specific levels.

Based on your proposed tax rates, our debt would double immediately. So, the OP would not be satisfied. Even if we kept the current rates, and eliminated all deductions, you'd see a market crash since almost the entire middle class has a mortgage.





Baralis said:
Both ;)


Progressive brackets based on income but everyone in a particular bracket pays a flat percentage with no deductions or exceptions.

Just an example:
(income)

$0-30K, 3% tax
$30+k-60k, 6% tax
$60+k-120k, 9%
$120+k-200K , 15%
Ect..

You get the idea.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
OK, I'm not being a grammar nazi. But the term "flat tax" is more commonly used to describe a single rate system. The term "progressive" is exactly what we have now, a tax percentage that increase a specific levels.

Based on your proposed tax rates, our debt would double immediately. So, the OP would not be satisfied. Even if we kept the current rates, and eliminated all deductions, you'd see a market crash since almost the entire middle class has a mortgage.
Click to expand...

My percentage numbers were purely hypothetical and only used as an attempt to explain my meaning. As for actual percentages, I think that would take a thorough analysis to find the best positioning. However in my mind I wouldn't mind seeing 3% for our lowest earners and perhaps a top bracket of 50% for the ultra wealthy.
 
specklebang said:
Flat or progressive. It's one or the other.
Click to expand...

Not really. You can have a two-tier flat tax, for example. Let's say, 0% on the first $50,000/yr and 20% on everything above that.
 
OK. Very realistic.
Baralis said:
My percentage numbers were purely hypothetical and only used as an attempt to explain my meaning. As for actual percentages, I think that would take a thorough analysis to find the best positioning. However in my mind I wouldn't mind seeing 3% for our lowest earners and perhaps a top bracket of 50% for the ultra wealthy.
Click to expand...



Yes, you could. I was just referring to the common use of the term but I couldn't out-fox you. How about 10% and 40%? Remember, we are raising taxes in this thread, not lowering them.:)
Cyrylek said:
Not really. You can have a two-tier flat tax, for example. Let's say, 0% on the first $50,000/yr and 20% on everything above that.
Click to expand...
 
I voted no, but I would be willing to go a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage of gross income including corporations.

Like someone posted above, every increase should be with the same percentage decrease in spending.
 
consumption tax.

everyone pays, and when taxes are raised the people feel it immediately, and politicians are not so inclined to raise it so quickly or very high.
 
Canell said:
The US national debt is constantly rising and approaches 17 trillion. Should taxes be raised to pay it off?

What's your solution to the problem? :)
Click to expand...

IMO, no raising taxes or new taxes unless the government can prove that they can control their out of control spending on wasteful projects and such things. I just don't trust that they would even use the money to pay down the debt.
 
Canell said:
The US national debt is constantly rising and approaches 17 trillion. Should taxes be raised to pay it off?

What's your solution to the problem? :)
Click to expand...

Normally I would say raise taxes and cut spending. But when it comes to spending cuts, they are just a cut in the amount of increase. It is like you are scheduled for a 10% raise, but only get a 5% raise, but in Washington D.C. talk, that is a 5% spending cut vs. a 5% raise.

So freeze spending to what ever this years budget is, 3.7 trillion, 3.8 trillion for the next 5 years and close loopholes in the tax system. Raising tax rates sometimes generate less revenue due to people changing their behavior and raising the rates on the rich, really doesn't generate all that much as they can afford all the tax accounts, tax lawyers and CPA's to invoke loopholes which lowers their taxes way below the rate they should pay.
 
Time for me to call it a day.

G'nite all. :2wave:

Be well.
 
Cyrylek said:
Not really. You can have a two-tier flat tax, for example. Let's say, 0% on the first $50,000/yr and 20% on everything above that.
Click to expand...

That I don't like, because the 50,001st dollar earned is worth less than the 50,000th. Go with a pure flat tax and there is nothing to discourage earning more.
 
Mathematician said:
That I don't like, because the 50,001st dollar earned is worth less than the 50,000th. Go with a pure flat tax and there is nothing to discourage earning more.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a flaw - but not any different from the system we have now.

I agree, by the way, that a national consumption tax would be an ideal solution (food, medicines and perhaps home heating fuel exempted). Too bad nobody is discussing it seriously.
 
cpwill said:
No. Our tax code is a ridiculous spaghetti nightmare. Not even the IRS understands it.

We don't need nominal tax rate increases. We need dramatic tax code simplification, similar to that which was proposed by Simpson Bowles.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. :peace
 
We need simpler taxes, no loopholes. That will still, never pay our taxed down. We need dramatic cuts in federal spending, and a better economy. A better economy means more tax payers and less people on subsidies.
 
ernst barkmann said:
consumption tax.

everyone pays, and when taxes are raised the people feel it immediately, and politicians are not so inclined to raise it so quickly or very high.
Click to expand...
Fair Tax...

I don't like the prebate, but the Fair Tax is far better than what we do now.
 
No we shouldn't burden the public so much for their idiotic decisions.

Reduce Entitlement spending.
Reduce Defense spending.
Reduce foreign aid to nothing until we're out of a deficit.
End the War on Inanimate things such as drugs.
Abolish Homeland Security.
Reform Education to nearly nothing on the Federal level.
DEA and ATF can be consolidated into the FBI.
Reduce congressional and presidential salaries to that of the medium American income level.


Those are just a few things we can do without touching taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom