• 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!

Is Raising Revenue More Important Than Raising Tax Rates?

What Should the Government Focus On, Raising Revenue or Tax Rates?

  • Revenues

    Votes: 22 91.7%
  • Tax Rate

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Total voters
    24
Just curious. What are your priorities?

How does the government raise revenue without raising taxes? Unless you're saying, "Grow ourselves out of this mess....?"

No matter how much money we give those clowns in Washington, they will continue spending us broke. No new taxes. Cut spending. Oh, okay, maybe increase taxes on "really rich." They've got no voice. Let's git 'em!
 
Perhaps you can clarify. Are you asking about raising tax rates versus raising revenue? Aren't higher tax rates and revenue directly related? Did you mean cutting spending versus raising revenue?
 
Common sense says Revenues.......The Democrat Party says Tax Rates......
.
.
.
.
 
How does the government raise revenue without raising taxes? Unless you're saying, "Grow ourselves out of this mess....?"

No matter how much money we give those clowns in Washington, they will continue spending us broke. No new taxes. Cut spending. Oh, okay, maybe increase taxes on "really rich." They've got no voice. Let's git 'em!

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.
 
Perhaps you can clarify. Are you asking about raising tax rates versus raising revenue?

That is the question.

Aren't higher tax rates and revenue directly related?

No.

Did you mean cutting spending versus raising revenue?

No.



No. Higher tax rates do not mean higher tax revenues.

An
 
Revenue and the best way to do that is higher tax rates.

Except when it isnt........

......one of the more recent examples........

Review & Outlook: Ducking Higher Taxes - WSJ.com

Ducking Higher Taxes


In 2009 the state legislature raised the tax rate to 10.8% on joint-filer income of between $250,000 and $500,000, and to 11% on income above $500,000. Only New York City’s rate is higher. Oregon’s liberal voters ratified the tax increase on individuals and another on businesses in January of this year, no doubt feeling good about their “shared sacrifice.”

Congratulations. Instead of $180 million collected last year from the new tax, the state received $130 million. The Eugene Register-Guard newspaper reports that after the tax was raised “income tax and other revenue collections began plunging so steeply that any gains from the two measures seemed trivial.”

One reason revenues are so low is that about one-quarter of the rich tax filers seem to have gone missing. The state expected 38,000 Oregonians to pay the higher tax, but only 28,000 did.

.
.
.
.
 
Except when it isnt........

......one of the more recent examples........



.
.
.
.

Ok, then close the loopholes. Do we give up on the idea of private property and alarm systems because people who break and enter get more sophisticated in their methods over time? Nope, we build better systems.
 
Ok, then close the loopholes. Do we give up on the idea of private property and alarm systems because people who break and enter get more sophisticated in their methods over time? Nope, we build better systems.

You dont get it........Free people vote with their feet........and you cannot claim to be free when Government is seizing 30-50% of your life.

What took place in the state of Oregon is taking place on a nationwide scale.......the poor and majority of the middle class are stuck on the plantation.......the rich and those with the ability to leave......gravitate towards freedom. (See: The Mass Exodus of US Businesses w/Jobs and The Democrat Whip).

Rasie tax rates, close the loopholes, send men with guns to their doors.........when it doesnt result in More Revenue.......its time to look at other ways.
.
.
.
.
 
That's what the socialists want.

But, once the government owns 100% of everything, what revenues will it have the following year?

Its pretty bad when you have to cut off part of my post in order to try and make a point.

You dont get it........Free people vote with their feet........and you cannot claim to be free when Government is seizing 30-50% of your life.

What took place in the state of Oregon is taking place on a nationwide scale.......the poor and majority of the middle class are stuck on the plantation.......the rich and those with the ability to leave......gravitate towards freedom. (See: The Mass Exodus of US Businesses w/Jobs and The Democrat Whip).

Rasie tax rates, close the loopholes, send men with guns to their doors.........when it doesnt result in More Revenue.......its time to look at other ways.
.
.
.
.

If people move then there is nothing a local government can do. Practical limitations will always exist. However, there is a balance for those with a higher income as well, so its a wash.
 
