Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Yeah, as anyone who's picked up a history book can tell you, America has done almost nothing but cut taxes for the last seventy years.  The top marginal income tax was 92% in Eisenhower's day, it's 35% now and hasn't been increased but a couple of times by a couple of points.  And certainly not in the last dozen years.

So yeah, OP finally updated.

Also, please don't get my thread locked.  I mean, you could if you wanted, it's done now.  But I don't really need that.

[Nadaka]

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

...

Are you even remotely aware that history exists?

Pretty much the entire history of the US tax code proves you wrong.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

[Trollheiming]

Higher taxes don't mean more tax revenue.  After going from 90% to 28% and to 35% nothing has changed.

American taxes are always a little below 20% of the total GDP, and you can't increase that by crudely raising rates. It's using a bludgeon on a very delicate machine.

The people who say the answer is sequestration and tax raises are only half right. Tax increases won't do anything. That fact is staring you in the face above, but spending cuts do get at the problem directly. If taxes go to 60 top rate, no impact in the revenues. That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

[Ogdibus]

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

It's supposed to be investment in public works and services, the idea being that they facilitate productivity with things like infrastructure for logistics, energy distribution, and a healthy, dedicated work force.  Fiscal conservatism isn't so much opposed, as it is intended to keep these investments practical and affordable.

So it's not really an opposition then, it's just people with different ideas about how much the government should spend.

As far as I know, yes.  The current extreme circumstances are the reason that some Fiscal Conservatives have extreme proposals.  Some also advocate lowering revenue at the same time, possibly for, uh... other reasons.

Higher taxes don't mean more tax revenue.  After going from 90% to 28% and to 35% nothing has changed.

American taxes are always a little below 20% of the total GDP, and you can't increase that by crudely raising rates. It's using a bludgeon on a very delicate machine.

The people who say the answer is sequestration and tax raises are only half right. Tax increases won't do anything. That fact is staring you in the face above, but spending cuts do get at the problem directly. If taxes go to 60 top rate, no impact in the revenues. That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

[Agdune]

The Sex party is actually pretty good. It stands mostly for a more secular nation and removing religious codes of conduct from law.

Actually, to be more accurate, Fiona Patten (leader) describes it as a social-rights oriented progressive party. Its anti-religious stuff sortof more comes from Family First (for non-Aussies, basically, family first is/was the extreme right christian reactionary party who managed to even alienate the majority of far-right christian extremists and have made themselves almost completely irrelevant) basically declaring them to be deviant freaks and waging war on them. It's just a natural reaction for the sexual liberation, socially progressive party to also have some beef with the religious zealots group. The sex party's main focus is on opening up public awareness of and legal dialogue regarding both private sexual practices (e.g. gay marriage, obscenity laws) and public laws regarding the sex industry (prostitution, pornography, etc). The pornography and sex industry are the current main focuses, as Queensland are going batshit insane with the new conservative government basically burning anything that wasn't made in the 50ies and doing things like banning prostitutes from entering hotels and such.

[Reelya]

There's also little statistical proof that tax cuts boosted growth. Look up GDP growth in the 2nd half of the 1980's, when taxes were cut significantly. It ended with a recession.

If anything, there's a clear downward GDP growth trend since at least the 1960's. The question would be what spurs growth more, no-tax undirected capitalism, or taxation and directed spending / investment?

China certainly is a good example of centrally-planned capitalist expansion, for example. The difference is they don't have an ideological aversion to the government having shares in productive companies. The privatization mantra in the West means that the government are only left holding assets nobody wants to purchase, i.e. those services which can't be abolished, but don't make a direct profit for the holders.

[alexandertnt]

All that what not my main point. The fact that $16 trillion in debt means we can't expand liberal social systems. Obama wins, but he has to reduce government. The piggy bank is broken. This is now near the sane limit of debt-to-GDP.

Or Obama could always raise taxes on the rich back to normal levels and put that extra money into reducing the deficit without cutting any programs. Or he could raise taxes a little, cut into the military and reduce the deficit that way. Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards. The piggy bank isn't broken, it's just wedged shut by Congress's inability to compromise.

This is something that for some reason Americans in general are quite against. The general assumption is that increases to taxes are just bad, and will, unconditionally, spell the downfall of the economy. I believe it may be related to a tactic known as "starve the beast", where you cut taxes for the purpose of justifying cutting public spending. Since cutting public spending is generally unpupular, being broke due lower taxes means it "has" to be done.

Also, I am not entirely sure why anyone would use China as a role model for the US. Their lower social security programs are obviously doing wonders for their HDI (it's not).


Also, Trollheiming, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

[Max White]

Actually, to be more accurate, Fiona Patten (leader) describes it as a social-rights oriented progressive party. Its anti-religious stuff sortof more comes from Family First basically declaring them to be deviant freaks and waging war on them. It's just a natural reaction for the sexual liberation, socially progressive party to also have some beef with the religious zealots group. The sex party's main focus is on opening up public awareness of and legal dialogue regarding both private sexual practices (e.g. gay marriage, obscenity laws) and public laws regarding the sex industry (prostitution, pornography, etc). The pornography and sex industry are the current main focuses, as Queensland are going batshit insane with the new conservative government basically burning anything that wasn't made in the 50ies and doing things like banning prostitutes from entering hotels and such.

Well if they rile up family first by supporting gay marriage, they are onto a good thing in my books!
Heck I don't even really look at porn, especially anything that would become a target in politics, but I feel obliged to fight for other rights to... Assuming we are talking over age and consensual.

[Trollheiming]

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

[10ebbor10]

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

Note that the numbers you gave only included taxes on people, and no other sources of revenue. While this won't explain this completely, it might give an answer.

[USEC_OFFICER]

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

You really need to explain why raising taxes doesn't raise revenue, because right now you're implying that no matter how much money is taken from people, the government will end up with the same amount, which is completely bonkers.

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

[Max White]

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

More like they tax Jimmy 10 apples, and they end up with 20% of all the apples in the market. Then they tax him 15 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market, then drop down to 5 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market.
Seems impossible, but you forget the bit where Freddie also has apples, and his rate has been from 10 to 5 to 15 per hundred apples.

You need all tax sources if you are doing total income for GDP.

[Reelya]

What he's missing is that over the years more people get pushed onto higher and higher tax rates due to inflation, so they've been able to afford to drop the top tax rate for the richest and not lose as much as you'd think in the process. The tax burden has been shifted onto the middle-class through bracket creep, inflation and cutting the top rate.

The higher tax brackets DID NOT dissuade middle class people from earning more money. There is no reason setting the top tax rate to 40% as it was in the 1990s will stop people wanting to become rich.

The best idea in my mind, is close meaningless tax-loopholes but provide tax-avoidance for R&D, and new technology investments. Encourage the rich to gainfully invest their money rather than leave it in a bank account. That would stimulate the economy without so much direct costs to taxpayers.

[USEC_OFFICER]

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

More like they tax Jimmy 10 apples, and they end up with 20% of all the apples in the market. Then they tax him 15 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market, then drop down to 5 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market.
Seems impossible, but you forget the bit where Freddie also has apples, and his rate has been from 10 to 5 to 15 per hundred apples.

While Freddie does exist, Trollheiming is obviously assuming that Freddie's tax rate hasn't changed, or that Freddie isn't producing more apples, or that Freddie's kids haven't gone into the apple business, all of which would explain the difference in total apples. Rather Freddie's contribution to the apple market is static, while amount of apples taken from Jimmy changes. So obviously if Jimmy's tax rate is the only thing changing yet the total amount of apples owned by the government stays the same, then the extras must go into the dimensional vortex.

EDIT: Are we really developing the Bay12 Apple theory of taxation here?