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 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 172

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

  1. #131
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

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

    Neither, the government needs to dramatically reduce spending, then it doesn't need extra revenue or increased taxes.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #132
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Neither, the government needs to dramatically reduce spending,
    Reducing spending means losing jobs, but you know that, don't you. Less jobs or higher unemployment is the only way to beat Obama, especially since you Reps can't call him a ditherer or wimp anymore.

    ricksfolly

  3. #133
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Reducing spending means losing jobs, but you know that, don't you. Less jobs or higher unemployment is the only way to beat Obama, especially since you Reps can't call him a ditherer or wimp anymore.
    How about less government freebies and forcing people who are sitting on their asses getting government handouts to get back to work? And yes, I can call Obama lots of things, most of which I can't post here.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #134
    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
    i don't see how it is - either way you are deliberately taking action to minimize your tax bill - you are acting economically, in ways that are designed to serve the best interest of you and your family.
    I firmly pointed it out, if you disagree, so be it. I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not at all - but we should also design a system that reduces the incentive and ability to engage in tax fraud. That's one of the things I liked most about the Fair-Tax; in order to cheat (as opposed to our current system where you just have to write a different number on a piece of paper safe in your own room) you have to get Wal-Mart to sign on to engaging in criminal activity. Walmart isn't going to risk criminal investigation to save you $3.16 on a sweater.
    A so-called fair tax system may do that, but if the initial design is flawed (by increasing taxes on those who cannot afford it), then it doesn't matter if it addresses a problem with the income tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    well when organizing government the question is what works best - but I get leery when people start talking about organizing society for maximum efficiency. Individual Rights so often get tossed out the window when that occurs, and effects on individuals go right with it. Should we design a system for maximum efficiency if it also encourages what we would recognize as detrimental individual behavior? These are my twin critiques of our current welfare/tax structure - it is poorly designed to acheive it's stated goals, and it encourages what I would argue are harmful strategies and attitudes among us. It doesn't help the poor, but it does teach us that the way up is to take from others rather than self-reliance.
    Moral systems come and go with time and there has yet to be one that is universal in that it solves all problems or even addresses all problems (the american conservative perspective leaves tons of problems unaddressed and instead seeks to minimize concern for them), this was the basis behind my in-vogue comment. In the end, there is only what works and what does not work.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    man. i read that three times, and now I'm confused

    but seriously, I can't accept Eugenics as a means of increasing human choice - it strikes me that it objectively gives one generation ( the "designer" generation ) all the choices and locks the rest of us into their model.
    A model is going to happen either by biology or by design. In either case, we are trapped in a paradigm that is dictated by make up and experiences. If our make up is changed, then the basis in which we self judge also changes, which means that when we assess any value it will be dependent on who we are at that time.

    Is a golden retriever less than a wolf? I am willing to bet the golden retriever is quite happy with his situation even though he is not hunting in a pack all the time because he has evolved through years of interaction with humans (which is eugenic). The retriever being happy with itself and its life is ultimately what matters to that dog. Both the wolf and the retriever are in a "model" as dictated by their make up, so if you want to go with something being locked in a model, then both are. Just as I am locked in a model and if man evolves into something else, it is that model, but in either case, it is locked and always will be.

    Again, I am not advocating, but your concern does not address it very well. I know what you are trying to say in that what we are right now has an inherent rightness, but again, looking objectively, that idea is unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    those other models have been able to survive and thrive because they have been fed and protected by our success. Without US Military expenditures, Germany spends her GDP over the last century protecting her border from the Soviet Union. And I would question what "other dimensions" you are referencing - I have heard it often claimed about healthcare, but I have yet to see a case made for that that can stand up to critique.
    This warrants no other response, but The only real thing the US has contributed was the idea of democratic society (which is a good thing) through the first and second world war.

    As for other dimensions, per capita income (us is not at the top), health care (many other countries have much better success rates and for lower costs), and

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is true, but I would argue that culture feeds into government policy.

    I don't consider the notion of a progressive tax code thuggish. I claim that the model where the majority of us shift the burden of governing onto a minority, insist that they then also pay us a little extra off the top, and then castigate them for not "carrying their fair share" is thuggish.
    The only reason the minority have to pay is because due to trickle down, incomes of regular people have not kept up as they should. I would prefer the 80s never happened and we would not even be having this discussion as people would be making their due.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 05-08-11 at 05:40 PM.

  5. #135
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,669

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    FALSE -

    **Revenue act of 1861
    **Wilson-Gormon Tariff 1894



    So, donate your 'fortune' to charity and start living the good life...



    And they benefit more from all the things the U.S. government oversees and provides.

    The super-wealthy have a greater interest in maintaining tax-funded support systems such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as the top 1% have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid mainly support business assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.

    In the U.S. market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities.

    Those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth.



    And they control more of the wealth do to the failure of trickle down economics...



    You're talking about the Ayn Rand fantasy world where the successful people are exceptionally gifted creative individuals with a strong moral compass, and rest are either lazy or content to be a worker bee. However, in the real world, legions of lawyers go to work every year figuring out new ways to game the system. In the real world, not all wealthy people are exceptional creators/producers. Many fail upwards. Hedge funds, speculators produce nothing. In the real world, the 'invisible hand' has been hampered by politics, bail-outs, and subsidies.