Last edited:
Its pretty bad when you have to cut off part of my post in order to try and make a point.



If people move then there is nothing a local government can do. Practical limitations will always exist. However, there is a balance for those with a higher income as well, so its a wash.

Why would people want to leave The Highest State Tax Rate or The Highest City Tax Rate or The Highest Corporate Tax Rate?

Considering the respective governments set those Highest Tax Rates........clearly its Yes We Can do something.
.
.
.
 
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.

Lowering tax rates lowers revenue below what they would be without lowering the tax rates. While it will promote growth, the break even point tends to be quite far in the future and almost impossible to actually measure. Your premise for the thread is inherently flawed. The only way the government can affect revenue directly is by changing taxes.
 
I voted revenue, only because I think before raising taxes, loopholes should be closed first. Then, if still needed, taxes can be raised.
 
From a practical perspective, we should adjust our budgets to meet the revenues because we can not control the economy enough to meet the revenue requirements to fund the budget.
 
Why would people want to leave The Highest State Tax Rate or The Highest City Tax Rate or The Highest Corporate Tax Rate?

Considering the respective governments set those Highest Tax Rates........clearly its Yes We Can do something.
.
.
.

Did you really just pretend I asked a question I didn't ask? How about you actually debate me instead of yourself.
 
From a practical perspective, we should adjust our budgets to meet the revenues because we can not control the economy enough to meet the revenue requirements to fund the budget.

Revenue is most controlled by the state of the economy. Adjusting tax rates can and does have some effect on the economy, with higher tax rates depressing the economy by some amount. Therefore to my mind the trick is to find a tax rate that limits the amount of depression to the economy and least hurts those taxes while providing a decent revenue and then using that as the basis for spending and leave tax rates alone. So I would say you are basically correct.
 
Revenue is most controlled by the state of the economy. Adjusting tax rates can and does have some effect on the economy, with higher tax rates depressing the economy by some amount. Therefore to my mind the trick is to find a tax rate that limits the amount of depression to the economy and least hurts those taxes while providing a decent revenue and then using that as the basis for spending and leave tax rates alone. So I would say you are basically correct.

Even then though, there is no truly predictable amount of revenue that taxes will generate, because new taxes can cause changes in behavior.
It's one of the unseen effects.

On the flip side, cutting budgets is pretty straight forward.
Although, it to can cause changes in behavior, but not as broad.

We need a budget that flexes with revenue, so we don't have to constantly fight over this issue.
Of course that would also mean, no more additional tax funded programs.
 
We need a budget that flexes with revenue, so we don't have to constantly fight over this issue.
Of course that would also mean, no more additional tax funded programs.

Perhaps a budget that has percentages instead of fixed dollar amounts? It would require that individual agencies have more decision power over what to do with the money and how many people to hire or fire (and stuff like that) but perhaps it could work.
 
Perhaps a budget that has percentages instead of fixed dollar amounts? It would require that individual agencies have more decision power over what to do with the money and how many people to hire or fire (and stuff like that) but perhaps it could work.

Agency funding based on percentages would definitely be better.
I'd definitely prefer a predictable yearly tax rate and my goodness does it need to be simplified.
 
Agency funding based on percentages would definitely be better.
I'd definitely prefer a predictable yearly tax rate and my goodness does it need to be simplified.

A tax rate too low to fund a social safety net is dangerous business.
 
Even then though, there is no truly predictable amount of revenue that taxes will generate, because new taxes can cause changes in behavior.
It's one of the unseen effects.

On the flip side, cutting budgets is pretty straight forward.
Although, it to can cause changes in behavior, but not as broad.

We need a budget that flexes with revenue, so we don't have to constantly fight over this issue.
Of course that would also mean, no more additional tax funded programs.

Yes, absolutely to an extent, though I would change the last to "no new programs without paying for them by reductions elsewhere".

A good example of what you are talking about is lowering capital gains taxes, which create a short term bump to revenue as people cash in capital gains type assets, but evens out at lower revenue.
 
Back
Top Bottom