Why are Americans so opposed to tax increases?

[Lobohan]

@Shodan

Part of the reason for this is that a progressive tax system leads to an us-vs.-them mentality. The pressure from the bottom half who pay little or on tax to raise taxes on someone else to pay for services for themselves is almost unavoidable.

Actually the way it’s working in our system now is that the rich use their money to buy congressmen that will do their bidding. You have it exactly backwards.

It generally isn’t “we all”, though. Proposals for “we all” be taxed in some form of flat tax get roundly condemned on the SDMB and in liberal circles generally.

A flat tax is nonsense. It’s not a good idea, it’s the sort of thing advocated by people who are unable to understand the benefits of a progressive system of taxation. If you don’t agree with a progressive system for ideological reasons, that’s fine, but don’t expect people to choose a system that’s strongly regressive and beneficial to the rich because you think it’s cool.

The odd thing is that Democrats who are now claiming that the deficit cannot possibly be fixed without tax increases voted to extend the Bush tax cuts back when they controlled Congress and the White House. Back when they had the ability to do what they claimed was necessary, they didn’t do it.

You appear to not understand the details of what happened.

The Dems never had 60 votes. And because the Republicans had a standing filibuster (something that had never been done before) the Democrats never had control. Would you please admit that you misstated things there? You’ve made this mistake before, and yet you seem to have trouble retaining that you’re wrong.

Remember that the Dems didn’t have 60 votes and the Republicans were threatening to cut the unemployment insurance of millions of Americans and ruin an important-to-national-defense treaty. So the Dems were forced to extend the tax cuts, because Republicans were threatening harm to others. Unfortunately, the Dems didn’t realize how much lower the Republicans could go.

Now the GOP controls the House, and the Dems have someone to blame, suddenly tax increases are the *sine qua non *of deficit reduction. Go figure.

Nonsense of course. The Dems wanted to remove the cuts before. The Republicans have now so fucked the economy that maybe a few of the saner members will listen to reason.

[zynik]

I also think that people have been exaggerating the scale of “waste” or socially-unproductive expenses of the federal government.

There is an excellent graphic prepared by Megan McArdle at the Atlantic here, which breaks down expenditures by type:

Getting Specific on Spending

You don’t have to agree with her politics, but the numbers speak for themselves: more than half of current spending is on pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran benefits etc. The remainder is on things like regulation, transport, courts etc.

To target expensive spending by local schools, owl vomit studies, etc. – that’s fine, if they exist. But my guess is that even if they existed, and you eliminated them, you would still be facing pretty much the same deficit problem, because the big ticket items like entitlement still go unreformed.

It’s as if you have a crime problem in your city. You can go after the foot soldiers, but as long as you don’t target the crime bosses, you can’t fix your problem.

[gonzomax]

There is waste in every human endeavor. No company regardless of size is run perfectly. I worked at Gm and saw so much waste that it boggled the mind. I saw them pay ridiculous prices for office equipment and machinery. But I never saw anything approaching the waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are paying contractors to loot us… There are lots of highly esteemed companies who are glad to do it. Over 9 billion dollars was lost in Iraq and little public outcry followed. We tend to fixate on unimportant and small problems, because it is easier than redoing the entire military procurement system. That should be done. But we fire and jail whistleblowers instead.

[Testy]

Back to the original question.

I suspect that if you have to ask, you probably won’t agree with me, but here goes. I don’t want to pay higher taxes and won’t vote for anyone who proposes them. I have a firm belief that no entity, including governments, can continue to spend more than their income. Sooner or later that chicken will come home to roost.
Politicians (of every party) have consistently ran for office promising to “clean up Washington” and they might actually mean it but as soon as they are elected they seem to be sucked into the system and wind up contributing to the problem.

To me, the lack of results toward ACTUALLY fixing something implies that our political rulers either:

a) Really DO believe that they can continue to spend money they don’t have.

or

b) Figure that they will lose fewer votes if they shut up and kick the problem down the line for future legislators to deal with. After all, being in the Senate or House is a nice job, good pay, good hours, lots of vacation time, power, etc. It’s way too good a deal to lose it by talking reality at people.

Either attitude is appalling.

As far as additional taxes to pay down the deficit goes, it’s a great idea but I have zero confidence that it would actually happen. Suppose we added a VAT to pay down the deficit. I believe the legislators would simply consider themselves off the hook for any deficit problems and continue on their merry way, spending like a drunken sailor. We’d soon have two deficits, the old one plus an entirely new deficit.

Aside from that, the US Government continues to do things I don’t like or agree with so I really don’t want to send them any more than the absolute necessity.

I also hate seeing more money dug out of the middle class. The poor can’t pay additional taxes, the wealthy can offshore the money, hire more accountants, or simply move. The Middle Class is stuck. Sooner or later this has to stop, why not now?

Regards

Testy

[Sateryn76]

@gonzomax

There is waste in every human endeavor. No company regardless of size is run perfectly. I worked at Gm and saw so much waste that it boggled the mind. I saw them pay ridiculous prices for office equipment and machinery. But I never saw anything approaching the waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are paying contractors to loot us.. There are lots of highly esteemed companies who are glad to do it. Over 9 billion dollars was lost in Iraq and little public outcry followed. We tend to fixate on unimportant and small problems, because it is easier than redoing the entire military procurement system. That should be done. But we fire and jail whistleblowers instead.

Fine! Love it! Let’s cut all the waste we can, including in the military, and scale back our international conflicts!

But until that’s done, and disclosed fully in a public manner, I can’t see myself approving of any more tax increases.

As you pointed out, the government is run like a top-heavy corporation, with waste and glad-handing and astoundingly stupid decision making. GM would be out of business today if it weren’t for their cronies in the government. How do we fix the government, if they won’t even learn from their mistakes, and won’t allow big corporations to learn from their mistakes?

[Dr.Drake]

So assume the government won’t change its behavior and you don’t get any new taxes… what is the best possible outcome here? The best I can see is hyperinflation as the government prints money to deal with the fact that it can’t take in enough dollars to pay the bills. (Since I have tons of student loan debt at a low fixed interest and live abroad, I say bring it on! I can understand why it’s a bad idea, though.)

[Sateryn76]

@Dr.Drake

So assume the government won’t change its behavior and you don’t get any new taxes… what is the best possible outcome here? The best I can see is hyperinflation as the government prints money to deal with the fact that it can’t take in enough dollars to pay the bills. (Since I have tons of student loan debt at a low fixed interest and live abroad, I say bring it on! I can understand why it’s a bad idea, though.)

Well, we change the government, and by that I mean we change our leaders. The Tea Party is the forefront of that, and although many think they are Terrorists Holding the World’s Economy Hostage, they have tremendous support and are the only ones with the balls to confront the problem at this point.

I don’t agree with everything they say, but I recognize that they are at least willing to tackle this head on. There is no more money to spend, even if we jack up taxes on everyone. It has to be brought under control.

[gonzomax]

@Smitty

If your herpes outbreak is the lowest it has been in years, do you then conclude that what you need is MORE herpes?

Everyone who yells that taxes are too low is really saying that OTHER people’s taxes are too low. Would you personally be willing to pay more? The same amount more, relative to your income, that you advocate others paying?

If not, you are a hypocrite and a thief. You want to forcefully take what belongs to someone else to pay for something you want. If you are willing to do so, then feel free. The IRS will happily accept your donation. Just keep your grubby little paw out of my pocket.

No it is not the same. Our tax revenue is too damn low. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. You can not ever come close to balancing the budget without added revenue. Sometimes you have to do the math.
Forcibly??? You fill out your tax forms every year. You volunteer.
Anyone saying forcibly has to be a Libertarian or a tea bagger. Neither deserves any respect for debate. They spout slogans and dig in their heels.
The rich paid 90 percent during Ike. Now they evade like crazy and get away with a fraction. Hedge Fund managers pay 15 percent. Buffet pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. he admits it is wrong.
During Ike, corporations kicked in 30 percent of the total tax taken in. It is now at 6. Yes indeed, we have a revenue problem.

[Testy]

@gonzomax

No it is not the same. Our tax revenue is too damn low. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. You can not ever come close to balancing the budget without added revenue. Sometimes you have to do the math.
Forcibly??? You fill out your tax forms every year. You volunteer.
Anyone saying forcibly has to be a Libertarian or a tea bagger. Neither deserves any respect for debate. They spout slogans and dig in their heels.
The rich paid 90 percent during Ike. Now they evade like crazy and get away with a fraction. Hedge Fund managers pay 15 percent. Buffet pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. he admits it is wrong.
During Ike, corporations kicked in 30 percent of the total tax taken in. It is now at 6. Yes indeed, we have a revenue problem.

Gonzomax

Well, my question would be: “Where does it end?” How much of my earnings do you need? So far, I haven’t seen anyone address that. My concern is that anyone that manages to solve their problems by taxing me more will come around again for a second helping. There seems to be no end to the demands for “just a little more.”

