Instead of raising taxes, why not push for this idea?

Great Debates
1

I think we can all agree that this board leans to the left. If it was a ship, it would capsize. And most liberals, progressives or whatever label currently being used to identify this group enjoy government spending (and raising taxes if necessary to do so).

I identify with those who believe that we waste too much tax money, we spend too much on things we should never spend tax dollars on, and raising taxes is not the answer to every problem. This position does not make me a democrat or a republican. I think that our entire tax system needs to be overhauled, and those that make the most money in this country should carry a bigger tax burden. But until that overhaul happens, the rich will always hold onto their wealth. That’s why they are rich… they know how to hide their money, use tax loopholes to their advantage, and generally pay as little as the can.

But here’s an idea that we should all embrace. Why not permit the paying of more taxes voluntarily? Would you support such an idea? Why or why not?

Here’s the general idea: At the beginning of everyone’s tax form, where they ask if you want to give 3 bucks for the funding of election, have another question: Do you want to pay more taxes than you are responsible for? If the answer is yes, put the amount in the last box on the form. Add that total to your total tax and pay (or reduce your refund as appropriate).

This would not only collect the tax monies due the government, but could generate a nice sum of money from those people who want to help more?

To make this even more appealing, the taxpayer (you) would have your option of where the money is actually spent. So, if you have a strong passion for a particular issue, you could support it at the federal level with a donation on your tax form. Education your cause? Give an extra $100 to that. Environment? Defense? Space? Whatever the breakdown, you could focus your money to that particular area. I wouldn’t have a problem giving targeted money to national infrastructure and space exploration, for example.

Obviously, the details would have to be worked out, but for those claiming that people don’t pay their fair share of taxes, this would give them the ability to pay more themselves, and target that money to the area of the government that they believe needs the money the most.

One thing that drives me crazy about folks that are big on increasing taxes is that they never have any problem spending other people’s money. Here’s a chance to spend your own on what you want! No tax increase required!

And before you haul off with a 6 page nasty-reply insulting republicans, try to focus in on the idea itself and not on labels.

2

No, it’s somewhere in the middle at most. It’s only “left” in the sense that most of humanity is “left” by American standards.

As opposed to the Right, who spend like maniacs but don’t make any plans on how to pay for it.

Because it wouldn’t accomplish much of anything. The people with most of money in the country don’t want to pay taxes at all. And they’d just use such a setup to demand that they pay even less.

:rolleyes: The people not paying their fair share won’t put a dime into this.

As opposed to the people who spend other people’s money, don’t raise taxes and drag the country down into debt.

3

Look at a list of what states pay more in Federal taxes than they receive in benefits. Does it tilt to the left or the right?

4

I have to concur with **Der Trihs **at least on the leftness point. Left by American standards, sure.

Well, if nothing else, I can see something of a flaw there; it’s not going to be enough. If I want, say, a socially funded health care system, compared to current options your system only differs in that less money will go to it. That people uninterested in spending their money in that way get to keep it is, while not no problem as you suggest, not enough of a problem to me to outweigh the good as I see it. I’m honestly very sorry that I feel the need to take your money away from you, and certainly I would not support a “let’s take 100% of Stink Fish Pot’s earnings from him!” tax plan, but yeah, I am willing and prepared to spend your money along with my own.

I’m afraid the end result of your scheme, while certainly very attractive in principle, would fall down thoroughly in actually providing results.

5

So are we all agreed that this is a profoundly stupid idea?

People on the right would be too greedy to put any extra in. So people on the left would do it, and thus have fewer dollars to contribute to candidates who aren’t idiots.

The amount of money it would provide would be trivial. The amount of bureaucracy it would generate wouldn’t even pay for itself. It’s just a nonsense proposal.

6

You can pay as much extra tax as you like. In fact, you can even claim it as a credit against future tax liability.

7

It tilts toward people who are easily confused by numbers (i.e., you).

8

Cite?

9

Most of humanity might be economically to the “left” of the US but how many are socially to the left of the US-for example only a small handful of countries and a few states have legalized homosexual marriage. To the great bulk of the populace in India, China, the Middle East, and Africa such things remain unthinkable.

10

Whatever. I’ll bet you have things you think the government should do. And there’s only a few ways to fund government spending, and one of those are taxes. So you are probably equally! guilty! of spending other people’s money!

Unless you are a specific flavor of anarchist. But if you were one of those types, you wouldn’t even be proposing this system, so I think we can rule that out.

11

I guess I could buy this. I was speaking about american standards. Where are you from Der Trihs?

You can’t say things like this and expect to be taken seriously. Do you honestly believe either side has any plans on how to pay for it? Both sides spend whatever they can get away with. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be in this mess we are in. You can’t blame one side or the other and expect to get anywhere. Because if you do, you are completely blind to the reality that is our government. The republican meanies and the democratic koom-bye-ah’ers would both put there foot on your neck and pull your wallet out of your pocket if he/she thought that extra fin you had in your wallet would put him back in office.

This statement doesn’t make any sense, so you either didn’t read my idea or are just revving up a standard stump speech about the rich and your envy of them.

Everyone would pay the same amount of taxes they paid this year. There are no new loopholes here. So, if a rich person paid 10 grand in taxes this year, he would still pay 10 grand with this plan. However, at the end of figuring his tax bill, he may fell compelled to give 5 dollars to the Defense Dept. if he so chose.

As for not accomplishing anything, I would have to disagree here as well. I never said it would balance the budget or anything. But it would increase the governments intake of taxes, and being voluntary, these funds wouldn’t cause anyone to get angry that uncle sam is sticking his hand in his pocket again. Putting $100 into education might make someone** feel good **about directly helping an area they have a lot of passion for. Psychologically, it could be a good thing.

You don’t know this. Now, based on history, I might agree with you, but you can’t definitively state this. Maybe Joe Moneybags is interested in the space program and would be willing to toss $1000 to it. Or maybe not. But right now, he has no option.

You really need to understand how we (the US) got to where we are. It seems that you are saying the Republicans are the cause of all the problems. I think the old adage is very appropriate: Democrats - the party of bad ideas ; Republicans - the party of no ideas. (switch these to your particular tastes)

You managed to post all of that wisdom, but wouldn’t answer the pertinent question. Would YOU give/pay more money, and why or why not?

12

Yes, I know this. However, it

  1. doesn’t allow you to earmark your funds to a specific program
  2. my idea would not permit you to claim it as a credit against future tax liabilities.
13

I do. We all do. And I believe in paying taxes. I really do. But I am not equally guilty of spending other people’s money. For instance, I would not recommend a tax increase to fund any government function that I think is more important than any others. As I said, I think most of us pay enough taxes. I personally feel that I pay my fair share, and I have paid it every year. I’m not interested in a tax free society. We need to pool resources so we can get some things done in this country for the good of the people. Like mass transit, and transportation infrastructure. This might not be in your top 10 issues/needs. But I bet you have them.

14

California, as my location says.

Of course the Left has plans on how to pay for it; taxes. As in “tax and spend”, which the Right has actually made into an insult instead of the only workable way to run a government.

We are in the mess we are in because the Republicans have done their best to run the government and the economy into the ground out of a combination of ideology, greed and stupidity. Which by the way is why cutting social programs won’t help the budget; the Republicans would consider that a success, and would work to ratchet up the debt even higher and sink the economy deeper.

No, it’s Democrats who have no ideas; the Republicans are the party of greed, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, insanity, and cruelty. The Republicans are fools & monsters and the Democrats aren’t much of anything.

15

Well, you probably poisoned the well about the left/right leaning of the board thingy (my guess is this will be the focus of the next few pages at least), but:

I would support it as an interesting case study in psychology, but I wouldn’t expect to get any (or much anyway) additional revenue out of it. People SAY that ‘we’ don’t pay enough taxes, but what they really mean is that other people (not them or their friends) don’t pay enough. Rich people don’t think poor people pay their fair share. Poor people think that rich people get a free ride and should be able to pay more because, well, they are rich. Middle class people think that both groups should pay more (but especially the rich, who everyone knows ‘can afford it’). Warren Buffet thinks his ‘class’ is getting a free ride, but he’s not going to volunteer to pay more knowing that everyone else probably won’t.

That’s the key of course…if you are going to raise taxes you need to impose it, and if you are a politician you want to focus on a group that most people (poor and middle class) think aren’t paying their ‘fair share’…which means that it’s always popular to preach tax increases on the rich if you are a Democrat. The rub, of course, is that whether you are a Dem or Pub, rich people still foot the bill for your campaign…as well as for all sorts of other fringe bennies.

My stunningly simple proposal is just raise taxes on everyone. We are all in this together, after all, and we all elected the folks who ran up the bill…or, if we didn’t bother going to the polls, then tough shit. So…get rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts (since they only benefited the ‘rich’ and all, I don’t see the problem). You can even make the tax increases progressive…I’m good with that. But EVERYONE should have to pay something more for our collective problems.

Of course, this wouldn’t be popular with anyone, especially politicians regardless of which party they are in…nor would it be popular with liberals OR conservatives. But that’s what I’d do, were it in my power. Well, plus cut spending (no point in a tax increase if you are just going to spend more). And a pony in every pot, of course…

-XT

16

So, apparently, you have some list of things which you personally think are okay for the government to spend money on. And as long as something falls on your personal list, then it’s not spending other people’s money. Did it ever occur to you that other people may have a list of things they think are equally important or necessary to spend money on?

I can’t figure out what this sentence means.

Who gets to define what’s enough? You? Why is your definition better than anyone else’s?

I feel you haven’t. Or maybe you have. I don’t have your returns in front of me, and I really don’t care whether you have or not. When people discuss tax policy, they aren’t think of you. They are thinking of how tax policy operate in aggregate for people of different income levels.

Sure, I have them, but then I’m not one of the people in this country fighting tooth and nail against infrastructure and mass transit. The people who are fighting tooth and nail against infrastructure and mass transit think that you are spending other people’s money when you advocate for those things.

Your whole premise is basically that government should spend based on your personal preferences. That’s not objectionable. This is essentially what everyone is doing. But quit acting as if you aren’t doing the same thing as everyone else.

17

This isn’t very complicated. I’ll try again.

Look, the government taxes all of us and basically does what it wants with our money. We are all in that situation.

My idea doesn’t change that situation. My base tax bill, the one I’m required to pay, would still go into the massive country money pot, and will be used to pay for things I agree with, things I don’t agree with, and things I never thought about.

I’m talking about any revenue above that number which I would pay **voluntarily **if I chose, and direct that money to whatever area I would want to get it.
All of your other stuff about who decides what my fair share is, etc, is just thread static. The government decides what my fair share is. I pay it. Whether or not you or I agree or disagree about my tax bill and being my fair share doesn’t matter. We can both have an opinion about it, for sure, but it isn’t germane to the situation.
xtisme, I agree with your first sentence completely. I should have not characterized the board, because those leaning to the left who feel they don’t (or feel mis-labelled,

Der Trihs. - Answer the question. Would you give more of your money freely and willingly without expecting a) everyone else to pitch in to make your particular idea reality and b) anything for your personal effort?

You sure type a lot without saying anything.

Show me a democrat (like Al Gore or Ted Kennedy) who used their vote in the H of R or Senate that in any way, shape or form put their personal holdings in jeopardy. Good luck with your search.

18

Every Democrat who has ever voted to raise taxes on the wealthy. Because every member of the house and senate are wealthy.

19

So, if I were to say your fair share includes paying for universal health insurance, social security, high speed rail in select locations, public funding education at a minimum of $8000K/student and an immediate stimulus of $2T (although you would pay this down the road), you would accept that those expenses come from the massive money pot, and not from the voluntary portion of your scheme?

But you can already do this. You’re free to make a donation to any government organization you want to. What exactly does your scheme do that doesn’t already exist?

You’re the one who made it germane by bringing the notion into this thread. So, I guess you are responsible for creating static in your own thread?

20

Okay, that should have been $8K, but you get my point.