• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,699
Reaction score
2,053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Zakaria: Raise My Taxes, Mr. President! - Newsweek


For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it.

The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession


snip


Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country’s deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America’s, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending.


snip

The simple fact is this: all the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No, they led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit.

We have one of the smallest governments among all the rich countries in the world. Yet we refuse to pay for it. (Yes, health-care spending is the big exception and, yes, we will have to get those costs under control.) I understand the fear that this is not a good time to raise taxes. But the impact of marginal shifts in tax rates on growth is pretty unclear. Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return
.

snip
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,699
Reaction score
2,053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
makes a compelling case imo
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Increased taxes on the consumer class would be devistating to our economy.
Increased taxes on the wealthy (the top 1% of income earners) has neither a positive or negative effect on the economy, except to help fund our government.

Government spending during times of high unemployment, if well distributed, can help improve the economy - at least up until the point where the government becomes financially unstable due to excessive debt, at which time it eather cranks of the printing press causing crazy inflation, or it simply declares bankrupcy in some form or fashion.

With an economy that is not recovering due to the private sector, and with a government that can not spend much more without running out of money, we are pretty much screwed. We could raise the heck of taxes on the wealthiest Americans, much like we did during WW2, but that is not politically feasable without a major war or other major disaster that we all would support. We don't have any enemies right now who are strong enough for us to have a major war with, and whats the odds of some type of other major crises happening that cause us all to support major tax hikes? Maybe that was what "global warming" was all about, but that crises hasn't quite panned out.

Basically, we are all economically screwed.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Increased taxes on the consumer class would be devistating to our economy.
Increased taxes on the wealthy (the top 1% of income earners) has neither a positive or negative effect on the economy, except to help fund our government.

Government spending during times of high unemployment, if well distributed, can help improve the economy - at least up until the point where the government becomes financially unstable due to excessive debt, at which time it eather cranks of the printing press causing crazy inflation, or it simply declares bankrupcy in some form or fashion.

With an economy that is not recovering due to the private sector, and with a government that can not spend much more without running out of money, we are pretty much screwed. We could raise the heck of taxes on the wealthiest Americans, much like we did during WW2, but that is not politically feasable without a major war or other major disaster that we all would support. We don't have any enemies right now who are strong enough for us to have a major war with, and whats the odds of some type of other major crises happening that cause us all to support major tax hikes? Maybe that was what "global warming" was all about, but that crises hasn't quite panned out.

Basically, we are all economically screwed.
I don't disagree with you. But there is one solution that people could get behind. Tax cuts for the consumer combined with no new spending unless covered with new taxes. I can't imagine not getting a general consensus on that approach. It would be very interesting to know what a "typical" taxpayer pays who earns $250,000 a year. One wonders what would happen if some inflation were to creep into the economy. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing. It's not an easy answer. It didn't take us overnight to get into this mess, and it's not going to fixed overnight either. But at least I'd like to feel comfortable that we're moving in the right direction.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Increased taxes on the consumer class would be devistating to our economy.
Increased taxes on the wealthy (the top 1% of income earners) has neither a positive or negative effect on the economy, except to help fund our government.

Government spending during times of high unemployment, if well distributed, can help improve the economy - at least up until the point where the government becomes financially unstable due to excessive debt, at which time it eather cranks of the printing press causing crazy inflation, or it simply declares bankrupcy in some form or fashion.

With an economy that is not recovering due to the private sector, and with a government that can not spend much more without running out of money, we are pretty much screwed. We could raise the heck of taxes on the wealthiest Americans, much like we did during WW2, but that is not politically feasable without a major war or other major disaster that we all would support. We don't have any enemies right now who are strong enough for us to have a major war with, and whats the odds of some type of other major crises happening that cause us all to support major tax hikes? Maybe that was what "global warming" was all about, but that crises hasn't quite panned out.

Basically, we are all economically screwed.
Here's more analysis showing how in the end, the Bush tax cuts were devastating the deficit. In addition, when you consider that they took place at a time we were fighting two wars - then you see the problem. Critics Still Wrong on What

Certainly, Obama and the 111th Congress share some of the blame - but they inherited a crappy economy. Bush inherited a rough-patch economy from which we never 100% recovered (the top tiers did, the lower tiers remained stagnant for the entire decade).

The easiest way to begin improving the deficit is to simply let the tax cuts die. They never should have been passed in a time of war in the first place.

According to the link above: $500 BILLION a year of the deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the Wars, and the interest paid on borrowing the money to pay for them.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's more analysis showing how in the end, the Bush tax cuts were devastating the deficit. In addition, when you consider that they took place at a time we were fighting two wars - then you see the problem. Critics Still Wrong on What

Certainly, Obama and the 111th Congress share some of the blame - but they inherited a crappy economy. Bush inherited a rough-patch economy from which we never 100% recovered (the top tiers did, the lower tiers remained stagnant for the entire decade).

The easiest way to begin improving the deficit is to simply let the tax cuts die. They never should have been passed in a time of war in the first place.

According to the link above: $500 BILLION a year of the deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the Wars, and the interest paid on borrowing the money to pay for them.
The Reagan tax cuts did the same thing. The recession was over and our economy was already growing when the Reagan tax cuts went into effect. Adjusted for inflation it took 6 years before government revenue regained what it lost due to the tax cuts. This totally disproves the "Laffer Curve". Of course you will never find a "Reagan Conservative" owning up to it.

An interesting side note is that most non-politically affiliated studies indicated that the economic growth during that time had little to do with the tax cuts and much more to do with expanding government expenditures, mostly for the military. Many of the same "Reagan Conservitives" who claim that cutting taxes was such a sucess are the ones who claim that big government and high budget deficits are bad. But these "bad" things are EXACTLY what their hero, Ronald Reagan, did.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,698
Reaction score
74,622
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
if you don't raise taxes on those who are mainly responsible for the irresponsible government spending, there will never be any incentive for those people to stop voting for spendthrift politicians who buy the votes by promising them no tax hikes except on "the rich"

its the middle and lower classes who are mainly responsible because the top 1% cannot out vote the masses.

If you all are serious about deficit reduction massive cuts are far better than massive tax hikes on those who drive the economy. The reason why the economy sucks now is because those expecting to get soaked are not spending as much as they normally would
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,698
Reaction score
74,622
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here's more analysis showing how in the end, the Bush tax cuts were devastating the deficit. In addition, when you consider that they took place at a time we were fighting two wars - then you see the problem. Critics Still Wrong on What

Certainly, Obama and the 111th Congress share some of the blame - but they inherited a crappy economy. Bush inherited a rough-patch economy from which we never 100% recovered (the top tiers did, the lower tiers remained stagnant for the entire decade).

The easiest way to begin improving the deficit is to simply let the tax cuts die. They never should have been passed in a time of war in the first place.

According to the link above: $500 BILLION a year of the deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the Wars, and the interest paid on borrowing the money to pay for them.
nonsense-the tax cuts were one of the reasons why we voted for Bush

Clinton jacked up taxes in peace time so if cutting taxes is bad during war (even though REVENUE INCREASED) then increasing taxes in time of peace is bad as well.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,185
Reaction score
32,768
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
i'd have to see some serious spending cuts before i'd be good with tax hikes. deficits are outlay-driven, not revenue driven.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,090
Reaction score
32,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i'd have to see some serious spending cuts before i'd be good with tax hikes. deficits are outlay-driven, not revenue driven.
Simple math would indicate that its both spending and revenue that affect deficit.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,698
Reaction score
74,622
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Simple math would indicate that its both spending and revenue that affect deficit.
its actually the spending that drives it. and the revenue cannot keep up with the current rate of spending-period.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Simple math would indicate that its both spending and revenue that affect deficit.
And what is the government's success rate of *not* continually increasing spending even *when* taxes and other means increase?

The government simply cannot function in the mindframe of 'getting out of debt' or 'cutting excessive spending' - this, to the government, is like water to an Porter.
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,699
Reaction score
2,053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
i'd have to see some serious spending cuts before i'd be good with tax hikes. deficits are outlay-driven, not revenue driven.
no doubt when it comes to the spending cuts....in the long run, even if we like it or not, we will have to raise taxes, pairing the hikes with some rather significant cuts in spending, or we will be in the same boat as greece.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,698
Reaction score
74,622
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
no doubt when it comes to the spending cuts....in the long run, even if we like it or not, we will have to raise taxes, pairing the hikes with some rather significant cuts in spending, or we will be in the same boat as greece.
when the dems finally realize that they can no longer demagogue this issue and admit they are gonna have to raise taxes on all taxpayers and cut benefits to the non-tax payers-that's when the poop will hit the fan and the era of runaway government will end
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,699
Reaction score
2,053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
when the dems finally realize that they can no longer demagogue this issue and admit they are gonna have to raise taxes on all taxpayers and cut benefits to the non-tax payers-that's when the poop will hit the fan and the era of runaway government will end
not just the dems turtle, repubs to....no one will get a free pass...
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,436
Reaction score
8,021
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
if you don't raise taxes on those who are mainly responsible for the irresponsible government spending, there will never be any incentive for those people to stop voting for spendthrift politicians who buy the votes by promising them no tax hikes except on "the rich"

its the middle and lower classes who are mainly responsible because the top 1% cannot out vote the masses.

