• 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
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.

If marginal rates were above 50% I would agree with them...not at this point though.
 
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.
This seems to be logical, but it seems as if this is never done ?
Why ?
Could it be that the money is no longer here in the good ole USA, but instead in Arabia, Mexico, China, India due to the 50 years of trade deficits.
 
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.

Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1982_1988snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending061777_60056_66644_73404_76916_85429_909.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1964_1970snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending011261_11682_13084_14882_15297_18688_192.png

.
.
.
..
 
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?

Obviously a liberal. No, raising tax rates can reduce tax revenue. Example, as cigarette taxes skyrocket in New York, revenues drop due to people quitting smoking and cigarettes being smuggled. The tax rates President Obama said he wanted to raise even if it reduced revenue were capital gains. It was pointed out that every time capital gains taxes were raised, revenues dropped because people avoided thos financial transactions that would result in a capital gains liability. President Obama's response was that he would raise the taxes anyway to be fair.

Democrats and Republicans both think the tax code exists to force behavior that has government approval.
Liberals think the tax code is a weapon to punish people.
 
I didn't see an option for neither. The government takes too much of our money and tax rates are too high. Free up our capital for private investors!
 
And by the way, I'm going to call bs. The calls for raising taxes are not about raising revenues. Hauser's Law shows that changing the tax rates does not significantly change revenue. It is all about a social agenda.
 
Raising revenue or tax rates??

Neither?
 
I didn't see an option for neither. The government takes too much of our money and tax rates are too high. Free up our capital for private investors!

The past three years of massive inflows into US securities suggest that ther aren't capital projects worthy of capital investment when accounting for risk. Therefore, your point appears to be moot. Lowering rates when there isn't viable projects to invest in will not increase investment or alternatively may cause significent bubbles.

As for "too much" that is merely your opinion. Same for tax rates, which by the way, are historically low.
 
The past three years of massive inflows into US securities suggest that ther aren't capital projects worthy of capital investment when accounting for risk. Therefore, your point appears to be moot. Lowering rates when there isn't viable projects to invest in will not increase investment or alternatively may cause significent bubbles.

People invest into that because of the security and guaranteed interest. It is not because it is more worthwhile, you know this. Get rid of that debt and people will invest in the private sector.

As for "too much" that is merely your opinion. Same for tax rates, which by the way, are historically low.

Too much is subjective, but I think anything more than 0 is too much because the private sector does it all better.
 
Just curious. What are your priorities?

Tax strategy raising/lowering is how Gov raises revenue.

You poll seems like a FAIL.

Or a way to trick people into thinking lowering taxes on the wealthy with fix everything...
 

LOL......The C/C rebuttle.......seems to be a favorite among every liberal on this site.

.....of course the fact that virtually every major tax cut in history has resulted in a MASSIVE GROWTH IN REVENUE.....will of course have to be racked up as COINCIDENCE.

I'd ask you to provide a period where the only material change was tax rates (I'll let you think about why that matters), but considering the intellectual stock of this place, it's futile.

Providing you with 10,000 examples of periods where the only material change was tax rates....where lower tax rates resulted in more revenue 99% of the time.......notarized by Obama......undersigned by God........

.....would only yield a growth in denial from you and every liberal out there.
.
.
.
 
People invest into that because of the security and guaranteed interest.

Except that isn't the case now. You really need to learn to stop doing the "one sizes fits all" approach. Actual yields went negative for a period of time. People lost money on US debt. Furthermore, the market average rate over the past year is leaps and bounds beyond the pathetic rates offered by US securities.

It is not because it is more worthwhile, you know this. Get rid of that debt and people will invest in the private sector.

See above. Furthermore, the fact that businesses are sitting on a trillion in cash reserves suggest they themselves don't have good projects to invest in. When businesses themselves don't have good projects, why would investors pour cash into the investment market?

Too much is subjective, but I think anything more than 0 is too much because the private sector does it all better.

Like toll roads? You do realize a large number of industries exist today purely because of government no? I know you're not stupid to argue otherwise.
 
Last edited:
LOL......The C/C rebuttle.......seems to be a favorite among every liberal college educated person on this site.

Fixed. Does the sun go down because the street lights turn on?

of course the fact that virtually every major tax cut in history has resulted in a MASSIVE GROWTH IN REVENUE.....will of course have to be racked up as COINCIDENCE.

At the same time the government expanded spending. Or are you going to be worthless partisan hack and ignore that? We know for a fact that government spending boosts activity. Do we have a period of time where we don't have that factor?

Providing you with 10,000 examples of periods where the only material change was tax rates....where lower tax rates resulted in more revenue 99% of the time.......notarized by Obama......undersigned by God........

.....would only yield a growth in denial from you and every liberal out there.

Which is your answer because you can't find one.

If you understood statistics (which you clearly do not), you would understand why I am asking. Isolate factors. Ponder that for a change.
 
Tax strategy raising/lowering is how Gov raises revenue.

You poll seems like a FAIL.

Or a way to trick people into thinking lowering taxes on the wealthy with fix everything...

Or a way of finding out if people are focused more on tax rates to the exclusion of actually increasing or maintaining revenue.....
 
See above. Furthermore, the fact that businesses are sitting on a trillion in cash reserves suggest they themselves don't have good projects to invest in. When businesses themselves don't have good projects, why would investors pour cash into the investment market?

Not what it means.

It means the business climate is projected to be risky and much of that is the risk of being taxed. When the party in power is agitating endlessly for higher taxes and making business the scapegoat for the failures of government policies, the businessman is going to hold onto his money and resist exposure to risk.
 
Ok, then close the loopholes.

so.. your plan is to pit the agility, motivation, and raw mental power of a $55,000 a year bureacrat against that of a $500,000 a year tax attorney?

there isn't a point where we can tax high enough to take in significantly more revenue - because revenue isn't a product of tax rates, it's a product of GDP. Top Tax Rates have fluctuated wildly over the last 60 years, yet revenues have reliably held within a pretty tight range.

hausers-law.gif


interestingly, if you compare the last 30 years to the previous 30 years, you will note that revenue as a % of GDP actually rose slightly when we started running with a lower top marginal tax rate.

oh, and the "loophole" that you were suggesting be closed? was the loophole of freedom of movement - the wealthy are more easily able to relocate to low tax environments, and their incentive to do so is greater. so unless you want us to become a nation where you have to get permission from the government to move.....
 
Last edited:
anyway, so far it looks like only one person agrees with the President.
 
so.. your plan is to pit the agility, motivation, and raw mental power of a $55,000 a year bureacrat against that of a $500,000 a year tax attorney?

there isn't a point where we can tax high enough to take in significantly more revenue - because revenue isn't a product of tax rates, it's a product of GDP. Top Tax Rates have fluctuated wildly over the last 60 years, yet revenues have reliably held within a pretty tight range.

hausers-law.gif


interestingly, if you compare the last 30 years to the previous 30 years, you will note that revenue as a % of GDP actually rose slightly when we started running with a lower top marginal tax rate.

oh, and the "loophole" that you were suggesting be closed? was the loophole of freedom of movement - the wealthy are more easily able to relocate to low tax environments, and their incentive to do so is greater. so unless you want us to become a nation where you have to get permission from the government to move.....

You are aware that your graph doesn't show what you claim right? All I see there is top marginal tax rate, which leaves out crucial information such as the % of people paying that tax rate, the % of people paying other tax rates, total collections vs expected collections, etc.

In terms of what loop holes to close, that would be the ability to hide money in a foreign country. If a country wants to be a tax haven, then we tax the hell out of any money that comes back into american soil, even if it comes in indirectly. Sure, theoretically, people could move out of the country, but I doubt they would.
 
Last edited:
anyway, so far it looks like only one person agrees with the President.

The fact that only 9 people voted in the poll should be a clue that people find the poll poorly constructed, not that the results are in any way meaningful.
 
The fact that only 9 people voted in the poll should be a clue that people find the poll poorly constructed, not that the results are in any way meaningful.

Its one of those gotcha polls that puts people into a false choice. :shrug:
 
Its one of those gotcha polls that puts people into a false choice. :shrug:

People make dishonest or poorly designed polls? Who'd a thunk it?
 
Obviously.
Logical
But to do this, the tax rates on the wealthy must be increased.
Then waste must be cut back.
One example is the 500 school districts in PA, when only 100 are necessary.
Another is 435 Representatives when only several hundred are necessary.
One more - wars - very wasteful, this must stop.
Another - fear and ignorance - far too much of this waste in our people.
How about more truth and less advertising - another area of reform.
 
LOL......The C/C rebuttle.......seems to be a favorite among every liberal on this site.

.....of course the fact that virtually every major tax cut in history has resulted in a MASSIVE GROWTH IN REVENUE.....will of course have to be racked up as COINCIDENCE.



Providing you with 10,000 examples of periods where the only material change was tax rates....where lower tax rates resulted in more revenue 99% of the time.......notarized by Obama......undersigned by God........

.....would only yield a growth in denial from you and every liberal out there.
.
.
.

I'd like to see one shred, one iota of absolute evidence that tax cuts on the wealthy lead to a better economy for the masses..
I know it leads to a "better economy" for the wealthy and the masses receive whatever falls thru the cracks.
IMO, a disgusting way to treat the people, if one can visualize this scenario.
 
Back
Top Bottom