Testy

[gonzomax]

@Sateryn76

Fine! Love it! Let’s cut all the waste we can, including in the military, and scale back our international conflicts!

But until that’s done, and disclosed fully in a public manner, I can’t see myself approving of any more tax increases.

As you pointed out, the government is run like a top-heavy corporation, with waste and glad-handing and astoundingly stupid decision making. GM would be out of business today if it weren’t for their cronies in the government. How do we fix the government, if they won’t even learn from their mistakes, and won’t allow big corporations to learn from their mistakes?

You are aware that Bush and the Republicans have cut whistleblower protections and fired people who actually tried to clean up military contracts.
Our taxes are way too low . The debt we cry about is equal to the Bush tax cuts and their extensions, 2 wars Bush ran without funding and the gift he gave to Pharma. You want to fix it you have to reverse those policies. Cutting waste is a waste. It needs to be done but will have about zero impact on our financial mess.

[Shagnasty]

@gonzomax

You are aware that Bush and the Republicans have cut whistleblower protections and fired people who actually tried to clean up military contracts.
Our taxes are way too low . The debt we cry about is equal to the Bush tax cuts and their extensions, 2 wars Bush ran without funding and the gift he gave to Pharma. You want to fix it you have to reverse those policies. Cutting waste is a waste. It needs to be done but will have about zero impact on our financial mess.

The point that many us our making is that you can’t just say our taxes are too low. How much more money do you need and more importantly, why and what will it be used for very specifically? It has to be broken down for it will actually be used for and then spent for that and only for that. Very few of us are opposed to paying money for concrete goals that are mutually agreed upon in advance. Only the most gullible among us are willing to hand over blank checks and hope that it will do some good somewhere. That is not the way any transaction should work. You wouldn’t put up with the same type of logic from a business you hire for anything. Why would you do it for a government that has a very long track-record of using money for purposes other than it was intended?

[fumster]

@Shagnasty

The point that many us our making is that you can’t just say our taxes are too low. How much more money do you need and more importantly, why and what will it be used for very specifically? It has to be broken down for it will actually be used for and then spent for that and only for that. Very few of us are opposed to paying money for concrete goals that are mutually agreed upon in advance. Only the most gullible among us are willing to hand over blank checks and hope that it will do some good somewhere. That is not the way any transaction should work. You wouldn’t put up with the same type of logic from a business you hire for anything. Why would you do it for a government that has a very long track-record of using money for purposes other than it was intended?

Here’s an idea, we can pay off the debt you conservatives created. Is that concrete enough? Then eventually we may not have to spend so much of our hard earned tax dollars servicing that debt.

[gonzomax]

@Shagnasty

The point that many us our making is that you can’t just say our taxes are too low. How much more money do you need and more importantly, why and what will it be used for very specifically? It has to be broken down for it will actually be used for and then spent for that and only for that. Very few of us are opposed to paying money for concrete goals that are mutually agreed upon in advance. Only the most gullible among us are willing to hand over blank checks and hope that it will do some good somewhere. That is not the way any transaction should work. You wouldn’t put up with the same type of logic from a business you hire for anything. Why would you do it for a government that has a very long track-record of using money for purposes other than it was intended?

It is not just personal income taxes that are too low. Corporate taxes are too low. The BS about 35 percent is a joke. Our corporations average under 10 percent. Many huge corporations do not pay any at all. Yet they are fighting to have them dropped. Some people are for it.
The rich have had their taxes slashed since Reagan. Between tax evasion, tax shelters and off shore bank accounts, they are escaping their responsibilities. Go back to Clinton tax levels for a starter and close the loopholes and shelters.
For regular folks, the tax rate should be jacked up a little until we get our deficits under control.
There is no way that cutting back can fix the problem. It can kill the economy though. Slash medicare and Social Security and watch what it does to jobs and the economy. It would be a disaster. The Repubs are deliberately pushing programs that will hurt the economy and Obama’s reelection. It is a horrible policy. Harming the country for political advantage is disgusting.

[Shagnasty]

@gonzomax

It is not just personal income taxes that are too low. Corporate taxes are too low. The BS about 35 percent is a joke. Our corporations average under 10 percent. Many huge corporations do not pay any at all. Yet they are fighting to have them dropped. Some people are for it.
The rich have had their taxes slashed since Reagan. Between tax evasion, tax shelters and off shore bank accounts, they are escaping their responsibilities. Go back to Clinton tax levels for a starter and close the loopholes and shelters.
For regular folks, the tax rate should be jacked up a little until we get our deficits under control.
There is no way that cutting back can fix the problem. It can kill the economy though. Slash medicare and Social Security and watch what it does to jobs and the economy. It would be a disaster. The Repubs are deliberately pushing programs that will hurt the economy and Obama’s reelection. It is a horrible policy. Harming the country for political advantage is disgusting.

I think you would have more support than you think among conservatives if there was a special tax just to pay off outstanding debt and not to be touched for any other purpose. Fiscal conservatives like myself have always been genuine about that type of thing despite accusations to contrary. All we want is well managed budget that ensures the long-term health of the nation. Scrap the politics and come up with a plan get the books in much better shape with concrete goals and actual security about how that money can be used. This is accounting 101. I don’t want to hear why the U.S. economy isn’t the same as running a business because of the complicated economic tools that can be used to manipulate the money supply. Yes it is. If we did it right in the first place, none of that would be a concern,

[fumster]

All tax revenue goes into a single pool. It is an accounting trick to pretend there could be a dedicated tax that is used for a single purpose. Oh, wait, that only applies to things conservatives oppose.

[biddee]

Very good article by Warren Buffet in the New York Times today.

[gonzomax]

@biddee

Very good article by Warren Buffet in the New York Times today.

Buffet just points out that those at the top have had lots of legislation passed that allows them to pay a smaller share of taxes. He mentions when the tax rate for the rich was higher, way back in 1980 to 2000, the higher rate did not keep anybody from investing .
He says the idea that higher taxes dampens investment is wrong. He believes the rich should pay their fair share and they are not. He mentions investment bankers get away with a 15 percent max., while raking in millions.
Like I said. Our taxes are too damn low.

[pinkyvee]

@Grumman

This is a good answer. It’s like someone asking to borrow your car because they just crashed theirs. The reason they’re asking for more is the same reason you shouldn’t trust them enough to give them more.

I love this for a variety of reasons.
Reminiscent of a not-to-distant argument we had with our eldest child.
But, but, but … he REALLY REALLY needed to borrow our car. We were just too stupid or too mean and too selfish to “get” his very reasonable logic as to why we ought to change our minds and turn over our property to him. He was/is very well intended. Besides, his NEED was GREAT, and URGENT.

Raising my taxes? OK. But first, I want a long look at what you spent my money on so far. When a tax is allocated to meet a very specific community need, but once the tax is approved, that money is then siphoned into the general fund (paying for an under-funded previous project) and is no longer available for the specific need … it pisses people off. If I am told that a new tax is allocated for road repairs, I might think this is a swell idea because the roads are crappy. But, once I discover that a large portion of that tax revenue was used for non road repairs, I am feeling lied to, and no one likes that.
Do this enough times and the distaste for a tax increase (call it a great & urgent need) falls on skeptical eyes/ears. Then, call me stupid and mean and selfish.

[Dr.Drake]

I know California issues endless bonds for construction projects. Is it possible for the federal government to issue bonds for specific projects? I realize that issuing a bond to pay down debt is tautologically stupid, but perhaps they could issue lower-yield bonds and at least make the debt more manageable? It would be a chance to raise revenue without the objections raised above, anyway.

[gonzomax]

@pinkyvee

I love this for a variety of reasons.
Reminiscent of a not-to-distant argument we had with our eldest child.
But, but, but … he REALLY REALLY needed to borrow our car. We were just too stupid or too mean and too selfish to “get” his very reasonable logic as to why we ought to change our minds and turn over our property to him. He was/is very well intended. Besides, his NEED was GREAT, and URGENT.

Raising my taxes? OK. But first, I want a long look at what you spent my money on so far. When a tax is allocated to meet a very specific community need, but once the tax is approved, that money is then siphoned into the general fund (paying for an under-funded previous project) and is no longer available for the specific need … it pisses people off. If I am told that a new tax is allocated for road repairs, I might think this is a swell idea because the roads are crappy. But, once I discover that a large portion of that tax revenue was used for non road repairs, I am feeling lied to, and no one likes that.
Do this enough times and the distaste for a tax increase (call it a great & urgent need) falls on skeptical eyes/ears. Then, call me stupid and mean and selfish.

So you are primed to be angry and will find something to be pissed off about. With that mind set, you can never accept any tax because you do not have the ability to track where every tax goes. Therefore it must not be aimed at my pet projects.
Our taxes are at the lowest rate since Ike.