• 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
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think the percentage idea would work. It would make it impossible for the agencies to predict with any kind of accuracy future funding levels which would make them inherently inefficient.
 

So you can count George W. Bush among those simple minded folk who think cutting tax rates always pays for itself.

But not a few people in his own administration knew far better than he.


Not even the guiding light of the lower tax movement thinks tax cuts always pay for themselves.


The Laffer Curve indicates that at a certain point raising the tax rate so diminishes the economic incentive to earn more that economic activity actually declines and becomes detrimental to overall revenue; but all indications are that we are no where near that point. No where near.

So I think the most important thing when running these record deficits is to establish a gradual plan to raise tax rates by among other things implementing higher tax brackets for people reaping extraordinarily high incomes.

Excerpted from “Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues” By Justin Fox, TIME, Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]f there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. …

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. …
Click to expand...

See also: Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
See also: The 9 Biggest Conservative Lies About Taxes and Public Spending | Economy | AlterNet
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's true to.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer a 0 corp tax rate and cap gains be moved to personal income taxes.
Because the corp tax rate is just representative of double taxation.
 
Redress said:
I don't think the percentage idea would work. It would make it impossible for the agencies to predict with any kind of accuracy future funding levels which would make them inherently inefficient.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

If they low balled their budget based on the best possible prediction measures, it could encourage greater efficiency.
Then any surplus of funds could be used to cover any soft spots in funding.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not necessarily.

If they low balled their budget based on the best possible prediction measures, it could encourage greater efficiency.
Then any surplus of funds could be used to cover any soft spots in funding.
Click to expand...

Efficiency can only take you so far though.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the truth roars forth........

.......if you want growing revenues.........a growing economy is requirement #1.......and tax cuts yield a growing economy, not tax hikes.
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
And the truth roars forth........

.......if you want growing revenues.........a growing economy is requirement #1.......and tax cuts yield a growing economy, not tax hikes.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Over the long term...15 to 20 years. Lowering taxes now would result in small gaines towards the end of the 2020's while costing us large amount of money now. I do not think any one has denied what I have said, that lower taxes encourages growth.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We're not talking about eliminating these programs but there is a ton of waste in many of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, and working on those inefficiencies is a good thing, but you are only going to gain so much from that area.
 
Chappy said:

So you can count George W. Bush among those simple minded folk who think cutting tax rates always pays for itself.
Click to expand...

Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


.....well when it only works 95% of the time....I can see why you have your doubts........
.
.
.
 
Redress said:
Yes, and working on those inefficiencies is a good thing, but you are only going to gain so much from that area.
Click to expand...

A couple of things to contend with in efficiency and the bureaucracy.

1 is Parkinson's Law, "Work expands to fill the time allotted."
This is like a rule for government bureaucracies, because there is little demand for efficiency or timeliness of completion.
They will be forced to occasionally eliminate unnecessary employees, with a floating budget.

2 spending in a wasteful and fraudulent manner.
Occasional lower budgets will require these agencies to reign in their spending on wasteful and redundant programs, while creating an incentive to pursue fraudulent users of said programs.
 
Because President Obama has said taxes rates aren't for raising revenue but are for punishing those of whom he disaproves.
 
Redress said:
Over the long term...15 to 20 years. Lowering taxes now would result in small gaines towards the end of the 2020's while costing us large amount of money now.
Click to expand...

Tax cut gains are ever giving and ever lasting..........just as a 30%-50%-70%-90% tax rate is as detrimental now as it will be anytime in the future.......

I do not think any one has denied what I have said, that lower taxes encourages growth.
Click to expand...

Which is akin to saying higher taxes discourages growth....to which we all agree...

An over taxed over regulated stagnant economy will never yield as much revenue produced by a low tax/booming economy.
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
Tax cut gains are ever giving and ever lasting..........just as a 30%-50%-70%-90% tax rate is as detrimental now as it will be anytime in the future.......



Which is akin to saying higher taxes discourages growth....to which we all agree...

An over taxed over regulated stagnant economy will never yield as much revenue produced by a low tax/booming economy.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are assuming that increasing growth is good for revenue without considering the shape of that growth and what it would be pre and post tax cuts.
 
megaprogman said:
The problem is that you are assuming that increasing growth is good for revenue without considering the shape of that growth and what it would be pre and post tax cuts.
Click to expand...

In the Divided Socialist States of ObamAmerica.....where Democrats tax everything that moves and doesnt move.......any and all growth will have liberal government's ever growing hand in the pot. The problem we have is high taxation and over regulation are killing the kitty.......
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
In the Divided Socialist States of ObamAmerica.....where Democrats tax everything that moves and doesnt move.......any and all growth will have liberal government's ever growing hand in the pot. The problem we have is high taxation and over regulation are killing the kitty.......
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Nice debate method you have there :lol:
Lose a point and move on to another immediately to try and regain the advantage.
 
megaprogman said:
Nice debate method you have there :lol:
Lose a point and move on to another immediately to try and regain the advantage.
Click to expand...

There isnt an industry in this country that doesnt have government's hand up its ass.........

.......any and all economic growth will result in a growth in revenue........

What is never lost never has to be regained........
.
.
.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Right.

But not in the real world. Lowering the tax rates allows people to keep their money. When people have more money, they typically spend more. People (not governments) spending more money is what normal people call "economic growth". Economic growth expands the economy and results in....check this out...greater tax revenues.

(GASP!....)

Raising taxes, on the other hand. may or may not create a temporary spike in revenues.

Then revenues decline.

That's all there is to that.
 
Redress said:
Over the long term...15 to 20 years. Lowering taxes now would result in small gaines towards the end of the 2020's while costing us large amount of money now. I do not think any one has denied what I have said, that lower taxes encourages growth.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Even presuming your asserting that cutting taxes automatically leads to lower federal revenues, now matter how you slice it, cutting taxes does not cost "US" anything. Cut the Mayor's taxes and the Mayor has more of his own money in his pocket. Clearly cutting taxes will not cost the taxpayer a dime. Quite the reverse.

Cutting taxes may, but historically does not, cost bureaucrats and parasites and other non-producers revenues, which, frankly, they simply do not deserve anyway.

So, when you're referring to "us", are you in the employe of the government or are you one of the many getting undeserved handouts?
 
megaprogman said:
Did you really just pretend I asked a question I didn't ask? How about you actually debate me instead of yourself.
Click to expand...

You do realize this entire argument is a misunderstood concept of supply side economics that its own founders never argued no? Hacks ignore the fact that when the notion of tax cuts increasing tax revenue came out, the original members of that idea never argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, in fact that explicitly said otherwise. They ignore the part of the idea that the reduction in tax revenues would force the Federal Government to downsize and that in combination with the adjusted tax revenues that a proper level of government could be achieved. That fact is lost on so many hacks who pushing the idiotic idea that reducing tax rates from current rates will actually increase tax revenue beyond the amount lost from the reduction.
 
OMG please please please not another supply-sider thread!! The Laffer Curve doesn't work like this!!
 
StillBallin75 said:
OMG please please please not another supply-sider thread!! The Laffer Curve doesn't work like this!!
Click to expand...

Well, not at the tax rates we're at now. I don't doubt the Laffer Curve's basic premise is right at the 70%+ tax rates. But below 50%, it becomes nothing more than speculation. Furthermore, US effective is low. Obama's own effective tax rate when adding in state tax is around 29%. The idea that we could actually grow revenue by cutting taxes when millionaires pay historically low rates is ignorant of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom