View Poll Results: What Should the Government Focus On, Raising Revenue or Tax Rates?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Revenues

    25 89.29%
  • Tax Rate

    3 10.71%
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 172

Thread: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

  1. #111
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    By lowering tax rates, of course.

    This poll is independent of the spending side of the criminals in Washington. It's simply about the goals.
    The options should say, raise taxes or cut spending... It would be less confusing

  2. #112
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    if you will look above, you may find that it is anything but that simple.

    growing GDP is a far better way of ensuring increased Revenue than increased tax rates. certainly it is a proven method of increasing revenue, whereas increasing tax rates.... well, suffice to say that it is far more likely to depress growth off the baseline than it is to raise us more revenue. On top of that, growing GDP means higher wages, more jobs, decreased expenditures as people come off of the aid programs...
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-07-11 at 02:06 PM.

  3. #113
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Revenues usually increase some after a tax decrease, because it's a form of stimulus... It's a liquid infusion in the market, however, everybody is in the same competitive position and everybody is in the same economic position relative to all other agents in the economy prior to the tax cut. Therefore, it's a small stimulus and it doesn't create more liquidity, so it usually only has a short term affect... Giving people tax credits is also a stimulus, and businesses compete tax season to for those customers to spend their checks. I'd argue that those tax checks create more competition in the market than a federal tax cut. However, it's also a short term stimulus as well, and the competition is also short term.

  4. #114
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    governing systems built on anything other than the notion that people tend to seek their self interest tend to fail rather dramatically. It's not the benevolence of the baker, or the butcher.....
    In some aspect, yes, in other aspects no. People may behave that way economically, however, socially, people tend to be very for society in general. Witness the high levels of support for social programs, taxing the rich, etc. This is not because of selfishness (I don't believe) it is because people tend to have compassion and a desire to promote their fellow man with a genuine sincerity. Your philosophy seems to ignore that aspect of ourselves, which is why it is problematic (and the notion of doing such privately does not adequately address that aspect of ourselves in my view, really, its just a cop-out position to grudgingly allow for something in order to avoid a real discussion of the limits of the philosophy by shunting it off to a side discussion)

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the trick is not to try to change human nature ( attempts to create a "new man" also tend to fail dramatically - though they tend to also include alot more blood ), but rather to design a system where people seeking their own self-interest will increase the interests of others as well. that's why i think - despite the argument i've made here - that you could get an increase in revenues off of the wealthy by popping the cap but allowing them to keep a percentage in a tax-free account, as i suggested in my social security reform proposal. because we have provided them with a powerful and positive incentive to increase their taxes (they actually stand more to gain from said tax increase up to over around - as i recall - $647,000), they will not seek to avoid doing so.
    I agree, we should never attempt to change human nature because at our level of biological technology, it is impossible to do so and therefore foolish to do (not that I am advocating, but that is the reason we cannot do it, we do not have sufficient control over our own make-up and our free will does have limits based on our biology). However, I don't agree with your base assumptions about what human nature is either. While you see many of these things as an attempt to change human nature, I see many of them as conforming to human nature (not necessarily the utopian ideals of the past, those were based on ignorance and nothing more and our limits to our mental and social flexibility were very bloodily discovered). However, the primary lesson of that time is simply that, not that one philosophy failed so its opposite philosophy is automatically good (which is a fallacy so many here commit, liberalism/conservativism has had a spectacular failure at some point in the past, so the inverse must be true!) I am beginning to believe that reality is far more complex than the simple philosophies that are popular in the American culture. I guess I need to make my own way (but then I always have).
    Last edited by tacomancer; 05-07-11 at 02:25 PM.

  5. #115
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if you will look above, you may find that it is anything but that simple.

    growing GDP is a far better way of ensuring increased Revenue than increased tax rates. certainly it is a proven method of increasing revenue, whereas increasing tax rates.... well, suffice to say that it is far more likely to depress growth off the baseline than it is to raise us more revenue. On top of that, growing GDP means higher wages, more jobs, decreased expenditures as people come off of the aid programs...
    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

    I think measuring GDP is flawed.

  6. #116
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    It would basically depopulate the virginia/maryland area and stuff like the pentegon would have to be moved if I am interpreting this correctly.
    The details can be worked out, such as exempting defense spending within the U.S.

    But let's use transportation infrastructure as an example. Let's say we have to rebuild the Federal Highway System. In that case, all the spending done within a state comes from federal tax revenues paid from within the state.

    Or if that doesn't work, than do it by percentage. Say 70% of federal revenue from states have to be spent within that state while the other 30% of spending can be determined by the federal government for just such a case.

    I just think something should be done because New York and California gets slammed by conservatives for their liberal spending but what they never point out is how much the money they bring in, especially as centers of trade because of airports and seaports, is taken from them to pay for states in middle America.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #117
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

    I think measuring GDP is flawed.
    I agree. Among it's many other issues, it pretends that exports don't = imports, which treats currency and financial instruments as a non-commodity. Trillions of dollars in currency and bond markets tell us otherwise, but we insist on using a flawed measure that is blind to this reality.

    I would prefer we discuss Gross Domestic Income. But that's sort of my own little squint-eyed rant against the system, and most folks don't do much with it, so information on how these things measure up to it isn't readily available :p

  8. #118
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    The details can be worked out, such as exempting defense spending within the U.S.

    But let's use transportation infrastructure as an example. Let's say we have to rebuild the Federal Highway System. In that case, all the spending done within a state comes from federal tax revenues paid from within the state.

    Or if that doesn't work, than do it by percentage. Say 70% of federal revenue from states have to be spent within that state while the other 30% of spending can be determined by the federal government for just such a case.

    I just think something should be done because New York and California gets slammed by conservatives for their liberal spending but what they never point out is how much the money they bring in, especially as centers of trade because of airports and seaports, is taken from them to pay for states in middle America.
    I wonder what it would do the politics. Poor areas tend to correlate with conservativism and richer areas tend to correlate with liberalism. Would it further divide us due to the differences in infrastructure affecting local wealth, creating further disparity?

  9. #119
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    In some aspect, yes, in other aspects no. People may behave that way economically, however, socially, people tend to be very for society in general
    the trick being that paying taxes is an economic act - not a social one. attempting to set tax rates might come from social theory attempts - but the actual tax paying is an economic one, and we all of us tend to make economic decisions based on our and our familys' best interests.

    Witness the high levels of support for social programs, taxing the rich, etc. This is not because of selfishness (I don't believe) it is because people tend to have compassion and a desire to promote their fellow man with a genuine sincerity
    but you merely reinforce my point. we are 100% in favor of spending money on our poor.... so long as someone else has to pay for it. We are generous indeed..... with other people's money. that's not charity - charity is when you give your own money.

    Your philosophy seems to ignore that aspect of ourselves, which is why it is problematic (and the notion of doing such privately does not adequately address that aspect of ourselves in my view, really, its just a cop-out position to grudgingly allow for something in order to avoid a real discussion of the limits of the philosophy by shunting it off to a side discussion)
    i don't think ignoring private giving is legitimate in this discussion. Study after study seems to demonstrate that private giving goes down under a welfare state, and rises in it's lack. The more people perceive "taking care of the poor" to be the role of government, the more they tend to consider it less a role of their own... but really when you reflect government back into the form of revenue that it draws from, you are really talking about taxes, and in this country that means that you are really talking about taking from the top income earners.

    So when we see a privatized charity we are seeing people making a social decision - I wish to be a good social actor and so I wish to help take care of others. but when we see us shift into a more heavily socialized system (government system, however you want to put it, not trying to go down the Oh That's Not Socialism! rabbit hole here), we see that people begin to make economic decisions - I want to make sure it doesn't cost me anything, but rather costs that guy something.

    I agree, we should never attempt to change human nature because at our level of biological technology, it is impossible to do so and therefore foolish to do (not that I am advocating, but that is the reason we cannot do it, we do not have sufficient control over our own make-up and our free will does have limits based on our biology).
    nor, i think, should we even wish to do so in the future. we would be reducing the free will of those future generations whose decisions we make for them.

    However, I don't agree with your base assumptions about what human nature is either.... However, the primary lesson of that time is simply that, not that one philosophy failed so its opposite philosophy is automatically good (which is a fallacy so many here commit, liberalism/conservativism has had a spectacular failure at some point in the past, so the inverse must be true!) I am beginning to believe that reality is far more complex than the simple philosophies that are popular in the American culture. I guess I need to make my own way (but then I always have).
    well i certainly don't pretend to be putting forth a holistic view of human nature - here what we are discussing is merely how people react to economic decisions, including taxes, entitlements, income, and spending.

    While you see many of these things as an attempt to change human nature, I see many of them as conforming to human nature (not necessarily the utopian ideals of the past, those were based on ignorance and nothing more and our limits to our mental and social flexibility were very bloodily discovered).
    on the contrary i see much of modern economic policy and not a little of our public discussion of tax codes built around a desire to ignore human nature. for example, the notion that we can statically score tax increases assumes that people will not seek to minimize their tax exposure - which is in contradiction to nearly everything we know about how people approach taxes.

  10. #120
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I wonder what it would do the politics. Poor areas tend to correlate with conservativism and richer areas tend to correlate with liberalism. Would it further divide us due to the differences in infrastructure affecting local wealth, creating further disparity?
    It may.

    But it may also force those conservative areas to modernize and diversify their economies. Rather than focus on whatever it is they use for an economy, they will be forced to compete in certain profitable markets, such as medicine or computers or what-have-you. Which I don't see as a bad thing at all.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •