Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Just curious. What are your priorities?
Just curious. What are your priorities?
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?
Revenue and the best way to do that is higher tax rates.
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.
Revenue and the best way to do that is higher tax rates.
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
That's what the socialists want.
But, once the government owns 100% of everything, what revenues will it have the following year?
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.
.
.
.
.
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.
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.
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.
.
.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A tax rate too low to fund a social safety net is dangerous business.