    Here is some reading for you:



    Essays and ideas on how we got started down this road where 'talent' in the corp. world began to believe they were entitled to something greater...whether they produced or not.
    IN your haste to try to score a point I don't see any evidence of income redistribution in those short lived 3% tax designed to pay for the war (RA 0f 1861) or the 2% income taxes designed to offset the lost of tariff revenues.

    why do the parasite advocates constantly talk about the super wealthy when all the dems schemes are most vexatious to those who are merely upper middle class or at the bottom of the top taxpaying group?

    you rant and rave about hedge fund managers yet how many hedge fund managers make up the top 2 percent that your socialist president wants to screw over?



  6. #136
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,669

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Reducing spending means losing jobs, but you know that, don't you. Less jobs or higher unemployment is the only way to beat Obama, especially since you Reps can't call him a ditherer or wimp anymore.

    ricksfolly
    so your solution is more and more deficits. You really have no clue about what is happening



  7. #137
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

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

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I firmly pointed it out, if you disagree, so be it. I guess we will have to disagree on this point.
    if you are taking steps to minimize your tax bill, then you are doing so because the rewards to you individually outweigh the costs of you doing so individually. People consider tax effects all the time - when they purchase a house, move to the city, or invest. Claiming that we can just pretend that they will pay higher rates happily "just because" when they have the opportunity not to is in contradiction to what we know of human behavior and the last several decades of experience. People interact with their tax bill in a fashion to reduce their individual exposure, and many are even willing to break the law to do so.

    A so-called fair tax system may do that, but if the initial design is flawed (by increasing taxes on those who cannot afford it), then it doesn't matter if it addresses a problem with the income tax.

    Moral systems come and go with time and there has yet to be one that is universal in that it solves all problems or even addresses all problems (the american conservative perspective leaves tons of problems unaddressed and instead seeks to minimize concern for them), this was the basis behind my in-vogue comment. In the end, there is only what works and what does not work.

    A model is going to happen either by biology or by design. In either case, we are trapped in a paradigm that is dictated by make up and experiences. If our make up is changed, then the basis in which we self judge also changes, which means that when we assess any value it will be dependent on who we are at that time.

    Is a golden retriever less than a wolf? I am willing to bet the golden retriever is quite happy with his situation even though he is not hunting in a pack all the time because he has evolved through years of interaction with humans (which is eugenic). The retriever being happy with itself and its life is ultimately what matters to that dog. Both the wolf and the retriever are in a "model" as dictated by their make up, so if you want to go with something being locked in a model, then both are. Just as I am locked in a model and if man evolves into something else, it is that model, but in either case, it is locked and always will be.

    Again, I am not advocating, but your concern does not address it very well. I know what you are trying to say in that what we are right now has an inherent rightness, but again, looking objectively, that idea is unsupported.

    This warrants no other response, but The only real thing the US has contributed was the idea of democratic society (which is a good thing) through the first and second world war.

    As for other dimensions, per capita income (us is not at the top), health care (many other countries have much better success rates and for lower costs), and
    the obsessive debater in me wants to go through and answer these - and several are worth their own threads.

    however, to refocus on taxes: you have never answered. Are tax revenues direct functions of tax rates? in a higher tax environment, will we bring in more tax revenues? have we seen higher revenues as a percent of our economy under previous, higher tax-rate structures?

    The only reason the minority have to pay is because due to trickle down, incomes of regular people have not kept up as they should. I would prefer the 80s never happened and we would not even be having this discussion as people would be making their due.
    bollocks . the 80's saw a massive explosion of individual wealth. those who complain that the top incomes rose faster are missing the point - incomes rose and they rose across the board. we live better, richer, and wider lives now because of the economic recovery of the 80's, and the huge growth cycle it produced. I agree that we probably looked to slash lower quintile rates too much - but the notion that somehow people would be making "their fair due" of wages if only we were all poorer is misguided at best.
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-08-11 at 06:17 PM.

  8. #138
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Neither, the government needs to dramatically reduce spending, then it doesn't need extra revenue or increased taxes.
    That would actually make the need for extra revenue even higher. A dramatic decline in demand would boost unemployment causing automatic stabilizers to kick in resulting in even greater outflows at the same time tax revenue declines. Furthermore, the impact upon those with jobs would be to cut discretionary spending reducing taxes as well and leading to more job losses and even more automatic stabilizers.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #139
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That would actually make the need for extra revenue even higher. A dramatic decline in demand would boost unemployment
    interesting claim. is that what happened in the early 20's and after WWII, when the government cut spending?

  10. #140
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    interesting claim. is that what happened in the early 20's and after WWII, when the government cut spending?
    Did you really say that? The difference between the 20s and late 1940s and today is there was a huge amount of wealth built up with massive deferred demand. There is no such pent up wealth and demand this time around.

    Cpwill, that may have been the stupidest thing I've seen you say ever.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •