The first discussion point is in! (Thanks Brian) It is:
I am in favor of raising taxes both for personal income as well as corporate side. I'd like to see that money used to pay down debt and reinvigorate our infrastructure. Why? Because we need to do so. And although I am not in the 1%, I'm in the top 2 and want to do my share.
Regards,
Brian Keller
Comments?
Remember, to keep out the internet trolls and flamers, all posts will be moderated by me first. This will slow down the communication but I refuse to become a forum for people that just want to call names and blast others for their ideas. I want everyone to feel like they can comment and post their ideas.
Scott
I hope this will be a forum for discussions on the subjects that divide us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is not certain that raising income tax rates would generate any additional revenue,empirical data shows this for many reasons.President Obama is on the record saying part of the reason you raise upper income tax rates is for "punitive " reasons. Keynesian economists believe government spending on things such as infrastructure stimulate the economy,where has the $17 trillion got us? Free market principles that allow private sector profits,create jobs,tax revenues and a more stable economy.
ReplyDeleteMy complaint isn't whether or not raising taxes will in fact increase revenue. Most people, even devout conservatives, realize that any government needs revenue to operate.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who wants to raise my taxes will first need to prove to me that (a) there is a genuine need and (b) that, having taken my money, it's being spent wisely and carefully.
This is my basic problem: the federal government spends way too much money. We can raise taxes, but it WILL NOT materially decrease the deficit, because the government will simply spend even more. (So says the historical record.)
Summary, and simply put: before I'll agree to a tax increase, the federal government must demonstrate to me that it's dead serious about cutting the amount of money that it spends.
My first comment is one of my mantras from my other blog - corporations do not and cannot pay taxes - people pay taxes. Only the shareholders/owners, or the customers of a corporation can pay taxes. So, any corporate tax increase is a tax increase on the people.
ReplyDeleteOn taxing the rich by raisin tax rates - In 1961 when John F. Kennedy became President, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Kennedy lowered the top rate to 70%, and more revenue came into the federal treasury from the top wage earners than under the 91% rate. Why? For the same reason that more revenue is often raised at department stores sales than when merchandise is at the regular price. More people execute transactions more often, which increase revenue, even though items are being sold for less. When tax rates are lowered, more people execute transactions that generate tax revenue more often than execute them at higher tax rates. Why? At the lower tax rate, the transaction represents a better value to the taxpayer. They get to keep more income per tax generating transaction, but the increase in the number of transactions generates more revenue for the government. The goal of tax policy should be to generate more tax transactions and the way to do that is to have the equivalent of a tax sale!
When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal tax rate was still 70%. Reagan lowered the top rate to 50%, and then to 28%, and at every reduction of the top marginal rate, revenues to the federal government from top wage earners increased! Seven years after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, we still hear the phrase "Bush tax cuts for the rich" despite a 2005 joint IRS / Congressional Budget Office report revealing the top 5% of income earners saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income under the Bush tax rates than the Clinton tax rates. Yes, their share of income rose, but their share of taxes paid rose faster because of the attractiveness of executing tax-generating transactions at Bush's lower rates more often.
The Democrats desire to punish financial success as if it is always undeserved. Punishing success is more important than allowing more revenue to come to the federal government because of financial success. Democrats need scapegoats to make the enemy of the middle class through class warfare rhetoric. To admit that lower tax rates are a win-win situation for tax payers at every income level and for the government would eliminate the need for scapegoats to use to rally the middle class against the rich, and thus largely eliminate the need to vote for Democrat socialists. The Democrats need to raise tax rates on the rich for political reasons, because economically it makes no sense if the goal is to increase revenues.
I will agree we need to improve and invest in our infrastructure. However the libertarian in me does not think sending more money to Washington will accomplish that. I feel most revenues should be kept at the State and even the County level. Local politicians are more "beholding" to their constituents and more responsive to the real needs of the area. Bridges to nowhere and airports that service just a Senator or Congressman are what you get when spending is done by national politicians. I would cut the federal budget as low as it could go. The funds collected now would remain in the states they are collected for the most part. I could go on and on, but I will stop now and see if there are any responses.