If you all are serious about deficit reduction massive cuts are far better than massive tax hikes on those who drive the economy. The reason why the economy sucks now is because those expecting to get soaked are not spending as much as they normally would
Who in the middle class is concerned with deficit reduction in wake of nearly 10% unemployment?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Zakaria: Raise My Taxes, Mr. President! - Newsweek
We have one of the smallest governments among all the rich countries in the world. Yet we refuse to pay for it. (Yes, health-care spending is the big exception and, yes, we will have to get those costs under control.) I understand the fear that this is not a good time to raise taxes. But the impact of marginal shifts in tax rates on growth is pretty unclear. Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return
snip
You snip right past the most important part. This has nothing to DO with taxes...raising...decreasing...wealthy or working class...nothing. It has EVERYTHING to do with SPENDING. Until BOTH PARTIES are chastised by the people by voting the scumbags out, they will continue to see the american worker and taxes as nothing more than pawns to be used in their political struggle for power and control. The write the checks we have to back up. Damn...what a life.

I have no problem leaving taxes at a reasonable rate...even increasing them temporarily if it were accompanied with a legislated plan and mandate to to pay off the deficit and gut federal spending. Until you have the cuts hell NO I dont want to see more tax increases. Thats not even logical and the only people that think it is are people that arent on the hook to pay those increases. Cut spending. Demonstrate by deed not word that you will be responsible stewards of our money.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who in the middle class is concerned with deficit reduction in wake of nearly 10% unemployment?
Everyone SHOULD be concerned with deficit reduction. In case you have missed it...that 14 TRILLION dollar deficit we have? It isnt creating jobs.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,436
Reaction score
8,021
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Everyone SHOULD be concerned with deficit reduction. In case you have missed it...that 14 TRILLION dollar deficit we have? It isnt creating jobs.
ROFL!!!!!

A $14 trillion deficit you say? Brilliant!
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ROFL!!!!!

A $14 trillion deficit you say? Brilliant!
By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – Jul 11, 2010

BOSTON — The heads of President Barack Obama's national debt commission painted a gloomy picture Sunday as the United States struggles to get its spending under control.

Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles told a meeting of the National Governors Association that everything needs to be considered — including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, and instituting a financial trigger mechanism for gaining Medicare coverage.

The nation's total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion — about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.

"This debt is like a cancer," Bowles said in a sober presentation nonetheless lightened by humorous asides between him and Simpson. "It is truly going to destroy the country from within."


And congress has raised the debt ceiling to 15.5 trillion by the end of the year.

Oh...I can see why that is ROFL funny. No...wait...I cant either...
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,436
Reaction score
8,021
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – Jul 11, 2010

BOSTON — The heads of President Barack Obama's national debt commission painted a gloomy picture Sunday as the United States struggles to get its spending under control.

Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles told a meeting of the National Governors Association that everything needs to be considered — including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, and instituting a financial trigger mechanism for gaining Medicare coverage.

The nation's total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion — about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.

"This debt is like a cancer," Bowles said in a sober presentation nonetheless lightened by humorous asides between him and Simpson. "It is truly going to destroy the country from within."


And congress has raised the debt ceiling to 15.5 trillion by the end of the year.

Oh...I can see why that is ROFL funny. No...wait...I cant either...
Of course not ;)
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,436
Reaction score
8,021
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Seriously laughing boy...ask mom to explain what that debt means to you...well..to her...
Not the most cunning comment considering your recent fuddle of basic vocabulary.

Everyone SHOULD be concerned with deficit reduction. In case you have missed it...that 14 TRILLION dollar deficit we have? It isnt creating jobs.
Care to admit your boo boo?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not the most cunning comment considering your recent fuddle of basic vocabulary.



Care to admit your boo boo?
deficit vs debt? Seriously? THATS what you want to hang your hat on? We have a national DEBT of 14 trillion...thats money we dont have...so...we can call that a deficit...or we can play idiotic word games. Yeah...lets do that. Oh I feel SO humbled...saying national DEBT of 14 trillion is SO MUCH BETTER than saying deficit of 14 trillion.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not the most cunning comment considering your recent fuddle of basic vocabulary.

Care to admit your boo boo?
Seriously...Im amazed. In a discussion about a 14 TRILLION DOLLAR hole, out of control government spending, the fact that that DEFICIT spending has STILL left us with 18-20% real unemployment...you want to talk about a WORD 'boo boo'. Dood...you need to run for congress...
 
Top Bottom